Tag Archives: terrorism

The propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints for changing Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution (5)

Full title: The propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints for changing Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution to make land redistribution without compensation possible. Part 1: Age-old injustice and discriminative White political and socio-economic system (5)

Gabriel P Louw

iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093

Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).

Corresponding Author:

Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PUCHE), DPhil (PUCHE), PhD (NWU)

Email: profgplouw@gmail.com

Keywords: age-old, arguments, compensation, constitution, custom, frontiersman, injustice, opinion, propagandists, landownership, land-redistribution, radicalism, socioeconomic, terrorism, viewpoint.

Ensovoort, volume 40 (2019), number 2: 3

1. Background

1.1 Introduction

The history of colonialism and imperialism poses challenges to the legitimacy of property rights today. From the Fifteenth Century onwards, European nations took control of much of North, Central and South America, large swathes of Asia and, by the Twentieth Century, most of Africa. Indigenous populations were wiped out or pushed off their land, communities were devastated and resources were appropriated for Western profit; and

There is nothing voluntary about this process. Indeed, it is hard to see the original appropriation and privatisation of commonly owned resources as anything but theft.1:153

The propagandists, in line with Martinez1, pinpoint the occupation and possession-taking of the land and commonly owned resources of indigenous non-Whites by White settlers as outright theft. They maintain that similar behaviour has occurred in South Africa since 1652 and that the evil of land grabbing had an affect from 1652 to 1994 upon all the peoples of South Africa. Boot-Siertsema and Boot2, as well as Geen3, describe in depth the tragic chain reaction of early land grabbing by the White frontiersmen of the Cape Colony in the 1830s. This spread to the northern parts of South Africa, established itself in an extreme manner in the Transvaal Republic from the 1850s onward. The research of Geen3 and Boot-Siertsema and Boot2 shows that the Great Trek activated various negative socio-economical and political outcomes, such as the subsequent poor White problem and wrong-headed Black-White-relations, to make true segregation between the Black tribes and White settlers, as he puts it, “forever impossible”. Boot-Siertsema and Boot2 refer to the initial start-up of White discrimination, coming from 1652, as Kleine Apartheid, before it beasted aggressively transformed in the 1900s into DE Grote Apartheid. One of the most prominent negative impacts for the propagandists, in line with Martinez1 arising out of the outcomes of White colonialism, was the theft by the proto-Afrikaners of the traditional land of the Blacks and their disrespect for Black human- and civil-rights in the northern parts of South Africa. (This devastating outcome also followed as the White Trekboere moved westwards and northwestwards into the various areas like the Groot Karroo etc., of the Northern Cape (traditionally the living area of the KhoiSan and KhoiKhoi). This land theft from Blacks in the Transvaal and Free State Boer-republics resulted in the creation of landless and poor Blacks there, which is still present today all over the country and which the propagandists posit is a primary driver for the ANC regime’s intended land expropriation.2-4

With regard to the theft by the proto-Afrikaners of the traditional land of the Blacks of the northern parts of South Africa, Geen3 writes3:73:

Despite the wars of Chaka and Msilikazi in the land into which the trekkers moved, it was by no means empty of population for Native [Black] wars were not unduly destructive of life. Having subdued the Native tribes, the trekkers soon disposed them of their lands and thus helped to create a landless class of Natives, which is the source of many of the Union’s economic troubles at the present time [1946].The trekkers hardly exemplify a judicious Native policy, for their haphazard apportionment of land often without survey at all means that the Natives became mere squatters on their own tribal land; and in looking at the things exclusively from the point of view of European interests, the trekkers set the disastrous precendent of ignoring the very existence of the Native population. Sir T. Shepstone was near the truth when he wrote to the Colonial Office in January 1880 that “the government of the (Transvaal) Republic never thought it necessary, even as a matter of mere prudence, to set apart land for the occupation of the natives. The Native Problem that exercises the attention of South African statesmen today [1946] is largely the creation of the trekkers, who in the interior provinces of the Union laid the foundation of a civilization based upon a landless Bantu proletariat and a rigid maintenance of the Colour Bar in State and Church.

This creation of a lawless setup by the proto-Afrikaners and their ongoing actions as land thieves of the Black inhabitants’ land, especially in the northern parts of South Africa in the middle 1800s, is, according to the propagandists, also highlighted by Louw5. Louw5 describes in depth the early transfer and internalision of contaminated and delinquent political thinking, planning and actions of the White frontiersmen at the Cape into their own mindset, as well as into the mindsets of their descendants (the later Trekboers and Voortrekkers, and the later burghers of the Northern Cape Province and the two Boer republics). For the propagandists, Louw5 reflects that these proto-Afrikaners’ comprehensive socio-economic and politic delinquent behaviour against non-Whites, their disrespect and trampling upon the non-Whites legal rights, land ownerships and citizenships inside the greater South Africa, were as follows5:18:

The fact that the Boers constantly moved northwards confirms that: “…they wanted to do things their way”. Their way was not always within the limits of the law (like land grabbing and the planned termination of non-Whites like the KhoiSan). It resembled terrorism as described by Powell6 and Boon7. Their terrorist behaviour, as already indicated, reappeared during the Great Trek when the Voortrekkers started to occupy land that they argued and rationalised as “uninhabited and ownerless,” while in reality it was the property of Black tribes who used it as hunting grounds and pasture for their cattle and as a defence zone between hostile tribes. Despite this reality, the Boers occupied the land, often by brute force and the loss of Black lives. This first forceful occupation of Black land north of the Cape Colony’s border took the same form as the killing and atrocities during the migration of Black tribes southwards with the first and second colonisation of South Africa.The aggression of the Boers escalated with the large scale occupation of Black territory to form the Boer republics. They drove away or killed the Black owners. They used the same tactics that Shaka used in order to take over the land of other tribes. This early occupation facilitated the founding of the two Boer republics, both of which supported racial discrimination. This shows how much terrorism and Boer liberation are internalised in the minds of the Afrikaners.

The direct outcome of the above stealing of land and the focussed termination of Black resistance by the White burghers of specifically the Transvaal Boer-republic, is also evidenced for the propagandists in the writing of Thabo Makgoba8, Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, on the tragic lot of his great-great grandfather and the loss of his family’s land at the hand of Paul Kruger and his delinquent cronies.

Makgoba writes8:21:

The Makgobas and our clan, baTlou of Makgoba’s Kloof, Limpopo, know all about the pain of having land expropriated without compensation.

When our great-great grandfather, Kgoši Mamphoku Makgoba, resisted the decision of Paul Kruger’s government to parcel out our land to White settlers in the 1890s, they sent a force of at least 4,000 to crush our army of 250. They finally caught up with Kgoši Makgoba in the kloof on a Sunday. Because Gen Piet Joubert, hero of the Boers’ First War of Liberation against the British, and his men were at church, the Swazi auxiliaries who found Makgoba cut off his head and sent it to Joubert to prove they had killed him. Announcing the news to Kruger, Joubert ended his telegram: “The Lord reigns, and I am his servant”.

We are still searching for our ancestor’s skull.

Makgoba8 writes further about this unfortunate lot of his ancestors in the Transvaal8:21:

More than 120 years later, when I drive through white owned land down the beautiful Makgoba’s Kloof Pass, I pass citrus farms, avocado pear trees and commercial pine plantations. It smells of wealth and privilege. Arriving to visit relatives at Tlhabine in the lowveld – the descendants of those driven from the kloof – it is barren by comparison. The stench is of deprivation and dispossession. The suffering and the hurt live on into the current generation.

Motsoko Pheko9, the former leader of the PAC, reflects that after 1910 the stealing of land from Blacks by Whites intensified and spread to every corner of South Africa. Pheko posits that the land stealing — which began with stealing of the land of the KhoiSan in the Cape Colony and spread to the Boer-republics to reach a climax in Apartheid – was initially positioned by the promulgation of the Berlin Act of the 26th February 1885 through which the Cape Colony became a British colony. A British colonial law, the Union of South Africa Act 1909, unites the four British colonies of the Cape, Natal, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State under exclusive White rule to what Pheko9 calls9:10: “…to fight the ‘native danger’ of African resistance against European colonialism, and which legalised racial discrimination against Africans…” .

About the deeper delinquent intention of the above European colonialism of South Africa, as far back as the 1885s, Pheko reflects further that9:10: “…even though colonialists called it the spreading of ‘Western Christian civilisation’ it was, in fact colonial terrorism.”

Pheko9 describes the immediate devastating impact of the Union Act (1910) on the nullification of Blacks’ land ownership (a land ownership situation which is still for the propagandists basically the same in 2018) and the process of stealing Black land, as follows9:10:

Within four years of the Union of South Africa Act, the colonial parliament, with the approval of the British Government, passed the racist and genocide colonial law allocating a paltry 7% of their own country to over five million Africans and giving the remaining 93% of the African land to 349 837 European settlers. This was done through the Native Land Act of 1913.

This was a crime against humanity. It was theft.

Relaying the past to the present in a critical retro-perspective upon legal land ownership, Mthombothi10 makes prominent the existence of an Africa milieu versus a European milieu, seemingly each with its own culture upon what is right or wrong, and time frames and time limits wherein these unique culture presentations were allowed as acceptable. It seems for the propagandists as though the concept of the arrival of a total, specific African political milieu, which includes the demand to the Whites to hand over in 2019 their economic empowerment obtained through centuries of colonialism and White dominance – twenty-five years after they handed over their political empowerment – has escaped the antagonists’ mindsets (mostly White) in their present rigid upholding of the not–so-friendly 1994 Constitution to secure and to assure further exclusive White land ownership. What most Whites and their many so-called rescuers and saviours (Afrikaners/Whites for the propagandists) do not understand today is that the world constantly changes and sometimes extensively and extremely. South Africa is not an example of Black extremity, but of the late arrival of African Uhuru with its own culture on what is right or wrong, together with its time frames and time limits to be able to execute this unique Uhuru.The propagandists show that the balancing of racism, economics and security empowerment are prominent and overwhelming elements here. These elements can – and it seems are going to – bring a phenomenal change to the socio-economic and political setup of the country. In this setup the Whites’ so-called richness, land ownership and privileges are fully under stress and focus. This focus and the questioning thereof are fully sanctioned by the ANC regime. For instance an element such as the intended land expropriation without compensation confirms this. One of the outcomes of political history is to remember the past in the present. Present day political alignment suddenly disrupts the badness from even the far past, as South Africa is currently experiencing, asking for a reversed replay of the past, undoing the White supremacy and their exploitation of Blacks for centuries.10

For the propagandists, it is in this context prominent that the pre-1994 exclusive White South Africa, which is still functioning, albeit extremely well-masked today, is at last being dismantled, although it has taken the ANC twenty-five years to activate the process. The propagandists allude that the message by Black South Africa is of a total socio-economic and politic change to come (not only for Whites but also Blacks): a new setup at last exclusively to be based upon true democracy, one-man-one-vote with real empowerment, exclusive majority rule in the obtaining and guarantee of the individual’s right, equality, inclusive capital to every citizen, the availability and providing of decent work and living conditions. This was a message clearly sent to the antagonists in 1960 by Nelson Mandela. This was precisely what he wanted then and what he aimed to obtain, but was foolishly ignored by the Whites under the corrupt and selfish NP-AB-DRC-alliance. It was to be believed then as a truth and a reality in coming.10

The remark of Denis Goldberg11 (as quoted by the journalist Jonathan Ancer11) when he reflects upon Nelson Mandela’s warning words during the start-up of the Rivonia Trail in 1960 and his intention to already to break down White dominance then with time (something his party is now doing very well upon his behalf), resonates in 201811:12:

Mandela, who was in prison when the Rivonia raid took place, was brought to the Palace of Justice in Pretoria to stand trial with the others. “Mandela was in short pants and sandals – they tried to humiliate him, but he was absolutely in control,” recalls Goldberg. “He told us: ‘We are not going to apologise. We are going to put apartheid on trial’”.

It seems as though the ANC regime, elite and party are now in the process of at last starting up Mandela’s long cherished dream of expropriation of land without compensation but also without any apology. But, note the propagandists, the ANC is doing more than at last putting Apartheid on trial: they are finishing it off. True rewards take time to realise and there is mostly one winner in a political war. The propagandists believe that for the ANC elite and regime their victory is in sight through the guidance of Cyril Ramaphosa with his clear planned land expropriation without compensation.3,4,9-11

However, the propagandists further emphasise that Mandela’s “Apartheid trail” also tells of an earlier Apartheid’s trail of Blacks and their struggle since then against the inhumanity and injustice brought about by the founding of the Union of South Africa in 1910. This struggle indeed comes from far back in the past: the degrading categorisation of Blacks as incompetent and uncivilized by Whites, the propagandists believe, must now with good reason be erased. This rectification includes the erasing of present day poverty, unemployment, inequality and landlessness of Blacks. For the propagandists it does not matter how doubtful and controversial the doings of the ANC regime are at present with what the antagonists propagate as so-called delinquent behaviour: such as land grabbing, it is absolutely necessary and unavoidable.3

For the propagandists it is above all the reality of today’s statutory land ownership wherein the Whites illegally hold the majority of the land. When the propagandists listen to and read of the comprehensive number of arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists (as presented by them in Articles Three and Four) objecting to a change to Section 25 by the ANC regime to expropriate land without compensation, is it clear for the propagandists that the present day political and socio-economic reality is blindly ignored and refused by the antagonists as an urgency. Political historical and legitimate reasons are why the present government must immediately activate land expropriation with or without compensation. The fact that the nationalist Afrikaners are not politically and militarily (to some extent also economically) empowered (as they were in 1994) to obstruct comprehensive land redistribution, make the circumstances optimal to now erase the injustices of the past. To wait longer will spell disaster for the economy as well as the start-up of an uncontrollable revolution. For the propagandists, Motsoko Pheko is correct to say: “we need to save South Africa”, through sound thinking and action on future land ownership, based upon an urgent legitimate, comprehensive and balanced process of land expropriation. If this process fails, South Africa can soon expect a “Bolshevik land revolution” by the masses of poor and landless Blacks. This can bring tragic consequences for all South Africans, but most of all for the antagonists who have rigidly refused since 1994 to get involved in true, constructive land reform.4,9

2. Research intentions

The research aim of this article is to evaluate and to describe in-depth and comprehensively what the propagandists believe are the hostile elements and the role-players obstructing change to Section 25 to facilitate land expropriation without compensation. The drivers and needs for an immediate change to Section 25 and the awarding of the legal right to the ANC regime to effect land expropriation without compensation, to empower the poor and landless Blacks, are for the propagandists’ outcomes from the White injustice and discriminative political and socio-economic system of South Africa, which makes the post-1994 political dispensation dysfunctional. Racial discrimination, coming from as far back as 1652, forms the basis for this negative setup.

The opposition by the propagandists of the antagonists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints against their changing of Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution, as well as the antagonists’ opposition to the ANC regime to effect land redistribution without compensation, are central to this research.

