Black South African: Stop demonising the white man in South Africa – read more about this article in 2014 – by Daniel Lotter of Front National (2014) . Knowing oneself and admitting to your own shortcomings is in all probability the most challenging aspect of being human. To those of us with the inherent incapability of doing so, it is so much easier to distance ourselves from our shortcomings and blame it upon something or someone which operates out of our own sphere of influence.
Dis ‘n internasionale reg dat elke volk oor hulself regeer, en ons Afrikaners en Boere (alle blankes) teen wie daar gediskrimineer word as die sondebokke is ook ‘n volk in eie reg en ons skakel nie in by ander volke se tradisies en hul kulture nie. As iets verkeerd gaan en die regeringsamptenare doen nie hul werk nie, is dit altyd apartheid of die blankes of Jan van Riebeeck se skuld.
FRONT NASIONAAL : DANIEL LOTTER
Black South African: Stop the demonising of the white man in South Africa and own up to your responsibility towards the country!
Knowing oneself and admitting to your own shortcomings is in all probability the most challenging aspect of being human. To those of us with the inherent incapability of doing so, it is so much easier to distance ourselves from our shortcomings and blame it upon something or someone which operates out of our own sphere of influence.
In the most pathetic case of projection, we even take off the identity of the entity which we blame. It becomes a scenario of: “They” told me … “People” says…and of course the very popular: “White people are…”
This is nothing new amongst nations. The absolutely dreadful situation of the German population after 1918 created a perfect environment for this. The nation lost it government, the promises of peace and prosperity at Versailles came to nothing, people lost their property, their jobs, their lives…they were unemployed, very very poor and with no hope. And somebody was to blame.
Now we should dispute the fact that the Jews of Europe had a thing or two to answer for, but Adolf Hitler managed to identify a minority of people who refused, for generations, to conform to German society and demonise them as the scapegoat. He used his “Mein Kampf” and his Nürmberg Laws and he made the Jews of Europe into a monster and he convinced the German people, and many others, that this monster had to be destroyed. Thabo Mbeki did exactly the same by branding the white person in this country as “settler”.
This is no different from what Black South Africa is doing to white South Africa. Through the hatefilled propaganda of : “You stole our land! You made us into slaves! You keep us poor!” they demonise the white South African into some sort of monster.
Through legislation such as Black Economic Empowerment and Affirmative Action they effectively create a barrier blocking the white minority from active participation in the economic and social development of a country which the white man have inhabited, cultivated, developed and defended for 526 years, ever since Bartolomeus Dias planted his first padrao on the coastline of the southern tip of this continent.
Through portraying the white South African as a racist, inbred idiot walking around in khaki shorts and mistreating all and everybody around him, the white man in South Africa is made into a typical scapegoat for everything that is wrong.
The White South African, by developing and expanding his cultural heritage, his religious beliefs and his entire orientation did not conform to the standards of Africa.
He refused to accept the absolutism of chieftainship as a form of government, he refused polygamy on basis of religion, he refused to pray to the ancestors because he was a Christian, he refused to leave his social orientation of the individual being a building block of society behind in favour of the African belief that society defines the individual. In short, he refused to betray himself.
And in being what he was, the White South African developed a country of industry and agriculture and infrastructure. He turned South Africa into a country where the first heart transplant could happen, where enough food was produced to export it to other countries, where gold and diamonds were mined and wealth created. And this all happened in less than 200 years (between 1780 and 1980).
In the 3000 years since the end of the Stone Age, the indigenous people of Africa could not manage to create an infrastructure, could not mine or produce export, could, in fact not succeed in building anything higher than one storey and could not write down anything as reference for future generations, because they could not manage to master the art of writing. In fact, when the first Europeans arrived on 6 April 1652 it was 1974 years after Ptolemy I built the magnificent library of Alexandria – and in Southern Africa the indigenous people still could do no more than a few rock paintings and a clay pot with patterns on it.
Today, this development, this contribution of the descendants of Europe has become a threat to the Black South African. He cannot compare. He has no contribution that can remotely compare to what the white man created and therefore he has to fall back on what primal instinct tells him to do: Destroy that which is a threat to you!
It is against this background that the white South African is demonised as a slaver and murderer who stole land. Let us put this in perspective:
In the first place: The Europeans who came with Van Riebeeck had no intention to stay at the Cape. We can clearly determine this from the repeated application for transfer to Batavia or Amsterdam made by almost every Company servant. The few men who decided to make this their homeland, did so because they came to love the land.
