What happened in Dakar and Kodesa? Dakar discussions were outside the country, one another country was also used is Zambia and London. We all know that liberal whites / classical whites are together with the ANC and their communist believes, helping with B-BBEE discrimination and racism legislations as well. Furthermore, it is common knowledge for some of us that there are whites who ran the ANC government together before 1994 and after 1994. Listen to all the speeches of Parliament.
Many white liberals were in Dakar with George Soros who funded it, and Joe Slovo. Soros donated a tight check to the then DP leader, Van Zyl Slabbert for the exit “negotiations” to Dakar and other countries like Zambia to rule the country.
Most of those meetings were outside our South African boundaries and why not in South Africa?
The Broederbond (Afrikanerbond today) already became involved in the ANC’s revolutionary plans before 1980. Many of the so-called liberal white writers were directly involved in the Codesa Constitution and sit in parliament today. There were no guarantees given against black empowerment, expropriation of assets and farms / cottages / land / business and even less to resolve the Afrikaans language and destroy our Afrikaner and Boer people’s identity. There was also no mandate provided or given to give the land over in chaos.
Those white liberals who want to be part of communists are certainly not part of our Afrikaner and Boer conservative people. There were many who voted together with the ANC and the state in which we were all, were also approved by them. Most of ANC and their supporters are involved with tenders as well.
Some political parties outside the three (ANC-DA EFF) often form part of coalitions within municipalities, to further secure their positions in parliament or as councilors or at provincial level, including the benefits of “pensions”. Everybody gets guaranteed pension funds after a number (5) of years of service.
If a political party is multi-culture, you keep your members happy and not a specific people. Same with forums and unions. Most of them are multi-cultural. If you compare the services today in 2019 with 1990, there are a big difference.
There is also this endless corruption on all levels of government and all state entities, with this never ending “commissions” on corruption. Those made big promises before the 1994 elections and today, poverty and unemployment, crime and killings are much higher than before. A failed system and government can not keep their promises, so do the previous parliament at the Codesa table of a so-called democratic constitution.
IMPORTANT TO NOTE – WE AS BOERS / AFRIKANERS AND WHITES DO HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS
During the 1994 elections there were an agreement (Accord) on the table, signed with international representatives as witnesses. A total of 37.5% Afrikaners and Boers voted to have their own independent country as stipulated by international laws. Why did all of those so-called negotiators at Codesa ignored this minority group of people to have their own country with their own leaders. Thousands of us already been killed and others left the country, while a big percentation are living in poverty.
Daar was in 1994 meer as 37.5% Afrikaners en Boere wat teen hierdie Grondwet gestem het, dus hoekom moet ons as volk ‘n Grondwet steun wat die blankes se menseregte al vir meer as 24 jaar aantas en skend. Die 37.5% het vir Volkstaat en Selfbeskikking gestem.
Dis algemene kennis vir sommige van ons dat daar blankes is wat saam die ANC gehardloop het voor EN na 1994. Heelwat blanke liberaliste was in Dakar saam met George Soros wat dit befonds het, asook Joe Slovo. Soros het ‘n stywe tjekkie aan die destydse leier van DP, Van Zyl Slabbert geskenk vir die uittog na Dakar en ook ander lande soos Zambië om die land weg te teken. Dis ook hier waar regstellende aksie bespreek was onder die liberale blankes.
Die Broederbond (Afrikanerbond) het reeds in 1982 en selfs voor dit betrokke geraak by die ANC se rewolusionêre planne. Heelwat blank verligte skrywers was betrokke by die Kodesa Grondwet en dit is die sogenaamde Grondwet wat ons regte vandag aantas.
Daar is en was nog nooit enige waarborge teen swart bemagtiging, onteiening van bates en plase/huisle/grond/besigheid nie en nog minder om ons taal wat die regering en hul ondersteuners probeer vernietig. Daar is van konserwatiewes verwag omdat die liberales dit besluit het. Dis snert. Daar was ook geen mandaat verskaf vir die huidige Grondwet nie.
Diegene wat wil deel wees van kommuniste is beslis nie deel van ons blanke konserwatiewe volk nie. Normaalweg sal ook gesien word hoe ryk sommiges is en waar hulle met die ANC en selfs EFF en DA staan. Daar heelwat wat saam die ANC gestem het en die toestand waarin ons almal is, is ook deur hulle goedgekeur.