This article (Number 5) forms the first part of the article entitled: “The propagandists arguments, opinions and viewpoints for changing Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution to make land redistribution without compensation possible: Part 1”.

The next article (Number 6), entitled: “The propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints for changing Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution to make land redistribution without compensation possible: Part Two”, will further describe and evaluate in depth and comprehensively, what the propagandists believe are the White injustice and discriminative elements and role-players, which are making the post-1994 political dispensation’s political and socio-economic system of South Africa dysfuntional.

2.1. Method

The research was carried out by means of a literature review. This method had the aim of building a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research developed. This approach is used in modern day political-historical research where there is a lack of an established body of research upon the ownership of South African soil for the period 1652 to 2018 in South Africa. The sources included articles for 2018, books for the period 1945 to 2018 and newspapers for the period 2017 to 2019. These sources were consulted in order to evaluate and to describe the present day arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the propagandists to change Section 25(2)(b) of the Constitution to make land redistribution without compensation possible.

The research findings are presented in narrative format.

3. Discussion

3.1. The pre-1994 White injustice and discrimitive political and socio-economic system of South Africa

The propagandists’ counter arguments, opinions and viewpoints against those of the antagonists (see the two previous articles, numbers Three and Four) reflect a broad identification and pinpointing of the elements and role-players alleged by the propagandists to be active and/or established in the White injustice and discrimitive political and socio-economic system of South Africa. This comes from as far back as 1652, and led to the poverty, unemployment, inequality and landlessness of masses of Blacks, which obstructed the 1994 political dispensation to better the lives of Blacks. These elements and role-players’ negativisms, internalised in the mindsets of the broad public by the antagonists with their fake news and data, have so far blocked the change to Section 25 to effect land expropriation without compensation. The propagandists allege that much of the delinquent political thinking and action, frequently characterise the antagonistic Whites’ mindsets. Examples thereof are the antagonists’ rigid underwriting and preaching of exclusive capitalism, their outright support for White corrupt business and financial capitalist bullies, their exclusive underwriting of Western political ideologies alone, their opposition of free political and economic world associations, their obstruction of inclusive/social capitalism, their anti-Black orientations, and the execution of White psychopathological politics. These are cognitions created over decades through White socio-economic and political empowerment, discrimination and domination of Blacks. These elements and role-players as negative determinants, form part in this research of the propagandists’ presentation to be understood and to be unmasked in order to persuade the voters to give their permission for the change of Section 25 to effect the land expropriation without compensation. The opinion of the researcher is that only through such a comprehensive presentation of primary as well as secondary negative determinants in the case of the propagandists, in their opposition of the antagonists’ case in the present “informal court”, can the situation be evaluated with justice and with balance. Indeed, such a comprehensive presentation was already allowed for the antagonists in the previous two articles (See Articles Three and Four of the series).

The primary aims with this article (Part One) as well as the next one (Part Two) are thus to reflect in depth and as broadly as possible upon the various elements and role-players obstructing change to Section 25 of the Constitution. It is only by such a comprehensive presentation that a picture of the propagandists’ civil rights, to be able to change the Constitution in its present form to effect land expropriation, can be made. The presentation, evaluation and description of the various elements and role-players of this article will devolve further and broadly into Article Six (Part: Two).

The presentation of the various elements and role-players in this article will be done in sixteen subdivisions. In the next article (Part Two) this presentation of the various elements and role-players will continue with another six subdivisions.

3.2. Myths, lies and fables fabricated by the antagonists in order to obstruct the intended land expropriation

The propagandists postulate that the antagonists have mastered the ability to turn myths, lies and fables into truths in their attacks on the government’s genuine effort to assure political stability in the country through their planned land transformation. Prominent for the propagandists is the antagonists’ misuse of the public media in order to depict the ANC regime both nationally and internationally as radical and Marxist driven, with the sole intention to nationalise all private property and assets. Futher untruths for the propagandists are the public reflection of an overall hostility by the ANC and Blacks against the Whites and the rejection of Whites as indigenous South Africans. Constructive and positive efforts by the ANC to better the relationship between Blacks and Whites are denounced and mostly cold shouldered by the antagonists. Prominent for the propagandists in this continuing creation of conflict is the destructive behaviour of the so-called rescuers and saviours of the Afrikaners/Whites – coming from Apartheid South Africa and its White privileges and rights, still rigidly captured in the upkeep of it and lacking the understanding of the future – with their organised fake and false news. It seems as though these irresponsible so-called rescuers and saviours of the Afrikaners/Whites are totally missing out on a modern day African perspective on the anger which is characterised by the landlessness in South Africa. Incorporated herein stand the immense risks they are taking in their political blindness by ignoring the realities which put land expropriation as a first priority.4,12-18

These so-called rescuers’ and saviours’ histories reflect an adverse political setup of racism and the focused obstruction of Black rule, spelling future doom if Whites’ political blindness on land ownership is not erased. It it is essential that they shed and part from their favoured past. The investigative journalist Jonny Steinberg,15 author of the book “Midlands” on the conflict and tragedies in the Ixopo area of Natal-KwaZulu in post-1994 South Africa, referred later in 2013 in the literary magazine Granta to the fate of a White farmer family. The Mitchells find themselves in the middle of this Black-White conflict and violence. They lost their son in this violence in Ixopo, and had ignored realities and a request for adaptation, as follows15:17: “Peter Mitchell died on a frontier, not so much between black and white, or between the landed and the landless, as between the past and the future.”

The journalist Fred Khumalo15 contends that when Apartheid ended in 1994, as many as 2 million Black South African labour tenants were living under the proprietorship of only 50 000 or so White farmers, reflecting a ratio of 40 Blacks tenants without their own land for every one White farmer with land. (Today these labour tenants number more or less 860 000, while the White farmers number approximately 35 000, to still give a high ratio of 1:25). For the propagandists, this shows that the so-called “baas-kneg-setup” is more or less the same as 25 years ago. In this present day context of an ongoing imbalance of “Black-tenantship” versus “White proprietorship” regarding land, politics and economics, there have indeed been positive developments and outcomes outside the so-called rescuers’ and saviours’ political contamination, although Black poverty still reigns, as today’s setup in Ixopo reflects15:17:

Meanwhile, back in Ixopo, many white farmers have regained their equanimity. The Mitchells and other from the “old era” have left. The Mitchel farm has been taken over by labour tenants, some of whom have lived there for five generations. They live on it but are too poor to farm it.

Neighbouring white farmers who stayed behind have moved quikly to build bridges between white and black, landed and landless. But the fear [of whites] is far from over.

Allan Paton’s15 call in 1948 (the same year that the racist NP came to power) upon the theft of Black peoples’ land by their White conquerers since the 1600s in his book: “Cry, the Beloved Country”, has not receded15:17: “Cry, the beloved country, these things are not yet at an end. The sun pours down on the earth, on the lovely land that man cannot enjoy. He knows only the fear of his heart.” South Africa is now 70 year older than when the sentence was uttered, but the potential of the unleashing of a bloodbath is still there in 2019 by the actions of the antagonists in their retention of Blacks’ stolen land and their blindly ignoring racial politics.

On today’s emergence of the land expropriation without compensation issue, Khumalo refers back to the incomplete 1994 political dispensation of which the so-called rescuers and saviours are deliberately ignoring and which needs to be rectified. Khumalo15 writes15:17:

The apartheid regime collapsed and was replaced by the ANC of Mandela in 1994.

But the new party couldn’t readily reverse the horror of land dispossession without falling foul of the carefully crafted Constitution of 1996, the result of the give-and-take negotiated settlement between the old regime and the Black liberation movement. The Constitution put great emphasis upon the protection of (White) private property.

What is called the “land question” in SA has become topical once again, after the government proclaimed its expropriation-without-conpensation intentions.

Indeed, the focus is back upon the past wrongdoings to Blacks on their land grabbing by Whites, pinpointing at the least to 1913 and the proclamation of the Native Land Act.9

It is also important, in the continuing of the so-called rescuers’ and saviours’ adverse political setup of racism and the focused obstruction of Blacks’ justified land- and citizens-rights in 2019, to note the words of the Reverend Msimangu in the late 1940s. Khumalo reflects15:17:

“I have one great fear in my heart, that one day when they are turned to loving, they will find we are turned to hating.”

The breathless intensity of these words can never be overemphasised. When they were written, in 1946, the Black masses were on their knees, begging their White, supposed fellow countrymen to allow them a place in the sun.

The advent of democracy after 1994 has emboldened Black people to be able to stop some of the suffering of Apartheid and its White officialdom. But there are many outstanding issues which must be addressed. But for the propagandists the Black population is thankfully today empowered enough to be able to question things withour fear, as can prominently be seen in the redistribution of land ownership to Blacks. After 1994, spilling over to 2019, South Africa will never be the same again.4,12-18

For the propagandists it is important that the many myths and lies, circulated at present by the antagonists on the land ownership matter, are unmasked and erased from the mindsets of ordinary people.

3.2.1. The antagonists’ organised sabotage of the 1994 dispensation programme

The propagandists’ postulate that the antagonists already started in 1994 to intensively agitate against even the initial intended land redistributions prescribed by the 1994 dispensation programme. Prominent were organised efforts of the antagonists to obstruct the government’s buy-outs of White land by inflating the prices of farms and constantly going to court if the government’s offerings were “beyond the market value” of the farms. Accompaning this was the antagonists’ agitation against any further land redistributions as those initially intended by the 1994 dispensation programme. This organised obstruction of the goodwill of the ANC regime by the antagonists, spearheaded mostly by the irresponsible so-called rescuers and saviours of the Afrikaners/Whites, was directly responsible for more or less 5% of the land transfers of the 1994 dispensation programme still being outstanding at present. Furthermore, the inflated prices paid for White land led thereto that the funding of the buy out of farms for Black farmers was seriously hampered, while the funding needed to develop and run the newly activated Black farms, was lacking. It is clear that the intention of the present obstruction of the post-2019 land expropriation programme by the antagonists is the maintenance of the pre-1994 White economics, rights and privileges.4,12-18

The impact of the many myths and lies upon the country’s immediate political and socio-economic security, deliberately circulated at present by the antagonists with planned mischief, is noted by the editor of the Sunday Times – a journalist of status, who, so far in the fighting around land expropriation and the converse allegation of Black racism and revolutionism unique to the ANC regime, as well as the alleged Whites’ political opportunism and crooking, stays impartial at a distance with only wisdom and good advice to all the parties involved. He recently issued a clear borderline to the so-called rescuers and saviours of the Afrikaners/Whites which they in the future with their fake news, myths and lies dare not cross. For the propagandists this is an impartial guideline (and a possible warning of a dragon waiting to be awakened). It is much needed to steer the antagonists to political and personal sanity, honesty, integrity and truth. The propagandists feel that the importance of the editorial report requires that the full text be reflected as an introduction. On the 16th December 2018 the editor19 wrote in his editorial under the title: “A day for reconciliation and reflection”, as follows19:18:

The fact that there is a need to correct the wrongs of the past is not in dispute.The inequalities that exist in SA are a direct result of laws that not only discriminated against people based on skin colour, but also dispossessed them of their properties, rendering them paupers in thei own country.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has repeatedly assured us that the process to correct the wrongs will be done within the laws and the Constitution. This is a move that should be supported by all South Africans, because, when done correctly, it could resolve a century-old land dispute – and promote stability.

But there are forces that have hijacked this noble process to serve their selfish political interests. On one side are the EFF, Black Land First and the so-called “radical economic transformation” champions in the ANC. While it is unavoidable to talk about race when talking about redress, the racial slurs that are being thrown around with such recklessness can only take the reconciliation project 20 years backwards. One does not have to advocate hate for a particular race to make one’s argument.

On the other side of the spectrum are AfriForum and other rightwingers who propagate the lie that correcting the legacy of apartheid and colonialism amounts to reverse racism. Their spreading of propaganda that there is a genocide against whites serves only to create unnecessary tension.

The South African Human Rights Commission says the number of complaints related to racial slurs is at a record high. “Most of these cases involve the use of the ‘k-word’ and other derogatory comments with the racial undertones, such as use of the terms ‘baboon’ or ‘monkey’,” the commission said early this year.

In addition to the huge task of cleaning up the government and the state institutions, Ramaphosa has another responsibility: that of putting the reconciliation project envisaged by our founders back on track as we celebrate the Day of Reconciliation today. Irresponsible leaders who thrive on inciting hatred and violence must be condemned as we move towards the nonracial, nonsexist and equal society that many fought and died to achieve. Today is an opportunity for all of us to reflect.

3.2.2 ANC an autocratic and fascist regime, untolerant to its opposition?

One of the most outstanding myths and lies offered by the antagonists is their successful labeling of the ANC regime as racist, autocratic and fascist; a regime which suppresses the opposition’s political rights. In this propaganda the Whites are alleged to be victims since 1994. Prominently specific is the false reflection of the ANC regime as a revolutionary and Marxist organisation with an anti-Western and anti-capitalist inclination. Especially since 2016, the antagonists have hijacked the media with their immense hostility against the ANC regime. Central thereto stands the profiling by the antagonists of the Afrikaners/Whites as innocent people in the South African political history who have only done good since 1652 to non-Whites, specifically the Blacks. Donald Trump was even seated in this circle of allegations and falsities by the antagonists. How the Afrikaners/Whites obtained ownership of land and other assets, seemed not to be a point of importance known by the broad public. Prominent myths and lies became truths in the mindsets of the antagonists and are manifested as true cognitions in the mindset of the ordinary White.4,12-18

Looking to the immense false information offered since 1994 by the antagonists about the ANC’s alleged racial intentions and suppression of Whites, is it clearly malevolent politics. The facts are there that the ANC regime never in any way followed the suppression of their opponents (mostly Blacks) as the NP regime did between 1948 and 1994, or the pre-1948 White regimes. Facts contradict the falsity reflecting the ANC regime as anti-democratic or as suppressing the rights of any citizen.The absolute permitting of free speech by the ANC regime, as this research reflects (see the manifold direct and indirect allegations, remarks and opinions of journalists, etc., as reflected in Articles 3 and 4). This is a clear confirmation of the democratic inclination of the ANC regime by allowing all these allegations, etc. by the antagonists against them without the banning of organisations such as the EFF, Black Land First, the RET radicals in the ANC, AfriForum and other White rightwing bodies and the incarceration of these organisations’ leaders, as would undoubtedly have happened if the NP-AB-DRC-Alliance was still the government of the day. Neither is there the presence of assassinations of opponents, as also occurred under the NP regime. 4,12-18