They wanted to develop and grow here. And in the written evidence, left us by the men who did not intend to stay and therefore had no reason to lie, it is written down over and over again that the Europeans settled on uninhabited land. They exchanged land for cattle and money and traded with the nomadic indigenous people.
The Company decided to import slaves. I emphasize import, because no indigenous person in this country was ever put into slavery! In actual fact, the slaves who were brought in from Madagascar and Batavia and Ceylon and East Africa were the ancestors of an entirely new group of people: the Coloured nation of South Africa who adopted the customs and culture of the European.
Ever wondered why they did not adopt the custom of Africa?
Because they were not exposed to it, that is why! Nobody at the Cape ever set eyes on a black person for 130 years before the first Trekboere met the Xhosa in the Valleys of the Amatola around 1770! These slaves also added to the bloodline of the European settlers, as did the French Hugenots of 1688 and the British Settlers of 1820. The White South African was a new nation, born in Africa. This nation called its language, Afrikaans, after Africa. This nation called itself after Africa – Afrikaners.
On the first of December 1834 slavery was abolished in the Cape Colony. This is two years before the start of the Great Trek. The white man in South Africa knew nothing of the existence of the Zulu, the Tswana, the Sotho, the Venda…and he was at war with the Xhosa. It is chronologically impossible that indigenous people could be held in slavery, if the so-called slave masters did not even know of their existence before the abolition of slavery.
Let us look at the “great” Shaka Zulu and the Zulu nation. Remember that the Europeans landed in South Africa in 1652. Shaka kaSenzaghakohona was born around 1787. He managed to unite, through force and murder and rampage a number of small tribes into the Zulu nation around 1819. Before that year, there WAS no Zulu people. A question of mathematics: The Zulu nation came into existence only 167 years after the arrival of Van Riebeeck. What logic can possibly argue that the Europeans took anything away from the Zulu-people?
So when did the black man establish himself in South Africa and how? The answer lies in the Mfecane: Mfecane (Zulu: [m̩fɛˈkǀaːne],[note 1] crushing), also known by the Sesotho name Difaqane (scattering, forced dispersal or forced migration) or Lifaqane, was a period of widespread chaos and warfare among indigenous ethnic communities in southern Africa during the period between 1815 and about 1840.
As King Shaka created the militaristic Zulu Kingdom in the territory between the Tugela River and Pongola River, his forces caused a wave of warfare and disruption to sweep to other peoples. This was the prelude of the Mfecane, which spread from there. The movement of peoples caused many tribes to try to dominate those in new territories, leading to widespread warfare; consolidation of other groups, such as the Matabele, the Mfengu and the Makololo; and the creation of states such as the modern Lesotho.
Mfecane is used primarily to refer to the period when Mzilikazi, a king of the Matabele, dominated the Transvaal. During his reign, roughly from 1826 to 1836, he ordered widespread killings and devastation to remove all opposition. He reorganised the territory to establish the new Ndebele order. The death toll has never been satisfactorily determined, but the whole region became nearly depopulated. Normal estimates for the death toll range from 1 million to 2 million.
The black man established himself in this barren land now known as South Africa a full 174 years AFTER the white man. How dare you then call me a settler when you are nothing more? If I don’t belong here, certainly neither do you.
Land stolen from the black man? No. The land occupied by the Boer-people was land that nobody lived on, for the pure and simple reason that the original people of South Africa were massacred and wiped out in a racist genocide by the ancestors of the current black population of South Africa. The very same thing that is now repeated with the white man. The white man has a full and legal and historical claim to his part of this country, including land. And the black man who disputes that is welcome to bring evidence of the contrary. Remember, popular liberal myth, propagandistic expressions and loud shouting and burning and looting to hide your own incapability is not evidence. It is barbarism.
The popular myth of “the end of colonialism” is a lie also. Colonialism in South Africa ended on 31 May 1961 when the country became a Republic. White minority rule was not colonialism, because the white South African belongs here – you cannot colonise your own country.
The entire uproar about white oppression and white guilt and white debt is based, exactly like the concept of the rainbow nation and its Africa-democracy, on one big lie. In Afrikaans, a language of Africa, we say: However swiftly the lie might travel, truth will catch up one day.
Black South Africa might as well realise that the time of the lie is running out. Your stereotyping of the white man and apartheid as the cause of everything, cannot hold much longer.
You cannot hide rotting meat under gift wrap for eternity.
Some time in the very near future you will have to own up and explain how you could hold a small minority of oppressed people responsible for the disaster that you have made of a country which has the potential of being a place of safety, a welcome and hospitable home, to all its children whether they be black, white, coloured on Indian.