Sommige politieke partye buite die drie (ANC-DA-EFF) , vorm heel dikwels en gereeld deel van koalisies, om hul poste in parlement of as raadslede of op provinsiale vlak te waarborg, “pensioene” ingesluit. Almal verkry gewaarborgde pensioenfondse na ‘n aantal jare diens.
Neem kennis – Geen multi-kultuur politieke party kom op vir een spesifieke volk nie, al roem sommiges daarop, is hulle niks anders dan FW de Klerk en sy huidige Grondwet nie. FW was destyds ‘n sogenaamde “reënboognasie” en multi-kultuur. Enige organisasie of forum of vakunie wat multi-kultuur is, staan nie op vir ‘n spesifieke volk nie, omdat die lede multi-kultuur is en slegs namens hul lede kan praat. Wat maak enige politieke party vandag anders as hulle multi-kultuur is?
Terloops was daar heelwat “beloftes” gedurende Kodesa gemaak, dis nooit nagekom nie, veral oor Afrikaans, kultuur en skole. Skole is ‘n interne eie volksaak aangeleentheid, maar die meerderheid loop dwarsoor die minderheidsvolk en Afrikaans word oral verbied. Taal en kultuur is deel van ‘n volk.
Was dit nie maar nog altyd so nie, enige volk bestaan uit konserwatiewes en liberales / klassieke liberales. Hulle sien nie hul weg oop vir ‘n eie onafhanklike land / gebied nie, maar wil eerder ons almal sien ondergaan en gebuk onder kommunisme. En so gaan dit al van voor die Anglo-Boere oorloë, wat eerder een land “verenigde” land soek. Dit terwyl khoi san / griekwas en etniese swartes steeds verskillende aparte gebiede het en kom dit uit die koloniale tydperk van Shepstone en Rhodes. Voor 1854.
AgriSA het hulle ook by die ANC gevoeg waar hul grondhervorming steun. Heelwat van die blankes, wat FW de Klerk ondersteun het, sal ook op sy blad toesprake maak en noem soms hulself klassieke liberales of liberaal verligtes. Diegene by Dakar praat meestal as liberaal verligtes.
Agri SA and land expropriation
Agri SA seeks more clarity on the Expropriation Bill that was just released by the Minister of Public Works. The new Bill does provide more clarity on expropriation without compensation (EWC), but the reach and definitions must urgently be clarified.
The Expropriation Act is not entirely separate from the current debate on the amendment of section 25 of the Constitution, but essentially provides a political solution that will bring more legal certainty.
“Agri SA is opposed to EWC,” says Annelize Crosby, Head of Agri SA’s Centre of Excellence: Land.
“We support the principle that owners should not be better or worse position after expropriation, their position should be unchanged as if no expropriation took place.”
The Expropriation Bill proposes that the following property types can be expropriated without compensation:
• Land owned by a state-owned corporation or -entity;
• Land occupied by labour tenants;
• Land abandoned by the owner;
• Land that is kept for speculative purposes; and
• Where the market value is equivalent to or less than the present value of direct state investment or subsidy in the acquisition or capital improvement of the land.
This is the third version of the Expropriation Bill which aims to bring greater legal certainty on the implementation of more than 200 existing laws that allow for expropriation. Agri SA has been involved since the first draft in 2008 in discussions including the Nedlac negotiations on the Bill.
“The new wording in the Expropriation Bill gives a discretion to expropriate certain types of land, but the provision is not mandatory,” says Crosby. “The clause also makes it clear that all relevant circumstances must be taken into account before such a step is taken.”
Agri SA’s biggest concern is the expropriation of land occupied by labour tenants. These claims are complex and most of the claims have not yet been verified.
“The status as labour tenants of many people living on farms in KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga has not yet been clarified,” said Crosby. “There are also concerns about the uneconomic nature of many of the parcels of land on which there are labour tenant claims as well as its productive use. The real problem is that the Labour Tenant Act has never been properly implemented.”
Agri SA is still concerned about the definition of “expropriation” as contained in the newly released bill. The definition limits the term expropriation to cases where the state acquires the property. It is too narrow and out of line with international trends where expropriation is understood in a wider context. A narrow definition poses the danger that the state can place all kinds of restrictions on ownership without compensating the owner.
Agri SA will submit written comments on the bill and actively participate in all the consultation processes that follow. The bill will probably only appear on the statute books by 2020.