The propagandists show that the use by the antagonists of the writings of persons who are not part of the leadership or advisory bodies of the ANC, as coming officially from the ANC regime, to reflect the ANC regime as suppressors of their opponents, are malevolent politics practiced by the antagonists. Prominent here is the manipulation of opinions to be that of the ANC, such as the refence to the so-called new African empowerment movement and the intent to focus the term and its benefits exclusively upon “African Blacks” only. Here radicalism is prominent, but, the propagandists emphasise this is from outside the ANC. The suggestion that the definition in the draft amendment to the regulations of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act must be changed, not to define the identity Black further in terms of three classes as being African, Indian and Coloured, but should only be applicable to African Blacks, is clearly a remark misused by the antagonists for opportunistic reasons. Brun17 on this “Blackish“ issue writes17:22: “This is a hugely politicised area that needs to be dealt with boldly by the lawmakers if radical economic transformation is to be a reality in South Africa.There has to be an acknowledgement that during apartheid Black South Africans were treated unfairly at different levels, with Africans being discriminated against the most.” RET was an issue, with the focus upon an exclusiveness of a Black identity, promoted by Jacob Zuma. It is a discriminative political outcome which does not form part, in contrast to Brun’s17 propagation, of the ANC’s principles vested in the Freedom Charter of 1955.17,20,21

Reflecting specifically upon the nationalist Afrikaners’ general discriminative behaviour in terms of their autocratic and fascist regime, intolerant of their opposition, when comparing the ANC with the NP on the underwriting of democracy, are their extreme hostile actions against the Jews as another White race, during World War Two under DF Malan and HF Verwoerd. Malan, beset by purified nationalism under the Nazi doctrine of anti-Semitism, denounced the Jews as an unassimilable group. Louw4 writes4:141: “Even the belief that the Jews are the Chosen People of the Bible was skilfully extinguised in the mindsets of the Boers under the influence of the purified Afrikaners. The Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church annulled the Divine decree that the Jews were God’s Chosen People after a study on the historic credentials of the Jews”. In this regard it must be noted that South Africa was at that time a safe place to settle for German Jews fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. Under Malan and his collaborators, the Jews became a target, leading to the prohibiting of further Jewish immigration. This anti-Jewish hostility of the “purified” nationalist Afrikaners reached a climax when a German chartered ship, the Stuttgart, arrived in Cape Town filled with German Jews and urgently looking for asylum. An agitation by Malan’s “purified” nationalist Afrikaners forced Hertzog’s government to act and the Aliens Bill ended the entrance of Jewish refugees (even the liberal JC Smuts did not block this draconian act). By his blocking of German Jewish refugees into South Africa, Malan and his collaborators made themself directly part of the killing and genocide of German and other European Jews by making it impossible for them to flee the Nazis.4

The extreme political racial mindset of the nationalist Afrikaners is further reflected by Malan’s successor, HF Verwoerd. Verwoerd started to ruthlessly conduct his policy of Grand Apartheid from 1948 onwards. Today his unjustified expropriation of South African non-Whites property and the illegal sending of a mass of South African Blacks to so-called unprofitable “Bantustans” is old, but is still not forgotten and is embittered news. His expropriation of South African Coloureds’ and Indians’ property at cheap prices, located in so-called White group areas and their relocation to so-called exclusively “Coloured” and “Indian” living zones, became the rule of the day. The same discrimitive policy for the non-Whites work-, living- and citizens’-rights followed.The psychological and physical estrangements which Malan and Verwoerd brought between Black and White seems to have become permanent, making the Afrikaners still outcasts today, with a limited knowledge of South Africa’s indigenous realities.4

Never in any of the post-1994 stand offs between Blacks and Whites did the ANC unleash violence such as that perpetuated by the White NP regime on Blacks, especially between 1960 and 1976. The undermentioned serve as excellent examples.15:17

On the 21st March 1960 in the small township of Sharpeville south of Johannesburg, in a conflict between Black marchers and the police, 60 Black people were killed in cold blood – as highlighted by Khumalo15 as White aggression against Blacks15:17: “…shot in the back as they were running away from the scene when it became clear that the police were intent on unleashing violence.”

In the 1976 student uprising as many as 500 kids were killed by the police in the first week of protests.15

On the 12th September 1977, in line with the many other murders of Black resistance leaders, the father of Black Consciousness, Steve Biko, was murdered by the police in his cell in Pretoria.15

The above ethnic and racial cleansing by the NP regime of Whites or Blacks never reflects under the so-called Black ANC, according to the propagandists.

Secondly, the propagandists see radical minority groups such as the EFF, Black Land First and the RET- champions in the ANC as very contaminated and dangerous role-players and not as political partners to the ANC, as the antagonists allege. In perspective, Ramaphosa’s regime sees these Black “radicals” as part of the greater Black community and the practice of democratic politics that must be allowed at all times as opponents of the ANC. For the propagandists, these radicals are a temporary nuisance and is it clear that they will naturally be phased out totally from politics by the public self after next year’s election. The so-called saviours and rescuers of the Afrikaners/Whites stand independent from Ramaphosa’s inner circle of his democratic regime. They are role-players in the wider South African society, who he, as a democratic leader, cannot and dare not try to reign in from future politics, notwithstanding their official sabotage of the government’s good actions. Any actions, legally prescribed by the Constitution to counter their dangerous falsities, would immediately be seen as suppression of the minorities, specifically the Whites, as was already reflected by the false information on so-called “White farmer murders” sent by the antagonists to Donald Trump to turn him on the ANC regime. 4,12-18

In the ANC’s post-1994 democratically orientated and driven government, is it exclusively up to the greater group of Afrikaners/Whites as responsible citizens to totally get rid of their so-called “self-appointed” saviours and rescuers such as AfriForum, Solidarity, Agri SA and other Afrikaner/White rightwingers before their behaviour becomes out of hand and endangers the greater White group, which they undoubtedly do not represent. The facts are there that these antagonists already count less than 10% of the White population, but became overrated by their propaganda via the Afrikaner media. If these radical rightwingers continue with their many conflicting and false propagandas, especially their ongoing obstruction of the correction of the legacy of apartheid and colonialism, the only option left for Ramaphosa and his ANC regime is to constructively stop the antagonists’ sabotage by muzzling them within the rules that the Constitution allows a democratic government in order to assure its people’s safety. According to the propagandists, the so-called saviours and rescuers of the Afrikaners/Whites are at the moment far more radical and a danger to the country’s safety than the EFF’s rowdy group or the few RET radicals of the ANC. Irresponsible behaviour by the antagonists, using well planned falsities to incite hatred and violence between the races, must for the propagandists not only be condemned, but removed from society if South Africa hopes to ever reach a non-racial, non-sexist and equal society. Irresponsible leaders who thrive on inciting hatred and violence must be condemned and isolated. Today is an opportunity for the Whites to also reflect reconciliation instead of inciting violence.4,12-18

Thirdly, the antagonists not only masterfully cover up the NP’s autocratic and extreme suppression of Blacks between 1948 and 1994, but also the political history of White autocratic suppression of Blacks from 1652 onward, as well as the Whites’ extreme grabbing of Blacks’ land. This land grabbing by Whites, accompanied by murder and even genocide of the Blacks, forms the basis for the propagandists’ reasoning as to why land transfer from Whites to Blacks is an immediate must in order to erase poverty created by landlessness. This process on White land grabbing (including genocide), since 1652, is comprehensive and of immediate importance. It unmasks the antagonists’ falsities on how today’s Whites “honestly” obtained their land and riches.Thus the earlier political history of the Whites, indeed of South Africa, must be reflected upon in depth. This political historical evidence totally refutes the Whites’ present day legal ownership of land and indeed makes the antagonists’ objection to change Section 25 by the ANC regime at this stage without base.4,15

Looking at the concept “democracy” practised in the politics of 1913 to 1994 under the White regimes, it was only “White democracy” enjoyed exclusively by the Whites in 93% of South Africa with one-man-vote against the subjecting of the majority Black population in this area to absolute autocracy and fascist rule of second class citizenship.3,4,8 Trustworthy evidence rejects the ANC as an autocratic and facist regime, intolerant of its opposition.

3.2.3. Political-historical background to White land grabbing

Central here for the propagandists is the Whites’ extreme land grabbing from Blacks and other non-Whites, over the period 1652 up to 1994. For the propagandists this mass of White wrongdoings went unnoticed due to the manipulation of the truth and the offering of misleading information by the various White rulers from 1652 to 1994 to the public, based upon an exclusive false White political history of South Africa. The propagandists furthermore see the faulty and manipulated 1994 political dispensation of the NP as an upholder of the pre-1994 White supremacy and its politics, limiting the outcome and exposure of the true political history of the South African Blacks which originated in the 1600s.22-27

To better reflect the false arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists, the propagandists find it of critical importance to show that the radical racial land grabbing behaviour by South African Whites has an established aetiology which dates specifically from the 1700s politics of the early White Boers on the borders.3,4,23,28 [Geen3 categorises and describes these early Boers as the White frontiersmen (Grensboere) and the migratory Boers (Trekboere) and Voortekkers].

In reaction to the antagonists’ constant and prominent mention of Shaka’s earlier murdering of other Blacks in his land grabbing as a similar phenomenon to the intended land expropriation without compensation from Whites under Cyril Ramaphosa, the propagandists feel it is important to also bring the same kind of alleged murdering and land grabbing intentions, inclinations and wrongdoings of the earlier Whites/Afrikaners to the foreground. Many descriptions and overviews are indeed available on the character profile and delinquent political and racial doings of the proto-Afrikaners (frontiersmen) and the post-1910 nationalist Afrikaners.3,4,28-31

In this established aetiology, which dates from the 1700s political history of the early Boers on the borders, the role models of the autocratic Netherlanders and British authories at the Cape is central. It is specifically the British authorities who were responsible for the introduction of immense negative racial and political cognitions into the mindsets of the proto-Afrikaners. The British Empire was cold blooded towards any non-British persons when its immediate interests, such as land, assets, income and empowerment, were endangered. [It did not hesitate to use extreme force when needed, as reflected in its genocidial war against the Boers and their families during the Second Anglo Boer War (1899–1902), in order to take ownership of the land and assets of the Boer-republics]. The British autocratic management and politics at the Cape Colony inspired further hostility among Black and White inhabitants (based upon the imperial principle of divide the inhabitants of their colonies to be able to rule). This was activated by the Netherlanders and laid the table for future ethnic and racial hatred. In this negative socio-economic and political setup, the proto-Afrikaners’ mindsets became contaminated with racism and violence against non-Whites. The already impoverished and vulnerable non-Whites, who stood directly in political, social and economic competition with the White inhabitants, became for the White inhabitants, as their political empowerment and interests grew, an immediate target to isolate and to discriminate against so as to survive financially and politically. This negative racial besetting of the early White inhabitants’ mindsets was transferred to the burghers of the Boer-republics, the Union of South Africa, to reach a climax with Apartheid in the later nationalist Afrikaner Republic.3,4,29,32

The propagandists postulate that the years 1652 to 1910 internalised cognitions of prominent radical White racism, fascist and right-wing thought patterns into the mindsets of the proto-Afrikaners about Blacks in general. Central to this political and socio-economic setup stands the Blacks’ status as inferior humans. This extreme Afrikaner radicalism (which was well masked untill today behind so-called good Afrikaner nationalism) is evidenced for the propagandists by the extreme suppression and the dehumanising of Blacks – which became entrenched as acceptable, correct and good behaviour in the mindsets of the early as well as the latter day Afrikaners, equating their delinquent behaviour to political terrorism and extreme political radicalism in South African politics. The Malan Manifesto of 1948 which introduced Grand Apartheid, confirms this political terrorism and extreme political radicalism par excellence for the propagandists.3.4.23,28

Notwithstanding that statehood apparently reached the nationalist Afrikaners at the end of 1948, their isolation from true democracy for over two hundred and twenty years at the Cape, argue the propagandists, left them permanently politically disabled and immature, and full of distrust for their fellow non-White South Africans, equal to their hatred and distrust for the Britons. Although the Afrikaners after 1910 with their gradual receiving of a kind of political independence from the British, started to preach fellowship and justice between the races inside South Africa, it is important to note that there is an immense difference between the professing of multi-racial politics and race equality in theory, and the practice of true human tolerance. For the nationalist Afrikaners, exclusively captured into the dogma of the NP-AB-DRC-alliance, community fellowship was in real life mostly limited to other White persons, and mostly other Afrikaners. The political realities and outcomes of South Africa up to 1994 reflect evidence for the propagandists of a barbarous story of political and criminal delinquent thinking, planning and action of the Whites’ in their ruling, fellowship and justice against non-Whites.3,4

3.2.3.1. Land grabbing through White mob reign and mob behavior

White South Africans, especially the majority group, the Afrikaners, knew from their early days at the Cape that to rule the country and its people, they must, as a prerequisite, capture and hold on to two intertwined energies: money and politics.This proverb stands out prominently for them: they who have the money rule the politics and they who have the politics rule the money.3,4,33

To be able to obtain such a political White utopia, they implemented and made intensive use from 1910 of Apartheid’s political model of terrorism, dehumanising and land grabbing to create a political-economic system which would be exclusively theirs untill 1994. This basic mandate of dominantly reigning Chomsky33 explains as follows33:55: “…concentration of wealth leads almost reflexively to concentration of political power, which in turn translates into legislation, naturally in the interests of those implementing it…”; and21:82: “…concentrated wealth will, of course, try to use its wealth and power to take over the political system as much as possible, and to run it and do what it wants, etc”.

This White obsession: to have the money and to rule the politics simultaneously, is for the propagandists excellently reflected by the South African political history of the 1910s which shows that within four years after the Union of South Africa Act, the Union’s White colonial parliament allocated 93% of the Africans’ land to 349 837 European settlers, leaving over five million Blacks in possession of only 7% of their own country.9

For the propagandists it is a fact that White South Africans did not want after 1910 (and indeed not from 1652) a non-White regime in power after their “own suffering” on the hands of the VOC and the British Empire. To intertwine the concentration of political power and the concentration of wealth exclusively, and to keep up this immense empowerment, the Whites resorted fast to political mobbing of the country’s political system, started up earlier at the Cape border districts, followed by the Boer-republics of the Transvaal and the Free State, and moving into the Union of South Africa. The White founders of the Union and the earlier and later nationalist Afrikaner leaders such as Paul Kruger, DF Malan, HF Verwoerd and BJ Vorster, clearly reflect for the propagandists the characteristics of political mobsters. Exclusive White land ownership stands central within political mobbing.4,7,22-27,34,35

In this context is it important to note Boon’s7:75 description of the characteristics of a political mobster: “Selfishness; delinquent inclinations all-over; strategies totally stripped of all democratic principles, traditions, thinking, planning and doings; absolutely intolerant; anti-order; minorities are quickly eradicated; coercion actions characterised by destruction, threats, killings and brutalities; aim the creation of a delinquent mob-reign; aim the exclusive of executive political mob-leaders to reign the country”. Looking critically at the 1960s political history of South Africa, the nationalist Afrikaners did not even try to shield this political mobbery practised by them from the public’s eyes. This delinquency was justified under their fight against the so-called “Communism Danger.”