The black man holds the key to the final destruction of what is left, or the final realisation that we have no other choice but to peacefully co-exist. The black South African can no longer avoid admitting that the destruction of the white South African necessarily means the destruction of everything and everyone left on the southern tip of Africa.
By Daniël Lötter
Groot oppervlaktes van Suid-Afrika bestaan uit
1. woestyn en semi-woestyn, dorre droë landstreke.
2. Hoeveel is regtig landbougrond wat geskik is vir voedselproduksie? So ‘n jaar of wat gelede, was daar ‘n verslag van die SA regering aan VN dat daar slegs ongeveer 22% geskikte landbougrond is, en dit is geleë in die groen gedeeltes van die kaart, waar al die meeste ou reservate /tuislande en trustgebiede steeds vandag is. Waar meer as 30 miljoen swartes steeds woonagtig is en bly.
3. Hier is ook heelwat kosbare minerale wat vir jare intensief gemyn word, veral nadat die Britte die twee onafhanklike Boere republieke geannekseer het met die Anglo Boere Oorlog. Hulle het ook die onafhanklike Zoeloe gebied geannekseer.
4. Vandag is dit steeds die Britte wat ‘n groot rol speel in al die Statebondslande (Commonwealth) en iemand soos Lord Renwick ook ‘n rol speel in die radikale optogte en finansierings, hier sowel in ander Afrika lande. Saam met George Soros en Guptas en ander relevante korrupsie “leiers”.
5. Instroming uit Afrika en onwettiges plak neer op Suid-Afrika bodem. Tog, as mens ‘n reënvalkaart van Afrika bestudeer, is daar baie meer water in die res van Afrika waar al hierdie immigrante vandaankom.
6. Hoeveel minerale word in Afrika ontgin en uit die kontinent verwyder. Veral waar eens produktiewe landbougrond was – soos in Zimbabwe!
7. Hoeveel van die onwettiges en immigrante is swart boere, meestal op klein skaal, wat wegvlug uit Afrika om een of ander rede (soos minerale ontginning) waar hulle van hul grond afgeboender word? Bykans al hierdie gebiede is slegs kommunale grondgebiede nadat die britte dit gekolonialiseer het. Heelwat het steeds tuislande of trustgebiede. Dit bestaan ook op ander kontinente waar die britte was. Verseker is daar heelwat meer geleenthede in Afrika waarvandaan hul afkomstig is. Enige boer sou wat wou gegee het om soveel waterbronne te kon gehad het.
ONTBOSSING IS ‘N GROOT PROBLEEM – VERAL AS DIE NATUURLIKE PLANTEGROEI VERWYDER WORD, WEENS “MINERALE ONTGINNINGS” EN REHABILITASIE NIE GEDOEN WORD NIE – IN SUID-AFRIKA IS DIT BESLIS 100% DIE GEVAL – MIN REHABILITASIE VIND PLAAS NA MYN EKSPLORASIES
With over 30 million km2 in size, Africa is a vast continent with over 200 times the area of England. Many countries are plagued by armed conflicts, water scarcity, diseases such as Ebola and HIV, slow economic development and high dependence on natural resources. Africa’s vegetation plays a vital role in securing livelihoods and providing a basis of living for local communities.
Regions where more rainfall led to greener plants were mapped in West Africa, Central African Republic, West Cameroon and north-eastern part of South Africa. Areas of climatic vegetation degradation were located in Southern Madagascar, Nigeria, Kenya and the Garden Route region of South Africa.
Meteorological stations in Africa are far and between. Satellites can fill in the gaps in weather observations. The researchers used a rain dataset that is produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Prediction Centre and combined the best qualities of local rain gauge stations with the satellite data. The system is used by the US for a famine early warning system.
The findings highlight areas where climatic changes are the likely cause of greener or browner vegetation. More rain can lead to a ‘greening up’ of large regions, as was the case in the West African Sahel zone. If rains become scarcer, in dry areas the plants cannot ‘green up’ as much. This effect is large enough to be observed from satellite.
The new concept developed by the research team interprets satellite observations of rainfall and vegetation greenness at the same time. If the plants lost some of their greenness over time, then the researchers checked for climatic changes, meaning reduced rainfall. If reduced rains coincide with browner plants, the chances are that the climatic change causes the changes in the plants.
If there was more rain and the plants greened up over the ten years of data, the researchers think that there was a positive impact of climatic change on the plants. However, in areas where the weather got wetter but plants were browning, non-climatic factors are likely behind the change. Such factors can be human land use change, agricultural expansion, overgrazing or ecological disturbances.