Self-determination – Onafhanklikheid

*
2012 INTERVIEW – People have a human and international right to rule themselves in their own territories and also independently like France, Switzerland, Botswana or Sweden do.  Being part of the chaos we are in today, is full self-determination, full independence, our only option and solution forward.   That also includes any kind of so-called federal systems, as the majority of areas already, will form the federal government – today’s murders and tortures are worse than any other country in the world.    The majority will rule the federal government as well.   We already have 8840 traditional leaders with CPA’s or Trustland areas (old homelands are not gone).  It is still in place currently.

Selfbeskikking – Self-determination

*

During the interview in 2012, FW de Klerk  lied about so-called apartheid – it is still there with Trustland and CPA’s all separate from each other.

Reserves was already created in 1854 and not by us after 1961.   The British empire was responsible for education systems in the colonies until 1954 and not us, the Boer people.   It then became our responsibility, also after the British empire imported more than 400000 blacks and chinese immigrants from Africa to work in their mines, since 1902.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOqwpretAWQ&t=5s

The 4 homelands were independent after certain dates (in terms of our own systems, and better off then as now), while the others all have self-governments and elections.   What was wrong – every country have that.  One of them have even their own money system in place.

Watch: from 10:00 onwards about the Boers, ABW and the Homelands/ Reserves that were already in place.  That is not strange, but it is still ongoing today – that only changed to CPA and Trustlands, with their own legislations.   THEY made the rules, not us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuLeNEsyj1s

*

After 1994     FW was  well aware of agreements on the Codesa table with black and other leaders – Ingonyama trust.    CPA’s followed after 1994.   ALL the CPA and Trustland legislations and applications, with compensations.

And today it is 2019 – there are 8840 traditional leaders and all with CPA lands and rules.
During Codesa, 1994, De Klerk signed the Ingonyama Trust agreements as well as legislations for segregation – both CPA and Trustlands are separate from each others, they still voted for their own traditional leaders in their one system, and in the so-called democracy – two  different systems.   Traditional houses, another legislation, only for the blacks to keep their own land areas from the past.

Both Trustland and CPA lands are communal lands, with their own legislations.  That is what the black and khoi san / griqwa people wanted in 1994.   The  Boer people did not force that onto them.

Nothing has been changed from homelands as it was.   It was only a name change.   But the black and coloureds, the Khoi san and Griqwas, still blame the Boer people for their poverty, unemployment, land ownerships and not equal to them.   OR blame the Boer people that stole their land, while it was the British that annexed all land from everybody, even the Boer republics.

*

NO REGRETS ABOUT THE CHAOS OF TODAY

*

Hoekom was ons regte dan eensydig weggeneem deur De Klerk, sonder ‘n mandaat.

Geen een van die volkslede sou hul vryheid so op ‘n altaar geplaas het vir kommunisme nie, nie nadat ons vir jare teen kommunisme geveg het op ons grense nie.   ‘n Magspeletjie wat hy en sy kaders gespeel het?   Dit is duidelik wat die Broederbond en Afrikanerbond, saam al die Afrikaner organisasies in gemeen het en steeds vergaderings hou met die kommuniste.

Kyk gerus die beeldmateriaal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOvyAu0s8Ak&t=39s

*

Elke volk het ‘n mense- en internasionale reg om hulself in hul eie gebied, volle onafhanklik te regeer soos wat Botswana, Australië en Suid-Sudan doen.  Om deel te vorm met die chaos waarin ons is is dit ons enigste oplossing en dit sluit federale stelsels uit, omrede die meerderheid die federale regering vorm.  Daar is reeds 8840 tradisionele leiers met CPAs vir elkeen of Trustgebiede (ou Tuislande).  Ou Tuislande was beslis beter af as vandag se chaos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXTiOuuk0DE&t=7s

*

ARTICLE

By Lucky Gold, CNN

Editor’s Note: F.W. de Klerk, the last leader of white South Africa, who joined with Nelson Mandela to bring an end to apartheid and shared a Nobel Peace Prize for their achievement, was recently interviewed at a summit of Nobel Laureates in Chicago and appeared on Thursday’s Amanpour.

So I’m a Convert

It was noted that Mandela had once called de Klerk “a man of integrity” but had taken it back, regretting that de Klerk had never renounced the principle of apartheid.

De Klerk responded:  “Well, let me first say I’m not aware that Mr. Mandela says I’ve never renounced apartheid.”  He then said, “I have made the most profound apology in front of the Truth Commission and on other occasions about the injustices which were wrought by apartheid.”

But then he added:  “What I haven’t apologized for is the original concept of seeking to bring justice to all South Africans through the concept of nation states (essentially creating two separate states, one black and one white).”

“But in South Africa it failed,” he said. “And by the end of the ‘70’s, we had to realize, and accept and admit to ourselves that it had failed.  And that is when fundamental reform started.”

He was then asked if apartheid failed because it was unworkable, or because it was simply morally repugnant.

“There are three reasons it (apartheid) failed,” he said.  “It failed because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves.  It failed because we (whites and blacks) became economically integrated, and it failed because the majority of blacks said that is not how we want our rights.”

Still, De Klerk would not back off his belief in the validity of the original concept of “separate but equal” nation states.

“There is this picture that apartheid was…used to be compared to Nazism,” said de Klerk.  “It’s wrong, and on that, I don’t apologize for saying that what drove me as a young man, before I decided we need to embrace a new vision, was a quest to bring justice for black South Africans in a way which would not – that’s what I believed then – destroyed the justice to which my people were entitled.”

“That’s how I was brought up,” said de Klerk.  “And it was in an era when also in America and elsewhere, and across the continent of Africa, there was still not this realization that we are trampling upon the human rights of people.  So I’m a convert.”

Eleven official languages

Again, he was asked if he wanted to take the opportunity to say that apartheid was, in retrospect, morally repugnant.

“I can only say in a qualified way,” said de Klerk.  “Inasmuch as it trampled human right, it was – and remains – and that I’ve said also publicly, morally reprehensible.”  He added, “But the concept of giving as the Czechs have it and the Slovaks have it, of saying that ethnic unities with one culture, with one language, can be happy and can fulfill their democratic aspirations in an own state, that is not repugnant.”

“With the advantage of hindsight,” said de Klerk, “we should have started the reform much earlier…But the intention was to end at a point which would ensure justice for all.  And the tipping point in my mind was when I realized… we need to abandon the concept of separateness.  And we need to build a new nation with its eleven official languages, accommodating its diversity, but taking hands and moving forward together.”

We call each other on birthdays

Mandela, will turn ninety four in July and de Klerk was asked if they were friends.

“Actually, we’re close friends,” said de Klerk.  “Not the closest in the sense that we see each other once a week.  Also, we live apart.  But he’s been in my home as a guest; I’ve been in his home as a guest.  When I go to Johannesburg, my wife and I have had tea with him and Graca, his wife.”

“We call each other on birthdays,” he said.  “There is no animosity left between us.” But then he added:  “Historically, there was.”

CNN’s Ken Olshansky produced this piece for television.

De Klerk: ‘No animosity’ with Mandela

***