To completely understand the immense negative internalised racial political and socio-economical cognitions in the mindsets of the White frontiersmen, proto-Afrikaners and nationalist Afrikaners, coming from 1652, and to be able to evaluate it in terms of Boon’s7 definition of a political mobster, the propagandists refer to the description of Louw36 on the proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners racial discrimination which reads36:21:

The racial discrimination … exclusively based upon skin colour and officially recorded in 1671 with the Godske instruction, can be regarded as the first apartheid law of South Africa. Godske was the first White proponent of organised racial discrimination, eventually against all people of colour. However, this discrimination seemed to adhere to a view where ethnicity is seen in terms of class, meaning that the poor, and therefore to a certain extent the underdeveloped non-Whites at the Cape, were regarded as having lower socio-economical standing and as “untouchables.” The slaves especially were stripped of their human rights and dignity and their financial and personal independence. They were impoverished. Also, the initial problems with the behaviour of the first slaves in 1658 and the Hottentots in terms of work and social habits and aggressiveness already manifested from 1652. This contributed further to levels of social differentiation and discrimination between certain sectors of the White community and other racial groups in general (specifically guided and practiced officially by the Cape authority). It is in this context that the VOC implemented a strict policy of separation between Whites and the other races such as the slaves, Hottentots and Blacks from 1671. Later the Xhosas, with whom the Whites started to make contact in 1730, were included. This was extended to all Blacks and to all other races in South Africa from the 1850s onwards, especially in the republics of the Transvaal and the Free State. The year 1671 can therefore be considered the beginning of socio-controlled racial manipulation and engineering in South Africa, specifically with the aim of Whites limiting and managing the personal and group rights of all other racial groups in some way.

3.2.4. Cape’s White frontiersmen’s unwelcome presence in land of the KhoiSan

To obtain insight into the Whites’ political, social and economic manipulations and of the wanton actions accompanying their comprehensive grabbing of land from Blacks, the propagandists’ emphasise that it is important to revisit the political history of the country and to refresh the mindsets of the antagonists as to what their real political identity is. It gives insight into how mob leaderships and mob politics became part of the Afrikaners’ psyche and drove their land grabbing, contradicting the antagonists’ reflecting of the Afrikaners/Whites as land owners by justice and “political angels”, while the ANC regime is now falsely labeled as “land grabbers”. The antagonists are for the propagandists far from innocent citizens, wrongfully made political and racial black sheep by the ANC regime, as they try hard to reflect.

The illegal land occupations from the early- to late 1700s by Whites brought them and the non-Whites into face-to-face conflict. The abundance of soil and good conditions of the interior for stock farming, as well as the little initial physical resistance from the KhoiKhoi and KhoiSan, fast activated a self-sufficient lifestyle of the so-called White frontiersmen with a pastoral and nomadic existence: cattle bartering with the KhoiKhoi, hunting of an overabundance of game and the daily overseeing of their stock. There was no effective border policy and strict ruling by the VOC of their White subjects whose ancestors came initially to South Africa to farm only around Cape Town.3,4,28-31

3.2.4.1. White frontiersmen’s disorderly lifestyle

The VOC tacitly allowed the White frontiersmen to enlarge the colony’s area constantly by their shifting of the one official border to the following border; deeper and deeper inland, and by the taking over of non-Whites’ traditional land. This created a more and more disorderly form of government and lifestyle. Two prominent negative outcomes follow this White expansion: a moral decay and racial inclinations against Blacks.3,4,28-31

3.2.4.1.1. Moral decay as a result of cultural isolation and deprivation

The White frontiersmen’s cultural and governmental isolation claimed a price. Within two generations, negative outcomes followed due to their isolation from the traditional Cape European culture, together with the absence of good law and order overseen by the VOC. Their geographical isolation not only resulted in a lack of educational facilities and cultural and life-enriching influences, but fast installed a down-scaling in their European standards of living and disrespect for law and order, basically as a result of the absence of good and constant policing of their behaviour from outside.3

About their prominent cultural impoverishment, Geen3 writes3:29:

…but the isolation and difficulties of frontier life also made them limited in their outlook, impatient with all forms of control and so intensely individualistic that it became difficult to unite them in effective co-operation. They lost most of their civilisation on the way to the Promised Land. Some could write, still more could sign their names, many read the Bible, especially the Old Testament, into which they read a justification of themselves, their beliefs and all their works, but for the rest, learning and the affairs of the great world were closed books to them.

The impact of this cultural and personal decay was immense and infiltrated their whole lifestyle, as well as their previously internalised values, customs and traditions of good standards, based upon European culture. It is also evidenced in its negative streaming into the life-styles and characters of their descendants: the Trekboere and Voortrekkers and these groups’ descendants. This ongoing “European deculturing” and barbarism of the Whites, spreading overall to every level of their lives, is well illustrated later by the view of the post-1836 British Government at the Cape, after the annexation of the Transvaal and Free State Republics, to label their burghers as backwards people who the British were forced to make “acceptable and fitting” into the British Empire.3,4,31,37

3.2.4.1.2. Whites’ development and practice of immense racial and criminal delinquent behaviors

The geographical isolation at the Cape frontier, where there was mostly a shortage of direct governmental oversight and the accompanying prosecution of criminal delinquency, led thereto that many of these frontier Boers and their children lacked an immense sense of law abiding and fear. The delinquent behaviour of the White frontiersmen, mostly ignored by the Cape Authority, internalised and strengthened the cognition with them that their behaviour was entirely correct and appropriate. This “correct and appropriate” delinquent behaviour includes a great variety of wrongdoings, such as the illegal grabbing of land and livestock of the indigenous people, up to their assault and murder. The failure of the VOC Government at the Cape to handle the White frontiersmen’s increasingly delinquent actions towards indigenous South Africans and their unrelenting illegal grabbing of the KhoiSan’s land set the stage to come for immense conflict, bloodshed and the creation of permanent hatred between Whites and non-Whites. Prominently outstanding here is the White frontiersmens’ development of strong negative views upon race differentiation, the belief of the baas-kneg-system and Christian-versus-heathen. This process undoubtedly incorporated a combination of negative racial cognitions, customs, traditions, opinion, beliefs and views, which they carried with them as the so-called Voortrekkers later moved further north into the two Boer-republics as well as the so-called Trekboere when they moved west and east into the rest of the country. This combination of negative racial cognitions, customs, traditions, beliefs and views also streamed into the Union in 1910 and later into the nationalist Afrikaners’ short lived Verwoerdian republic. It laid the foundation of racism and racial disharmony, with a pivot around land owneship, which has been the country’s main problem until today.3,4,28-31

Referring to the criminal actions of the White frontiersmen/proto-Afrikaners at the Cape, Louw36 describes them as36:32: “…White men who became in their own right sheriffs, cowboys, outlaws and crooks in a completely unorganised border area”.

Geen3 refers to the disorderly and law evasive actions of the White frontiersmen and proto-Afrikaners as follows3:23-24: “In fact, since that it had appeared as though the central government was leaving the defense of the borders to the frontiersmen, so that in time they came to look upon themselves not only as their own defense but as a law unto themselves”, and3:68-69: “They had become a race of extreme individualists with an inherited suspicion of any authority and discipline, so that they viewed with dismay the steady extension of magisterial districts, which in their eyes meant stricter government control…”

Deneys Reitz3 reflects on these early Afrikaners as follows3:69: “Knowing my countrymen as I do, I think the cause of their leaving [Great Trek] was not so much hatred of British rule as a dislike of any rule”.

3.2.4.1.3. Presence of terrorism coming from the proto-Afrikanerism

Looking critically at the foundation of the racist and defiant thinking of the early Afrikaners, is it clear that they expressed their Afrikanerism without inhibition, and among their uninhibited wrongdoings are terrorist attacks upon non-Whites, especially when land grabbing was present. Louw5 contends5:18:

“It is very important to pause for a moment to consider this early Boer mentality and their views of what is civilised and uncivilised behaviour, of what is right and wrong. Land grabbing and suppression of other groups were part of their way of doing things”.

In this context of anarchy, according to Louw5 , is it important to look again at Powell’s6 description of terrorism, which reads6:9: “Violence against a person and/or serious damage to property designed to influence a government or an international organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public with the aim of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause”.

Louw5 further posits5:18:“When considering the actions of the Boers, it resembles Saddam Hussein’s unlawful occupation of Kuwait that caused the world to react with full military force. In modern times, the behaviour of the early Boers would bring them before the International Criminal Court for terrorism, the unlawful occupation of foreign land and murder”.

In perspective, the early land grabbing and the murder of indigenous people going with this process, was not a “bad” characteristic of the White colonists (proto-Afrikaners/White frontiersmen) alone, but also of the early Cape authorities. This inclination to criminal delinquency and terrorism, together with a socio-economic and political functioning seated in anarchy to disturb the indigenous peoples’ harmonious living (and the internalising of it as “correct and justified” cognitions in the mindsets of the settlers), are often reflected in the Cape’s political history by the actions of specific government commanders and governors. Jan van Riebeeck, the first commander at the Cape Settlement, began this process. Besides his public racism of a policy that non-Whites could be owned as slaves by the VOC and by the free burghers, and thus the right of Whites to buy and sell these slaves as “human livestock”, stands prominent in his punitive actions against the indigenous KhoiKhoi groups who took up arms against the settlers who occupied the KhoiKhoi’s traditional land.5,6 In this context of terrorism and steered anarchy, Louw36 posits36:15: “The KhoiKhoi War (1658-1660) spells the first driving out of the non-White KhoiKhoi from their traditional lands in the Liesbeeck Valley. This was undoubtedly the first commission of White terrorism to non-Whites in South Africa and land grabbing by Whites, as guided by the British definition on modern day terrorism”.

These terrorism acts against the indigenous Khoi-Khoi and the KhoiSan (and later also the Xhosas) take a much more serious stance under governors Hendrik Swellengrebel (1739-1750), Ryk Tulbagh (1751-1771) and Joachim van Plettenberg (1773-1785) and continued until the end of VOC rule at the Cape. From a White political perspective the KhoiSan (and less often the KhoiKhoi) were a prominent “non-White problem” due to the non-Whites’ resistance to the grabbing of their land by the incoming Whites. This early grabbing of land ensured serious racial disharmony and bloodshed.3,7,29-31

The propagandists maintain that although the KhoiSan were hunters and not farmers permanently established upon specific land to do their farming, their traditional land and territory were very important to them. Certain areas of South Africa, notwithstanding a lack of inhabitants or a population, were claimed over many years by the KhoiSan as their exclusive hunting grounds and property; areas from which they had even driven out the in-coming Blacks. These traditions and customs of the KhoiSan were principles that were not well respected by many of the unruly White frontiersmen and the White authorities who started to occupy the best grazing land of the KhoiSan. (Indeed, this illegal land grabbing became a habit and later a custom which characterised the Afrikaners/Whites actions up to 1994 and remains central in the ANC’s present land corrections politics).3-5

The KhoiSan resisted the plan of the VOC Government to subordinate them and to organise their land ownership in terms of White colonialism. They started an organised resistance in the form of guerilla attacks in order to drive out the White frontiersmen who they saw as illegally occupying their traditional hunting areas. Louw36 reflects36:33: “For the KhoiSan this ‘White barbarism’ of continuous land-grabbing was a serious threat to their future existence and a reason for justified war. They organised four ‘wars’, more like guerilla onslaughts, in 1715, 1731, 1738 and 1754 against the White frontiersmen…”

In their reprisal attacks the KhoiSan resorted to great cruelty against the White frontiersmen – methods similar to those which are seen today in much terrorist fighting. Geen3, Louw4 and Van der Walt31 confirm these cruelties committed by the KhoiSan, meted out with as much possible pain and damage upon their White enemy.3,4,7,29-31 Between 1 July 1786 and 31 December 1788, 107 cattle watchmen were murdered, and 99 horses, 6,299 cattle and 17970 sheep were stolen or killed. On this immense force of arms Van der Walt,31 writes31:102:

During the last thirty years of the century, a bloody guerilla war full of hatred and bitterness developed. The Bushmen did not lose any chance to steal or destroy, to burn down farm houses and to murder farmers or cattle watchmen. The farmers shot all the Bushmen that they could get in their sights, and commandos were destroyed as often as possible [Bushmen]. In 1777 the government approved a war of extermination (Own translation).

Although the KhoiSan’s guerilla warfare spreading out over the vast borderline of the Cape Colony was initially successful, their primitive weaponry and moving by foot made them easy targets for the White frontiersmen, who moved fast on horses in large groups with guns. The Boer frontiersmen’s counter attacks (the so-called KhoiSan hunting parties, and what Van der Walt describes as governmental approved wars of extermination), were executed in the form of organised commandos. Mostly these commandos’ actions were uncontrolled and unauthorised, but in some of these counter actions the VOC Government, as said, gave formal permission, which sometimes lead to extreme cruelty against the KhoiSan. These punitive expeditions ended in the killing of hundreds of KhoiSan, basically for one thing: their traditional land.3,7,29-31

With regard to the tragic outcomes perpetuated on the KhoiSan by one of these official so-called wars of extermination of the KhoiSan by the Cape Whites (in which, as mentioned, land-ownership was central), Geen3 reports3:28 that in 1774 the Council of Policy of the Cape organised a large commando under Godlieb Opperman. The attack on the KhoiSan stretched over three hundred miles of the borderland and for the loss of one burgher, the commando captured over two hundred KhoiSan women and children of whom most were apprenticed (meaning enslaved) to members of the commando, while over five hundred male Bushmen were killed.

The question is asked by the propagandists how the constant and senseless killing of the KhoiSan, driven illegally from their original living space by the White frontiersmen since 1652, differs from crimes against humanity and whether it was not genocide? For the propagandists this represents it as a well planned scheme by the White occupiers to wipe the KhoiSan out. (Today the KhoiSan remain only in very small numbers in the Kalahari Desert and South-West Africa). The treatment of the KhoiSan in the 1600s to 1700s for the propagandists is an excellent example of the dehumanising and distancing as human beings the KhoiSan underwent at the hand of White individuals, as well as an official policy of dehumanising and distancing of non-Whites allowed and activated by the White authorities themselves since the Cape Settlement started up in 1652. For the propagandists it confirms that the respect of White South Africans, specifically White landowners, for the lives, land rights and the happiness of non-White people’s lives and use of their traditional land, already went wrong in the 1700s. Most of all, it gives the propagandists an in-depth insight into how and why most of the White executive political leaders failed all South Africans on justified land ownership from as far back as 1652, and how and why Apartheid was born to safeguard and to exclusively guarantee Whites’ land ownership. Indeed, for the propagandists, this White supremacy on land ownership is still present in the country with the same intensity and arrogance as in the 1700s. Just read the comprehensive fake arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists to uphold the present land ownership dispensation of 1994 in articles Three and Four.3,36

The propagandists contend that the Old Israel’s political and biblical history is strikingly similar to the political history of South African under its White rulers: both boast the same radical ideologies and doctrine upon racism, cultural dogmas, race-blood purity, religious blindness, politically murderous intentions and extreme land grabbing. (In the present day the same ideologies and doctrine politics are followed by New Israel against the Arabs and are accepted unquestioned as correct by the western Christian world).5 On this intertwining of an Afrikaner/Jewish contaminated foundation in the exclusive use of racial violence to effect land grabbing, Louw5 postulates5:2:

The Jews of the Old Testament perpetrated violence tantamount to a rape of humanity, shedding the blood of the innocent. It did not matter if the victims were men, women or children in their own homeland. Their actions were justified as a divine command. Today these murderous biblical acts of ethnic and racial cleansing and land grabbing would be classified as psychopathic and mentally disturbed behaviour upon the part of political and religious leaders.

In addition the two Dutch researchers, Boot-Siertsema and Boot2, highlight this doctrine of an intertwined Jewish godlike biblical right in the mindsets of South African Afrikaners/Whites, contaminating their political thinking, planning and action from the 1600s until today, when they write2:38:

Naast de tot nu toe besproken vormen van racism, vindt men, met name in Zuid-Afrika, nog een derde factor die leidt tot het striven de verschillende rassen apart te houden. Die factor zou men “rasgeloof” kunnen noemen: het geloof dat God de Heer de verschillende rassen geschapen heeft, dat Hij ze zó gewild heeft, en dat de aldus “door God gestelde grenzen” tussen hen niet door rassen-menging mogen worden uitgewist. Bij dit geloof komt nog het gevoel van overeenkomst van het Afrikanerdom met het volk van Israël, dat immers ook huis en have verliet om in een nieuw land, na veel strijd en ontbering, met Gods hulp een eigen leven op te bouwen, waarbij het uitdrukkelijk de opdracht kreeg zich niet met de omringende heidense volken te vermengen. Dat deze opdracht inherent was aan de unieke positie van het volk Israël als theocratie, is een verschil waaraan men voorbijgaat; men concentreert zich op de punten van ooreenkomst.

Over time, the abovementioned God-permitted and God-driven cognition to devastate the non-Whites in their White-supremacy became internalised in the mindsets of the Afrikaner-volk with time, according to the propogandists. The cleansing of their political, economical and human memory by the Afrikaners/Whites of their White frontiersmens’ and their White rulers’ grabbing of the non-Whites’ land (and their killing of non-Whites to succeed in this intention) are undoubtedly bordering on psychopathic and mentally disturbed behaviour.4,38

To understand the contaminated White supremacy thinking of the Afrikaners/Whites embedded in their God-permitted and -driven cognition in their right to practice politics up to 1994, the propagandists focus specifically upon HF Verwoerd’s unique godsend thinking and action.39-41 In describing the background to the day when Dimitri Tsafendas murdered Verwoerd in the Cape Parliament on the 6th September 1966, Dousemetzis40 reflects in this context of divine selection and driving of especially the nationalist Afrikaners, as follows upon the person Verwoerd40:15-16:

As he reached his seat, Verwoerd looked towards the spectators’ gallery for his wife, but she was not in her usual place, delayed by a crowded elevator.

He turned to acknowledge greetings from the National Party MPs around him.

The prime minister was in high spirits, even jaunty, and with reason: the national economy was booming, thanks to cheap black labour, with the highest growth rate in the world after Japan. A few months earlier, his party had comfortably won a new term in office. Commanding the space around him, smiling, nodding, confident, he looked unassailable, a picture of total power.

Indeed, he thoughy God was on his side. Six years earlier he had survived the bullets of David Pratt, a sure sign, Dr Verwoerd said, that God approved of his race policies and had spared him to ensure their implementation. Was it this miraculous survival that made him unafraid of assassins? Was it faith in divine protection that emboldened him to remark in 1962, “If someone really wants to kill you, it’s not a very hard job. One thing is certain, there’s no point going around worrying about it.”

He was about to discover that when it came to his race policies and implementing apartheid, his God had changed his mind.

Louw36, with regard to the internalising of deviating and wrongdoing inclination of the proto-Afrikaners (which the propagandists see still to be present in today’s Afrikaners), concludes36:34: “To issue the approval for the cold-blooded mass termination of other humans – people [KhoiSan] who were here in South Africa long before the Europeans, and basically to steal their land for self-enrichment – is unforgiveable. Any person or group wiping out a tribe, not only by their direct killing, but also by robbing them of their economics and livelihood and erasing them from society, is/are real Frankenstein monsters”.

Bruce42 also posits about this early White immense wrongdoing42:20: “Face it, though, Europeans didn’t arrive here with the noblest of intentions. Centuries later, white people in South Africa still don’t sleep easy. With the land question now palpably spreading fear, South Africa is once again approaching a watershed.”

With reference to the so-called terrorist inclinations and actions of the ANC against the NP regime from the 1950s to 1994, as demonstrated many times by the antagonists in Articles Three and Four, the propagandists emphasise, in light of above evidence, 1) that the antagonists could not identify and enumerate the so-called mass of Whites killed pre-1994 by the ANC’s freedom fighters; 2) the number of Whites killed pre-1994 never came close to the more than 500 KhoiSan killed in one attack alone by Whites; 3) since 1994 there was not a single incident of land grabbing or murder of Whites to take their land by the ANC regime.

Although it still took another 25 years for the ANC to break the NP regime’s racism and their godsent political journey after the murder of Verwoerd, it seems for the propagandists that God changed his mind fully at last in 1994, finally stopping the terrorism of the Whites which originated in 1652. For the propagandists the presence of terrorism in the pre- and post-1948 Afrikaners/White regime was by far more comprehensive than that of the pre-1994 ANC.39-41

3.2.5. Ongoing political and social delinquency of the White burghers of Transvaal, Free State, Union and Republic of South Africa

The suppression and terrorising of other groups, specifically the non-Whites, to execute land grabbing, became a permanent characteristic of the proto-Afrikaners, according to the propagandists. As the White frontiersmen on the Cape borders, many of the Trekboers and Voortekkers, as well as their offspring moved northwards, they were also beset with the same negative internalised cognitions on race, land ownership and a watered-down concept of justice and the practice of law and order, as part of their lifestyle. This delinquent deviation also later filtered into the mindsets of the burghers of the Union and the Republic, leading to Grand Apartheid and the immense suppression of non-Whites and land grabbing.3,5

Political histories show that negative patterns of thought and behaviour – such as self-enrichment and self-empowerment, racial aggression and racial discrimination, which includes the abuse and exploitation of people of other races – forged by years of bad exposure, examples and compensation in the mindset of persons, makes them extreme socio-economic and political transgressors, and are not easily erased from their thinking, planning and action. The Afrikaners/Whites are for the propagandists not exemptions in this setup of delinquent transgression. This is supremely reflected by the antagonists’ present day belief about their legitimate rights of land ownership and extraordinary White rights, notwithstanding the facts that show it to be myths and fables. The fact that the antagonists will not easily reclaim their lost privileges, rights, benefits and empowerments in post-1994 South Africa, make their daily actions more rigid, unchangeable and even dangerous in their efforts to uphold their fake status quo on political and economic empowerment and rights. Their troubled holding onto land that is mostly not theirs, is suddenly a shocking reality for the antagonists and a must to address, which of course they don’t want to do, according to the propagandists.4

The propagandists feel that the Afrikaners as individuals and as a tribe are over-estimating their current importance, role and empowerment in South Africa, to steer away the intended land expropriation initiative. The negative impact of inciting resistance to any political change by the so-called Afrikaner/White rescuers and saviours is immense and continues mostly unnoticed. For the propagandists, the Afrikaners/Whites refuse to accept the political reality and fact that they are probably moving towards dissolution in a century’s time, with, in the mean time, the mass of Blacks waiting impatiently for the correction of the age old injustice on land ownership. The propagandists believe that many Afrikaners are also missing out absolutely on the deep rooted land issue, which goes further than only land grabbing, into the Black tribes’ collective memory and the bitterness which is still with many Blacks. This Black collective memory and bitterness is well reflected by the Makgoba-clan of Makgoba’s Kloof, Limpopo, for their loss of land and the clan baTlou of Makgoba’s Kloof who want back the skull of their murdered great-great grandfather for a decent burial.8 There are undoubtedly manifold cries for revenge for the injustices surrounding Apartheid among some Blacks. Louw4 writes4:173: “Many Blacks still mourn loved ones who were mistreated or killed by the apartheid managers and their accomplices. Many struggle to escape the impoverishment they suffered at the hand of White regimes, especially by the nationalist Afrikaners after 1948”. The political history referred to by Pheko9, of the grabbing of Blacks’ land by Whites as a crime against humanity, makes immediate and comprehensive land expropriation a matter for the propagandists which needs to be urgently addressed and corrected by the present day governmental authority.8,9

In light of the above realities is Ramaphosa’s43 declaration that43:4: “…we are going to take land and when we take land we are going to take it without compensation”, in some way an unavoidable and sane governmental decision for the propagandists to rectify the unjust political history of South Africa.

For the propagandists, justified land redistribution to the poor and landless Blacks is indeed now an absolute. It is a hard fact, a final outcome and a guideline to understand Ramaphosa’s honest political intentions. It represents not Ramafear or Ramaflipflop, as the antagonists in their political confusion and hostility against Ramaphosa and the ANC elite reflect, as they try to obstruct land expropriation, but Ramaforia and Ramajustice for the masses. It is indeed for the propagandists Ramareality to bring not only prosperity to the mass of poor and landless Blacks, but also to bring South Africans in general peace and harmony at last.44

If a comprehensive land redistribution initiative, acceptable for the poor and landless Blacks, is not activated in 2019 – it does not matter who is the government of the day — the propagandists believe that the 1980s drive by Blacks to take over the regime violently, is again at hand. This time the “liberation” movement will be far more radical: the pre-1980s agitation’s empowerment and radical role players, of which Boot-Siertsema and Boot2 wrote in 1982 and feared then as an outcome, are still waiting and need very little incentive to be activated in the extreme2:394:

Daarom is elke aanmoediging tot revolutie, elke steun aan guerrilla’s en terreur in de huidige situatie onverantwoord en buiten elke competentie van religieuze autoriteiten. Want het betekent de vernietging van elke mogelijkheid tot same-leven van Blank en Niet-Blank, die onomstotelijk in dit land toch samen verder zullen moeten.

3.2.6. Coming horrors of the regimes of Mao, Stalin and Mugabe

To offer the horrors of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s regime or Robert Mugabe’s land grabbing policy in Zimbabwe as examples of how badly the present day South African land expropriation can or will turn out, are seen as planned malevolent distractions from South Africa’s political realities by the antagonists. These actions by the antagonists are also seen by the propagandists as outright planned distractions of the local and international public of the Whites’ vicious behaviour for centuries to non-Whites in their stealing of land. South Africa’s political history from 1652 to 1994 under White rule is for the propagandists saturated with long term land grabbing and its horrors, equal to that of Mao, Stalin and Mugabe. Looking critically at the history of these land thefts and accompanying horrors carried out by Whites (mostly proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners) to Blacks, stretching over more than three centuries, very little reference to it is made by Afrikaner historians and politicians.45-49

Evaluating the books of the so-called imminent nationalist Afrikaner historians and politicians on the “goodness of the opening of the South African hinterland for civilisation by the White frontiersmen, Trekboere, Voortrekkers and the later proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners from 1652 to 1994” and their heroic deeds, minimum reference is presented of the Whites’ horrors and delinquency to Blacks. The only negative outcomes ever described as devastating and horrifying, or as extreme land grabbing, which frequently go with genocide and crimes against humanity, are mostly reflected by dissident English speaking historians and some Black historians whose opinions and facts were mostly suppressed by the White regimes. If the horrors of the various South African White regimes, spreading out over more than three centuries, are condensed into a time frame of two to three decades, the propagandists doubt that the horrors of Mao, Stalin and Mugabe could be worse.45-49

With regard to the European or Western world, the South African Whites’ fellowship until today there was or is in terms of the Whites wrongdoings to non-Whites no reference or comparison of a “Rwanda kind of South African genocide”, which the propagandists feel is truely present in the country’s 1652 to 1994 history. Indeed, the propagandists mention the high “integrity standing” of the White governments internationally, and that during the heydays of Grand Apartheid and the comprehensive, extreme wrongdoings by the NP regime to Blacks, foreign White capital flowed into South Africa and the South African rand was on its highest levels ever against the dollar and the pound. The White business bullies’ interests, locally and internationally, came first, as it does today, before Black suffering. This extreme White hypocrisy is for the propagandists again reflected today, as mentioned, by some White business and political groups, driven by their so-called Afrikaners/Whites saviours and rescuers, in their actions to activate false fears in the White community about a so-called genocide awaiting them under a future ANC regime, basically to assure the ongoing exclusive White empowerment and capital.45-49

With specific reference to the negative “Zimbabwe factor” of the Mugabe regime, excessively alleged by the antagonists to be present in South Africa’s land reform, the differences are immense, making it basically incomparable. In Zimbabwe land reform led to horrors against the Whites under Mugabe, while in South Africa it has remained so far only a heated discussion between Whites and Blacks. The only clear similarity is the obstinacy of Zimbabwean Whites, who hung on to excessive land obtained through exclusive stealing of land, begun by Cecil John Rhodes, and that of South African Whites who are at present rigidly also hanging on to their excessive stolen land, refusing some realistic compromises. For the propagandists the tragic outcome of Mugabe’s revenge on the early land grabbing by Whites in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) is due to their rigid and foolish refusal to make a justified re-allocation of land to Blacks. This is the primary reason why the ANC regime intends to now activate, in time, orderly land reform in order to avoid bloodshed.45-49

The propagandists posit that the enclosing of the references to Mao’s Cultural Revolution or the horrors of Stalin’s regime or any other kind of murderous intentions are decisive outcomes in South Africa’s planned land reform by the ANC regime. It is applicable to future actions and behaviour to be expected from the ANC regime or poor and landless Blacks in the intended land reform. It is not only inappropriate, but an enormous insult to the ANC regime and to the South African Blacks per se, as failures can lead to mismanagent of the country effectively and wisely. For the propagandists, this confirms again the immense arrogance and race supremacy of some exclusively White capitalists and politicians, coming from the pre-1994 days, showing again unpunished “colonial” Black bias by Whites with their categorisation of Blacks one hundred and eighteen years ago with the forming of the Union as incompetent and uncivilised to run South Africa as a country. This false, negative racial categorisation of Blacks as people and as leaders, as done by well-known White politicians and leaders of that time who attended the Cape Convention in 1908 to design and to establish the Union Act in founding the Union of South Africa in 1910, is fully highlighted by the historian MS Geen3 in his book: “The Making of the Union of South Africa. A brief history: 1487-1939”.

The propagandists emphasise that since 1994, there has not been any physical, political, emotional or economic revenge-taking in any way by either the ANC regime or the Black population on the Whites in South Africa for their uncountable wrongdoings of Apadrheid, or specifically the Whites’ centuries of land grabbing and the killing of the indigenous people, i.e the termination of the KhoiSan, Zulus or Xhosas by the proto-Afrikaners.4

3.2.7. ANC regime’s alleged corruption and crimes unique in the South African political history

The constant references by the antagonists to the present day ANC’s alleged corruption as being unique to South African political history, is also a farce. The propagandists do not dispute the presence of corruption and state capture which reached a climax under the reign of Jacob Zuma and which the Ramaphosa regime is now busy trying to erase, but the pre-1994 White regimes are polluted as well, if not more than the present day ANC regime. Many of the corruption crimes of the late NP and its leaders passed comfortably into the forgotten as its leaders had started to die since 1994.

Looking to the early political history of the country’s corruption statistics and records, coming from Jan van Riebeeck, up to the immense evidence of corruption and theft of state assets personally by Simon van der Stel and Willem van der Stel, these wrongdoings by far overshadow the alleged wrongdoings of Jacob Zuma. The discussion by the antagonists of the ANC regime as a so-called suppressive regime with the focus upon Whites, not only politically but also economically since 1994, is pie in the sky for the propagandists: the NP regime was an utmost autocratic/fascistic regime with no mercy for Black Nationalism and its political, social, personal and economical rights. Evidence is there that these various White regimes, especially under the NP between 1948 and 1994, were saturated with serious political and socio-economical wrongdoings. Their daily doings were saturated with the murder of the NP’s opponents by their assassins such as Eugene De Kock and the NP’s security forces. These included “justified” cross-border murdering raids into Zambia, Botswana, Angola and Zimbabwe, even Europe of political opponents. There is evidence of manifold other murdering sprees of the NP regime. These actions are indeed, as illustrated already, equal to the horrors committed by Mao, Stalin and Mugabe. If there can be spoken of a specific “regime of horrors”, which characterised South Africa’s history, is it for the propagandists the NP regime from 1948 to 1994, par excellence.45-49

For the antagonists to accuse the ANC regime of being ridden by financial or political scandals alone is hypocrisy. The NP’s leaders BJ Vorster and PW Botha were basically fired as executive leaders due to their extreme political wrongdoings, wherein state money was paramount. With the references by the antagonists to the present day political murders of members of the ANC regime, as manifested in Natal-KwaZulu, is it important to note the murder of Dr Robert Smit of the inner circle of the NP just before the Information Scandal came to light and the alleged illegal transfer of state money overseas. Indeed there are still today allegations hanging in the air of the direct involvement of the inner circle of the NP regime in the murders of the Swedish anti-Apartheid prime minister Olof Palme, as well as that of their own prime minister, HF Verwoerd, because he allegedly decide to dump Apartheid and to follow the assimilation plan of the Tomlinson Commission. There are still unanswered allegations of the buying and the ownership of property in the state of Andorra and in various South American states with alleged stolen state money by some of the previous leaders of the NP-AB-alliance, to serve as safe havens if the NP fell flat and the NP leaders were to be prosecuted. Looking further at the allegations by the antagonists of the present day so-called actions of horror by the ANC regime to supress the political freedom of the individual, the prominent question by the propagandists around the practise of outright democracy, is “is there any evidence that the ANC regime locked up political dissidents, like journalists, Whites, public critics, or murdered them as the NP’s security forces did at the John Vorster Building”? The answer for the propagandists is over and over: No.3-5, 7, 36,39-41,45-49-51,53-55,57,58

On the book account of criminal wrongdoings, the question for the propagandists is: can the ANC-regime ever be more “evil” than the NP? Can Cyril Ramaphosa, who is now the focus of the antagonists’ anger, because he dares to try to obtain racial, economical and political stability and citizen’s peace, ever be as bad as DF Malan, JG Strydom, HF Verwoerd or PW Botha? For the propagandists, their answer of no is justified and undoubtedly the truth. The evidence is overwhelming to condemn the pre-1994 political White rulers’ corruption and crimes against humanity, by far worse than the ANC regime coming into power in 1994.3-5,7,36,39-41,45-49-51,53-55,57,58

When Mthombothi10 speaks about Africa being betrayed by its leaders and says it’s now time to call them to book, the propagandists point fingers at the antagonists’ NP leaders, saying that they must be first in line to do punishment and not the ANC leaders. For the propagandists the corrupt NP leaders and politicians were (and are still, with their indirect economic and exclusive capitalism, immensely empowered today) an obstacle to the country’s and its people’s progress. When Mthombothi says10:17: “They are the authors of our misfortune”, he is fully correct. When pinpointing: “A pig with lipstick is still a pig”, those “political pigs” were undoubtedly very plentiful in the NP regime up to 1994. Many of these NP politicians did not pass away and are still active behind the scenes to profile the ANC’s elite regime with fake data in order to portray them as “untrustworthy and corrupt”.10

Looking critically at the antagonists’ comprehensive attack on the ANC regime in an effort to shamelessly and corruptly keep the Whites’ land and economic empowerment in place at all costs by their portrayal of the ANC regime as a political horror and a Dracula to rise after the 2019 Election, De Groot59 gives insight in the antagonists present day delinquent thinking and political wrongdoings, when he writes59:16: “South Africans are never short of things to argue about, but the level of debate (for want of a better word) at the moment is staggering”. The NP’s leaders were and are still masters in cementing false and distracting arguments in their political debates.

According to the propagandists, the antagonists’ aimless and unfounded fighting off of the intended expropriation of White land, together with their constant opposition of the good politics and the good actions of the ANC regime, are undoubtedly founded in criminal mindsets. The propagandists declare that these fixed behaviour inclinations and motivations of the antagonists are delinquent in terms of the philosophy of the school of scientific thought which posits that human beings develop illogical and foolish thinking, not in order to think more rationally, or to grow in the understanding of reality, or to act correctly and with integrity, but purely to be able to manipulate and to persuade others that they (antagonists) are absolutely correct (although in reality totally incorrect). As such, they must get what they want and must be followed outright and unquestioned. This base of thinking harks very much to the etiology of psychopathology and thus abnormal behaviour and personal deviance. The propagandists associate this with the White frontiersmen, proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners’ psychopathological behaviour of land grabbing and “termination” of non-Whites in their years of politics.3,4,59

On the much so-called “overwhelming evidence” offered by the antagonists of the immensely bad and delinquent behavior inherent to the ANC regime since 1994 (and before as a so-called “terrorist organisation), specifically their intended land redistribution, it must be noted that it is a tall story. This created blindness by the antagonists to the good actions and strong position of the ANC in South Africa (since 1994 the ANC won every election at the ballot box, while the antagonistic groups lost constant support). The prominent self-created blindness on the good actions and strong position of ANC, is reflected by the IRR. An example is their foolish unrealistic favoring of the creation of an Afrikaner homeland wherein the Afrikaners’ so-called rights, needs and wishes can be obtained and be maintained, notwithstanding that the facts nullify their fantasies of such a need by the majority of Afrikaners (remember: less than 10% of the Afrikaners/Whites support the antagonists and IRR’s foolishness).60,61

Central for the propagandists is the antagonists’ rigid and one-sided political lifestyle and their faulty overall evaluation of the ANC regime as only bad in terms of the antagonists self-compiled but corrupt good-bad-classification. This is an outcome well confirmed by the antagonists’ reflection of only criticism at all times against the ANC regime, lacking any evidence to support this criticism. This history of a one-sided classification by the antagonists of an “all wrong with Black South Africans”, in comparison with their “always good White South Africans”, relays the propagandists again to the presence of psychopathology which is disabling and clouding the antagonists’ logical reasoning and actions in the end.60, 61

3.2.8. Biological assimilation with Blacks as a final outcome for Whites

There was a strong introspective belief with the proto-Afrikaners, as well as the later Afrikaners, that the non-Whites and later Blacks, as a mass population, were waiting in silence since 1652 to gobble them up somewhere in the future. This foolish belief, as borne out by the propagandists, did not happen in 1994 and will not happen ever in the future. What is logical, based upon the political histories of many nations and minority groups coming over thousand of years, is that when two opposite peoples meet in the same living area, the weaker one is in the long term mostly culturally, socie-conomically and biologically overpowered by the stronger one. In most cases, the weaker group is gradually absorbed, many times after decades and centuries, leaving it without influence or presence in the new society. In many cases a new society develops after a process of adaptation and intermingling between the various elements of the initial groups. The process of integration takes place mostly very slowly and insignificantly in the beginning, but forms a comprehensive integration in the end. With South Africa’s complex multiracial society, wherein the Blacks are immensely large in numbers and strong in culture, the long-term intent and reality of this process began with the first contact in the 1830s. This already reflected then most of the four intertwined steps: firstly cultural assimilation; secondly economic assimilation; thirdly social assimilation coupled to political assimilation and fourthly biological assimilation.4

Normal biological assimilation, it seems for the propagandists, is the antagonists’ biggest unspoken fear and is forcing the Afrikaners/Whites to desperate actions, such as the vast amount of false accusations and allegations sent out by the antagonists about the ANC regime’s integrity and the ANC’s so-called intention to terminate the Whites presence in the country. Prominent is the process of land expropriation fingered by the antagonists as the first step in this intended termination.4,12,56,61,62

Undoubtedly, the fear of a final biological assimilation is at present driving the antagonists to desperate and senseless actions. Louw’s4 research emphasises that research such as that of the Tomlinson Commission56 already indicated in 1955 only one of two choices for the Afrikaner: integration or segregation, with integration already then evident as the best option for the country’s people in the long term, and already activated in the 1950s. In this context Louw writes that in 1955, the Afrikaners were already in the stage of social assimilation in the South African greater society. In the 1980s they moved into political assimilation and the equalisation of the Black and White civilisations.4,62-64

Hereto the1994 dispensation fully activated social assimilation. The antagonists, still captured in their mindset of destructive White supremacy and their upkeep of the so-called pure White bloodline, tried to fight off the ANC regime’s positive and creative actions to stabilise the country socio-economically and politically, but biological assimilation was then activated. In this setup the advent of Blackness and Black political dominance and rule, are a reality. But, prominent for the propagandists, were all the assimilation steps, with the Blacks in charge since 1994, free from revenge on or genocide of the previously White suppressors. Clearly evident is the Blacks’ positive behaviour, opposite to the extremely delinquent behaviour which characterised the White rule from 1652 to 1994. At present the Afrikaners are within biological assimilation with the Black population. This finalising of a new South African nation, wherein the Afrikaners are going to be dissolved by intermixing with the Blacks and by their natural dying out as a specific group, is now being activated. Louw indicates that the process will be fully complete in a century’s time. Indeed, the process is busy erasing, besides the obstructive and foolish fighting of reality by the constant diminishing number of antagonists, the impact of the Afrikaners as role-players in the obstruction of land reform. For many realistic and future-thinking Afrikaners, immediate land redistribution is a must. This comprehensive, but orderly, land expropriation initiative, can amount in support to so much as 90% of the Afrikaner/White population. For the propagandists, the current efforts by a small group of antagonists (although strongly empowered by their power it seems over the total media of South Africa, in order to propagate their doctrine) to derail land expropriation with false accusations of the horrors of Mao, Stalin or Mugabe awaiting Whites in post-2019 South Africa, is only a temporary nuisance and will also, as the antagonists and the so-called saviours and rescuers of the Afrikaners/Whites, are departing fast from the scene.4,45-49,58

For the propagandists, it is thus now the correct time to take on the antagonists’ false “truths” on the intended ANC regime’s land expropriation. Guiding the propagandists in this alignment of the renewal of facts and the phasing out of many lies is the writing of John Berger59:16:

History is rewritten because new information emerges all the time. Fresh accounts of experiences, sometimes from unexpected sources, can alter the way we look at the past and change our minds about what we thought we knew”, while “the relation between what we see and what we know is never settled”.

New, true facts emerge upon the Afrikaners/Whites bad past, supplied many times by the majority of Afrikaners/Whites themselves, which are altering and positively changing the mindsets of the majority of Afrikaners/Whites on the integrity of the ANC and the Black population, to make South Africa a better place for all. This improvement for all its inhabitantswas obtained by the ANC in the short period of 25 years of reign, while the White regimes could not show any equal success in their more than three centuries of reign. The NP specifically, in its 46 years of government and racial Grand Apartheid, failed outright to do any good to ordinary individual South Africans.4

The facts are there for the propagandists that the ANC regime’s intentions and aims with land reform are noble and focused upon a better South Africa for all, something the antagonists know very well that they failed to do from 1652. Central to this process of future harmony in Black-White-thinking on the land issue, is for the propagandists, the process of the intermixing of Whites with Blacks.

What the so-called rescuers of the Afrikaners/Whites anticipate on the “upkeep forever” of an exclusive socio-economic and political empowered of the lily White Afrikaner-race in South Africa, is still vested in the way (Lady) Ruth Khama’s (born Williams) British father reacted when she told him in September 1948 she was going to marry (Sir) Seretse Khama.65,66 Sue Grant-Marshall65 in her book; “Your People Will Be My People”, reflects65:19:

Ruth told her parents about it. Her father’s reaction was worse than anticipated.

Mr. Williams, who was absolutely shattered by the news of which he did not have the faintest inkling, responded with a cold, icy anger.

His deeply ingrained prejudice, so well hidden over the years, was spelt out painfully clearly for Ruth. He was so opposed to mixed marriages, he said, that he would not talk to her again until she changed her mind.

“You can stay at home until you get married. After that you may not enter this home again as long as you are married to that man,” he ordered.

Ruth, whose face was as white as her father’s, realised that the painful encounter was over. She tried to persuade her father once more to meet Seretse, but he sat, face in hand, staring blankly down at the carpet, and shook his head.

How much so the anger, the staring blankly down at the carpet and how white the faces of the so-called rescuers and savers of the Afrikaners/Whites are today – the same reaction of White racism, supremacy and blood-purity reflected by Mr. Williams’. This phenomenon belongs seventy years back in the past. Today, the immense biological intermixing of Blacks and Whites in South Africa is a hard fact and a process already running at a fast pace to make future quarrels on land in terms of interfamily relations, null and void.3,4,22,65,66

3.2.9. White farmer murders

The so-called rise in farm murders is precisely the so-called “facts contradiction” as shown by the definition of John Berger, namely false “facts” which we hear in certain media sources versus “facts” about what is really happening as reflected by hard statistics. The use of “stretched statistics” by the antagonists, in their obstruction of the incoming of Black land ownership and transformation, have become a very handy information vehicle to attract the unjustified attention of the outside world and to manipulate the truths, such as the fixing in Donald Trump’s mindset of a so-called organised killing and driving of White farmers from their farms. Trump’s rhetoric is for the propagandists furthermore an excellent example of foreign White hypocrisy, mostly created by the false propaganda of the antagonists, where foreigners are ignoring and denying the bad and delinquent actions of South African Whites in the past to Blacks, together with the foreigners’ failure to recognise the antagonists’ well planned malevolent obstructions and undermining to bring about a justified new land ownership in the country.4,42,67-73

Farm murders, indeed any murder, are a concern for the propagandists, but, seen in terms of a total rise in the murder numbers of all South Africans (also in SOWETO), it is undoubtedly not a statistic only applicable to Whites, as many of the anti-Black and anti-ANC-orientated “White/Afrikaner rescuers and saviours” for obvious opportunistic reasons try to project. The so-called extraordinary number of White farmer murders is nothing but false news, solely to manipulate statistics to offer some trustworthiness to the antagonists’ growing unconvincing statements on the Whites’ unlimited rights to land ownership and their right to maintain an exclusive White farmers’ community. How masterfully this fake news is misused is evidenced by how easily sucked into the fabrication the Australian, British and American governments are.4,42,67-73

Various primary and secondary factors are equal role players in the murders of Whites as well as Blacks, like poor policing, general lack of law enforcement, immense poverty, joblessness, the social and personal isolation of races, uncontrolled gang activities, etc. No-one can dismiss the racial factor in some of the South African murder reflections, but it is insignificant in terms of the total reasons driving the commission of murders. It is important to mention that negative race opinions and views, seen from a Black inclination towards Whites, notwithstanding Apartheid’s many wrongdoings to them, are totally lacking. The average Black’s inclination and attitude is very positive to Whites. The so-called “Black danger stories”, coming from the days of Apartheid and which are still offered by the various so called Afrikaner saviours and rescuers as part of their present false and fake reflections and warnings of the “coming of the horrors of Mao, Stalin and Mugabe to Whites in South Africa”, together with the antagonists’ ongoing but unfounded claims of absolute White land-rights, are the main culprits to drive a wedge in between Blacks and Whites in order to create a false profile of so-called “Black hate for Whites”, specific by the ANC regime or the ordinary Black.4,42,67-73

Bruce42 gives insight into the selective use of data on so-called “White farmers” murders when he cautions the public on understanding the whole picture and not only that of the antagonists pinpointing wrongdoing to White farmers42:20:

“I have a deep sympathy for people who are attacked. The violence in the farm assaults is appalling and there is no justifying it. But so is it appalling on the Cape Flats. It’s appalling in rural Transkei and in downtown Johannesburg.”

Yes, the propagandists agree that Black-on-White violence can follow in the future, but then only under absolutely extreme circumstances, for instance if immediate land redistribution is deliberately and systematically blocked by the Whites, while the mass of poor Blacks go down in perilous poverty. In this case the Whites themselves are going to be the direct creators of the horrors of Mao, Stalin and Mugabe and not the ANC regime, according to the propagandists. But, be assured, this will only happen when all hope and patience have diminished from the Black mindsets, and this threshold will not easily be reached, as shown by the Blacks’ immense hope and patience to outlive Apartheid and its horrors. The fact that the mass of poor and landless Blacks respected the discriminative 1994 dispensation without revolution, or without harming in anyway the benefitting and favoured Whites, especially the White land owners, is evidence of the Blacks’ political and personal integrity and goodwill (which can surely not be said of the White occupiers of South Africa from 1652).68,74-76

Regarding the changes for a coup in South Africa, there are certain guidelines, writes Shain77. He shows that often present events, framed in terms of past occurrences, are used by political commentators as guidelines77:22: “Taking their cues from earlier trends, they identify patterns and reflect on mutations.” Although there are links between the Zimbabwe politics, the Arab Spring and the collapse of the communist regimes in Europe in 1989 and present day South Africa, the propagandists believe that the South African setup differs more from these setups than it reflects similarities. Prominent here is a sound democracy which the present ANC regime underwrites and will respect if they lose the 2019 Election, while the South African Defense Force is not connected to domestic policies, etc., in order to get involved in a coup. Land expropriation, bringing death to White land owners, is out. If the mass of the poor and the landless resorts to violence directly upon the Whites, the action of security would be in favour of the Whites in the upholding of law and order, according to the opinion of the propagandists.

Remember: In the most of bloody civil wars the availability and ownership of water, food and accommodation played a central part when these essential shortcomings occurred for long periods in the greater community. This tragic outcome only follows when there is not free land to build a house on and free land to make a living from. These were the primary reasons for delinquent land grabbing and many times genocide perpetuated by the White frontiersmen on the eastern and north-western borders of the Cape Colony, as well as the Voortrekkers in northern South Africa. Grouping together persons because of the same needs, thinking and anger, etc. by the various culprits are far greater drivers than pure racially orientated drivers. It is due to this concern that the ANC regime tries to steer constructive land redistribution so as to economically empower the mass of landless and poor Blacks. The dangerous driver here is poverty (created by White Apartheid) and not because the mass of the landless and the poor is Black: the phenomenon of the presence of Blacks is accidental.3,4,75,76

The propagandists’ emphasise that the sometimes public White-bashing by prominent Black politicians’ with remarks such as: “We will not now kill the Whites”, are misused and blown up by cunning antagonists to reflect a false hatred and aggression of Blacks for Whites. These kinds of political credos and rhetoric must not be taken seriously, warn the propagandists to the general public. It is limited to a small group of political trouble-makers and opportunists – better known as populists, autocrats, thieves and manipulators in present day South African politics – who are not only focusing their infantile aggression on the Whites, but are also intensely focusing it on the ANC elite and many other Blacks who oppose these radicals’ actions. The propagandists want to make it clear that the EFF and its radicals are not part of the ANC: not now and not in the future. This present “association” is a false one, created exclusively by the antagonists: indeed the DA is much nearer to the EFF than the ANC – it is the DA’s political partner in municipality management!68,74-76

It is of great importance to note than when the antagonists are forced to give more clarity on their statements and postulations on statics relating to “White farm murders”, they fail to react. Firstly, there is no clear definition of what a farm murder is. Secondly, there is also not a clear definition on what a farm is as an entity. African Check’s research could not find a constructive foundation in the data of the Freedom Front Plus (FFP), the national data or other research, making the conclusion of the finding of the FFP’s 133 per 100 000 people of so-called farm murders versus the 33 per 100 000 people as the average murder ratio per annum convincing. Thirdly, according to Bruce42, there is evidence that the present system offers many opportunities to manipulate data and to “stretch” it to fit the antagonists’ aims to mislead the public. The opportunity is present to raise the ratio unhindered (from 33:100 000 to 133:100 000, meaning a difference of 100:100 000!). For instance the misleading counting of one farmer per farm is used, rather than all the family members and labourers living on the farm. Fourthly, there is a clear lack of location of the murders and the kind of farming setup present. Bruce42 spells out this specific manipulation clearly, when he writes42:20: “There’s a big difference between a 5 000ha cabbage farm in Limpopo and a smallholding in Muldersdrift. Murders on either would be termed “farm murders” by people campaigning for recognition of farm attacks as a special category of crime.” That these “farms” are more precisely only basically erven with homes, without real farming interests confirms that many of the “farmer” victims are older, retired people who are really outside the farming community and are in reality persons who are not farmers anyway.42

It is also an open question as to whether the active White farming community is so intensively murdered as organisations such as AfriForum try to project and to emphasise that farming has became a dangerous and unattractive career. So why has the agricultural production and income of the farming sector exploded since the advent of democracy? Bruce writes42:20:

The gross value of farm production, according to agricultural economist Wandile Sihlobo, has grown from R28 billion in 1994 to R246 billion now in nominal terms. Adjusted for inflation, output had more than doubled, to R263 billion, by 2016.

You can’t achieve numbers like that in the middle of a farmer genocide.

The propagandists find it of absolute importance to state that the alleged presence of the negative Black-versus-White factor, as formulated by the antagonists in their warning of a so-called dooms day for Whites in future South Africa, is further contradicted by various recent research. The propagandists show that many of the points of conflict that some of the antagonistic politicians and activists pinpoint as reasons for the so-called urgent and immediate intention for land reparation by so called radical Blacks from Whites, are not true and thus not of importance. The taking of revenge through land redistribution about Apartheid’s wrongdoings, reflected by the antagonists as a primary motivator for Ramaphosa’s land expropriation initiative, is false and also outside sound cognitive thinking. The antagonists’ allegation that the intended land expropriation of Ramaphosa will go hand in hand with, or will activate, the horrors of the Mao, Stalin and Mugabe regimes, is a pathological cognition internalised in the mindsets of the antagonists alone.75,78-80

3.2.10. There is a not a demand for rural land by Blacks or an urge by them to farm

The postulations by the antagonists that the Black youths “are not interested in farming or land, they want jobs in cities”, are outright generalisations, lacking supportive facts. The IRR’s famous cliché, used over and over by the antagonists, that61:18: “…only 8% of land compensation awarded (1994 to 2018) to claimants were in the form of land as a compensation”, is a myth that became a truth in the pro-antagonists’ media.

Firstly, herewith the cold fact that in the present overwhelming setup of exclusively White farmers who own masses of land and dominate most of the farming activities and businesses as owners, the upliftment opportunities of Blacks as employees to the White farmers are very limited. This exclusively White setup of dominance and White enrichment is the primary reason why these rural Black labourers are already poor and landless people. Hereto must also be added the immense difference in the income of the White land owners and the farm labourers. Unil the coming into power of the ANC regime, the Black laborers were exposed to unfair pay and working conditions, and although the so-called “minimum wage legislation” by the ANC regime brought about some improvement, the rural Black farm labourers’ financial circumstances in general are still on the level of a hunger pittance. Basically this is the “baas-kneg-relation”, coming from 1652 and still functioning today, guiding mainly but not only the social, personal and political functioning between the White farmer and the Black labourer, but also the financial setup. In this present racial and discriminative situation, echoing in some way the days of the White frontiersmens’ dominance of the KhoiSan, land as a source of income per individual for the rural farm labourers is not attractive. This forces them to more and more unwillingly move to live and to work in towns and cities for a livelihood. Besides the immense poverty as labourers, is the poor treatment of the labourers by their White landowners. This is frequently a direct reason why the poor and landless Blacks move to the cities, and not so much a real eagerness to become a city dweller.61,81

Furthermore, it is a hard fact that the cities cannot accommodate all the poor and jobless Blacks, as is so often argued by the antagonists without any facts to confirm it. The fact is that a lack of employment is forcing the poor and jobless Blacks back to the countryside. The fact that nearly 30% of the South African population is officially unemployed (with an unofficial estimation of up to 60%), is a clear indication that it is imperative that an immense portion of the poor and landless Blacks need to be placed in the countryside. But this future rural setup must be positive for poor and landless Blacks as labourers, curtailing the White farmers’ mass land ownership and their political, social and economical manipulation of the Black labourers’ working and living setup. This can only be achieved by the creation of a mass of Black land ownerships as farmers and the creation of optimal work conditions for the Black labourers on farms, either Black or White farms.61,81

The antagonists’ statement that only 8% of Blacks want land or want to stay in the rural areas is a farce. This, according to the propagandists, is a manipulated distraction, superficially made from the 1994 dispensations pay outs by the antagonists (and in line with the 1994 failed political dispensation which is still discriminating against Blacks). Reflecting on this 8%, one must consider firstly the perilous setup into which Blacks in South Africa found themselves in 1994 after the disastrous centuries of economic exploitation by Whites. This chaotic 1994 setup has nothing to do with the ANC regime, besides the fact that they, as the new ruler of a chaotic state, had to find and try out every possible solution with limited funding to rectify the Whites’ and the NP regime’s economical exploitation and misuse of Blacks. At that stage in 1994 – and up to as recently as 2018 — the Blacks’ immense poverty which was directly created by the Whites and later the NP regime since 1913, was so comprehensive that it only grew as an “after-shock” in the political and socio-economical chaos surrounding the Black population which the failed NP regime left behind. There is no doubt for the propagandists that if the process of the 1994 land redistribution should be rerun correctly today in terms of justice, the repossession of Blacks of their land stolen by Whites since 1652 could be 50% and higher. The immense positivity inside the Black population showed in the recent parliamentarian public opinion testing on the change to Section 25 of the Constitution and Ramaphosa’s comprehensive land expropriation to bring a mass of farm land to the rural and urban poor Blacks, also contradicts the antagonists claiming that only 8% of Blacks want land or want to farm. They speak plain nonsense.66,81

Furthermore it must be noted that in 1994 and the decade thereafter, the poor Blacks first made contact with democracy and the concept of own money in an open racial and democratic society. Their poverty was so intense in 1994 for them, that, to be able to move into this new setup and its economical demands to be able to survive daily, their obtaining of immediate money became a first priority and requirement, putting money before land. With the political stability brought by the ANC regime and the experiencing of equal civil rights by the mass of poor Blacks and a direct say in land matters such as land ownership and farming (and of course “the right to live and walk where you want”), it is clear that the whole concept of the reclaiming of their ancestral land by the poor and landless Blacks changed dramatically and positively, undoubtedly nullifying the fake 8% mentioned by the antagonists.61,81

Regarding the ongoing poverty of the landless Blacks within the 1994 land redistribution plan, it is important to note that the official back payment to Blacks who lost their land to Whites, confirms that only a fraction of the at least 50% (25 million persons plus) of the population (total 55 million plus) who lost land, were truly compensated. Evidence by Opperheimer61 shows that according to the Institute of Race Relations (IRR), 1.8 million individuals have received compensation, and that in these cases, the pay out of money or relocation of land were respectively at the value of R45 billion for redistribution and R43 billion for land reform. This reflects an under payout. In real numbers and money this means that only between 8% and 10% of the rightful Black landowners were really compensated and that their rightful compensation, if it was paid out to the rest of between 90% and 92% left uncompensated, could be so much as R500 million and more.61,81

It is an outright deception presented by the antagonists that only 8% of the Black population want their land back or want to farm. These incorrect statistics show clearly for the propagandists how the antagonists constantly play the joker card in their contaminated politics, in an effort to safeguard in future the White farmers’ mass ownerships of land and the exclusive favours, rights and privileges of the White farmers. With Ramaphosa’s land expropriation plan, between 30% and 50% of the total Black population can successfully be re-established in the countryside in various farming capacities. There is no evidence to contradict this fact.

3.2.11. There is not a place for a contingent of mass independent sufficient producing farmers

The constant decline in South African commercial farmers from 116 000 in 1950 to more or less 35,000 in 2018, is used by the antagonists to argue rigidly and incorrectly that more than 35 000 commercial farmers in South Africa is not financially viable and sustainable. Indeed, they argue, the number will come down dramatically as future production costs activate mechanising and the conjugating of smaller units into large mega farms. The antagonists even try to put the final number in a decade at 10 000 commercial farmers. The antagonists argue that the bringing in of a contingent of masses of types of commercial farmers – in this case specifically Black self-sufficient farmers – will be a failure. But in the same breath opposing the introduction of Black farmers, the antagonists, as in most of their attacks on the ANC’s land expropriation initiative, fail to offer any hard facts or evidence to support their arguments, opinions and viewpoints, besides far fetched speculations based upon assumed national and international profiles of the past.82-100

Looking critically at the commercial and financial output of the present hotchpotch of the 35 000 so-called “commercial” farmers – mostly White farmers — the facts reflect that only ±3 600 of them contribute between 90% and 95% to the country’s food security. The more or less other 31 400 farmers are indeed only so-called sufficientproducing farmers, meaning that they produce enough food and other agricultural produce to make them and their immediate families financially independent from social grants, as well as steering themselves successfully into the status of financially independent land owners and active farmers. Basically these sufficient-producing farmers represent two farmer classes: commercial farmers and subsistence farmers. These sufficient farmers include small scale farmers up to middle level farmers. The present day Zimbabwe, Botswana, Israel, Belgium and Britain reflect well upon the successes of these sufficient-producing farmers and their financial independence and contributions to essential products, and to a certain extent, also to their various countries’ food security and food exports. Their produce surpluses are sold mostly locally into a limited market to generate cash and to form to a certain extent part of the local food and economic security chain, outside the country’s higher level of food in the security chain. This local cash creation makes it possible for them to buy other needed produce and essentials, locally or nationally. Prominent here is the new concept of intensive small scale farming, together with the new concept to activate inclusive or social capitalism where optimal economics and finance are brought to every ordinary citizen, away from South Africa’s present smothering exclusive capitals, where richness is located and limited to a few big businesses and financial bullies as well as exclusive, favoured governmental and political beneficiaries like South Africa’s White farmers. The Ramaphosa redistribution plan is specifically focused upon the creation and establishment of sufficient-producing farmers, functioning successfully inside inclusive capitalism.12-14,17,18,61,101

These sufficient farmers are equal in income status and independence to the city dwellers working for a good salary as employees. Indeed, these farmers’ incomes and financial setups can frequently be more stable and higher than that of many of the employees working in the city. This outcome of sufficient-producing farmers, varying from small scale to middle level farming, and driven by inclusive capitalism and financial independence, is exactly what Ramaphosa intends with his land expropriation and what the present day White farmers experience as endangering their exclusive richness.

For the propagandists, it is very interesting to see how the antagonists avoid the fact that as many as 32 400 farmers are sufficient-producing farmers and are not fully part of the nucleus of farmers contributing to more than 90% of the country’s food security. The antagonists never have objections to these mostly “only” sufficient-producing 32 400 mostly White farmers, within the present day farmers’ community, wherein the respect for and underwriting of exclusive capitalism is an absolute prerequisite to be a farming member. This extreme pre-selectiveness and the building into it of discrimination of the ownership of exclusive money, are excellent examples for the propagandists of the outright racial intention by the Whites of South Africa to all costs keep the future ownership of land and the farming sector exclusively in White hands. Derby102 demonstrates how the present day sufficient-producing White farmers, varying from small scale to middle level farming, and driven by inclusive capitalism and financial independence, (exactly what Ramaphosa intends with his land expropriation), are working for 32 400 White farmers outside the small circle of the so-called food security producing farms. Prominent in this context is the fact that as much as 96% of the 36 000 farms (mostly in White hands) generate a turnover of less than R5 million per annum and have remained viable and sustainable now for years. (How viable and sustainable these 32 000 farms are, is clearly reflected in their fight to keep their farms from land expropriation).98,103-112

Looking at the present unemployed mass of Blacks living in shacks in cities under parlous conditions, the development at last of a contingent of a land owned Black proletariat, which was blocked by the Whites of the Boer republics, the Union of South Africa and the Verwoerd republic as well as the 1994 political dispensation, can at last be started up.There is no reason why these new sufficient-producing Black farmers cannot contribute in some way to the country’s local and national food security chain with time. The intention of the ANC regime is also the creation of a better marketing system for sufficient-producing farmers’ products through their own chain shops to bring their products directly at a good but affordable price to consumers, away from the White business bullies’ present monopolistic chain shops and comprehensive local and international markets wherein all the farmers receive in general a low, limited price for their produce. The promoting role of inclusive capitalism in driving and upkeep of these new sufficient-producing farmers inside a parallel system with existing capitalistic farming and produce marketing systems, will be prominent here.3,4

The postulation by the antagonists that there is not a place for a contingent of mass independent sufficient-producing farmers, whose farming is based upon and driven by inclusive capital – as many of the other postulations of the antagonists in their fighting off the intended land expropriation by the ANC regime is – is for the propagandists a myth. The use of manipulated data by the antagonists, like the so-called 90% failure of the so-called new Black farmers in the ANC regime’s 1994 to 2018 land redistribution programe, is for the propagandists to obstruct Ramaphosa’s intended expropriation of land from Whites and his intention to establish a mass of Black farmers in the South African farming sector. There is not a single trustworthy statistic to support the antagonists’ political crooking. The antagonists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints failed the test of reliability for the propagandists.61,98,103-107,109-111,113,114

3.2.12. There is a need of an exclusive Afrikaner/White farming sector

For the propagandists, is it important to examine the antagonists’ emphasis on the importance of White land ownership and their so-called absolute need of White farmers to maintain South Africa’s present day economics of the farming sector and to guarantee food security.61

Central in this setup of so-called only viability and sustainability of the South African farming sector by the intimate role of the Whites (mainly Afrikaners) as absolutely needed as farmers, the element of immediate importance is the present day numbers of Afrikaners inside the total population and their future position in the country.

The total Afrikaner population stands at about ± 2.7 million (total White population: ± 5 million). The ratio between the ±35 000 commercial farmers (assumed to all be White for calculation purposes of this research) to the rest of the Afrikaner population is 13:1000 or 1.3%. If all 35 000 farmers are Whites (which they are not), the ratio would be 7:1 000 or 0.7%. There is an almost insignificant correlation between the broader Afrikaner/White population and the Afrikaner/White farming population in terms of financial interest, such as ownership of land or direct income from farming. The direct impact of lost farmland through the planned land expropriation upon most Afrikaners/Whites outside the farming sector would be minimal.4

About the so-called hugger-mugger of the Afrikaner farmers with the total Afrikaner community and the closed unity of Afrikaners, coming especially from DF Malan’s 1948 Afrikaner-volk, Louw4 shows that many Afrikaners have started to cut their cultural cord with the “Afrikaner-volk”, especially the younger generations after 1994. What these neo-Afrikaners want in a post-1994 South Africa is political stability, good work and a good living with affordable food on the table – it does not matter if the food is from Zambia, Argentina, produced by a White or Creole or Black Brazilian or a Black, Brown or White South African. These neo-Afrikaners do not really mind who rules the country, as long as it is a stable and responsible regime. The propagandists already noted that most of the emotive rhetoric on land grabbing does not come from the broad Afrikaner/White population, but from a small band of Afrikaner/White individuals and groups with direct financial interests in agriculture, like Agri SA, AfriForum, Solidarity, some Afrikaner media-groups and the FFP – groups who Louw4 calls the Afrikaner/White’s self-appointed rescuers and saviours. These groups represent at most 10% of Afrikaners/Whites, based upon their membership. It is clear for the propagandists that the present so-called “Afrikaner fight for the Afrikaner soil”, is a farce: it is nothing more than a myth upheld and preached by a small group of opportunistic antagonists, whose politics are still seated in the racism and Afrikaners’ self-enrichment and political empowerment stemming from the deceased Verwoerdian-republic. This dwarf group of antagonists’ political impact in future politics is insignificant.56,61,115,116

One can safely say that the Whites and neo-Afrikaners outside the farming sector have accepted that a new generation of South African farmers has to be born as quickly as possible, in order to ensure food security. This new generation of farmers can be, and must be, Blacks for most of the Whites and neo-Afrikaners outside the farming sector. The prominent outcome here is that the credo of Afrikaner farmers as absolutely needed in the farm sector is a deception. Moreover, it is a delusion in the mindsets of the antagonists. Any racial group can for the broader Afrikaner group drive and practice farming.56,61,115,116

The present rhetoric of the antagonists on land ownership, the right to farm and the exclusive entrance to farm economics is frequently dangerous, inapplicable and inappropriate to the stability of the country’s politics and race harmony. Much of this rhetoric reflects the old ideology of hard core Apartheid and is strongly carried by the Afrikaner media to the public. Thankfully there is a difference in the rhetoric between the English and Afrikaner media. Rhetoric from the English media (which includes Black and White journalistic voices) is mostly focused upon the urgent Black need for housing land in cities and the possible financial loss that expropriation without compensation can bring for present landowners and the financial institutions. The English media is also more focused upon the effect that land grabbing can have on future local and foreign investments if it is not done in an orderly fashion. For the propagandist, this English rhetoric is much more based upon constructive politics and is to a great extent free from the antagonists’ false and baseless attacks on the ANC regime’s land reform plan. Reality is not the basis of thinking and arguing here of the antagonists.3,4,13,16,18,62,117-121

For the propagandists, a large part of the Afrikaner media is motivated and driven daily by the antagonists’ political poison, a most derailing element to better South Africa politically and socio-economically. Part of the irrational thinking and often false presentation of land expropriation by the antagonists, which is as a matter of great concern to all members of the “Afrikaner volk” and White society, is the antagonists’ false argument on the absolute need for an Afrikaner/White farming sector because only they can ensure food security. It is plain nonsense: even the responses of the lay economist and politician confirm it. Any race can contribute constructively as farmers, if their circumstances are optimal. This is actually how the Afrikaners/Whites established themselves. There are American, Asian, British, Nigerian, Palestinian, Jewish, Algerian and many other farmers, who are not only successful commercial farmers in their own countries, but also contribute to global markets. In South Africa there are established commercial Black farmers already contributing in an indirect way to food security. Propagandists emphasise that evidence shows that when Black farmers receive the necessary financial and technical assistance, they become excellent farmers. The antagonists constantly preach that there is an absolute need for an Afrikaner/White farming sector because only they can ensure food security. This is a well-baked lie. It seems as though the antagonists lack the cognitive insight to ask themselves, in their constant fight to obstruct the introduction of a Black farmer community, why would Blacks not be able to become successful farmers in South Africa?56,61,115,116

A prominent factor, completely nullifying the antagonists’ foolish fight for the safeguarding of a sole contingent of White farmers (and which also is seemingly not part of the antagonists cognitive reasoning), is the fact that Afrikaners’ numbers have constantly declined since 1994, while the Black population shows a constant growth. Cognitive reasoning shows that a new generation of farmers would have to replace the current generation of Afrikaner/White farmers fast. The question of the propagandists, in line with Ramaphosa’s intention to establish a mass of Black farmers, is why must these replacements only be Afrikaners/Whites? Why must an exclusive small group of Afrikaner/White farmers be further protected at the costs of Black farmers and the interests of the majority of the Black population? In this regard Mthombothi122 posits a very critical and meaningful question122:25: “There is also the question of whether white farmers are a special breed who require special protection”.

The propagandists show that the over-estimation of Afrikaner/White farmers as a special, untouchable group in South Africa, is also contradicted by Dr Theo de Jager13, the president of the World Agricultural Union and of Galileo Capital. Reflecting upon the White farmers’ present day insignificance, he mentions that even if all White farmers voted for one political party, these votes would not be enough to assure one parliamentary seat. His following remark tells the whole story of the Afrikaner/White farmers decline and of insignificance in the present day political empowerment of South Africa13:3: “On a count-group basis the white farmers are irrelevant. The ANC does not need to take notice of farmers” [Own translation].

In systems where the majority gains control of the politics and the economy, the best balance between the interests of the majority and the minority (and for the country in general) is attained by way of a natural process and sometimes by statutory prescription. Land ownership and farming are prominent issues which the antagonists missed out as a result of their racial political stupefaction, reflect the propagandists. Sometimes land transformation happens in a very orderly fashion and sometimes these happenings are chaotic. The propagandists’ emphasise that South Africa is now in the middle of this normal process of economic, political and statutory balancing, moving the farming sector away from the minority Whites to the majority Blacks. Land reform should not be an emotional issue, but a rational issue, and always free from racism, something the antagonists fail to execute in their daily thinking, planning and action.4

South Africa currently has about 5 million Whites versus ± 55 million Blacks, or a statistical ratio of less than 1:11 or 9%:91% Whites versus Blacks. The present ratio of White farmers to Black farmers looks significantly different and represents an imbalance. Three outcomes are clear for the propagandists.4

Firstly, the racial dominance and abuse of Blacks from 1652 by Whites and the ousting of Blacks from their traditional land created an imbalance in terms of the number of White farmers versus the number of Black farmers. Indeed, if South Africa developed normally regarding racial and political rights and thus the correct racial balance in land ownership, the present day total Black farmers (calculated in terms of the ±35 000 commercial farmers and a Black population of 55-million), should be 32 000 Black farmers against more or less only 3 000 White farmers. Secondly, there is definitely in terms of the racial ratios of the country, an immediate need for a mass of able Black farmers. Thirdly, the perspectives of Mhtombothi122 and de Jager13 are correct: White farmers are not a special breed and do not require special protection to ensure food security, and White farmers are irrelevant in the future agricultural sector.13,122

The antagonists currentemphasis on the with importance of White land ownership and the absolute need of White farmers to keep up South Africa’s present day economics of the farming sector and the guarantee of food security, is an antagonist’s myth which nearly became a truth over more than three centuries.

3.2.13. The 90% failure of the 1994-2018 farm redistributions programme of the ANC regime is a truth

With regard to the constant carping by the antagonists that 90% of farms redistributed to Blacks in the 1994 land redistribution programme were failures, the propagandists note that the criteria used by the antagonists to decided on the “success” of the so-called “functioning Black farms” in the 1994 land redistribution programme are very arbitrary and in perspective nullify their so-called 90% failure rate. Firstly, the propagandists posit that criteria selected by the antagonists are vague and undefined. Secondly, the propagandists show that the estimations of the successfully functioning Black redistributed farms are 20% and more.61

Evidence, focusing upon the so-called high failure rate since 1994 to establish Black farmers, makes it clear that today’s farming as an enterprise and a career can be tough. It does not matter if it is applied to the established White farmers or incoming Black farmers. Many of the established White farmers are currently experiencing the same struggle to survive as the Black farmers who failed between 1994 and 2018 in the ANC regime’s redistribution model and programme. The large financial loans by the Land Bank and other commercial banks to finance the White farmers’ daily activities, is an excellent example of this struggle, even by Whites. What makes most of these White farming enterprises a success is the fact that they hold title deeds to loan on, while this kind of owner setup is frequently lacking with the Black farmers, especially those farming on state land under rent. The 1994 to 2018 official land redistribution plan was especially curbed by this problem, making not only the development of the Black farms null and void, but even the obtaining of basic funds by the new Black farmers to be able to run the daily functioning of their farms.61

Various other realities played a devastating role in the so-called failure of the ANC regime’s project of 1994 to 2018 in implementing land reform and the upliftment of Black farmers per se, which the antagonists keep back from the public in their attacks on the ANC regime’s farming projects, especially to block the intended land expropriation plan of Ramaphosa. For the propagandists these negative realities are opportunistically ignored by the antagonists in their criticism. In addition, modern day farming is a changeling undertaking in terms of high costs, immense time input, special training and experience, and uncontrollable natural phenomena such as droughts and the development of negative other climate blocks, putting produce successes under strain. Also the start up of a comprehensive project of various farming schemes countrywide has simultaneously put enormous strain in the form of an sudden abnormal need of professional labour, overseeing, administration, financing, advising, etc., on the ANC regime between 1994 and 2018. This negatively affected the full activation of the project. Farming needs enormous back-up funding before it becomes productive. Governmental support and finance is not enough. The start-up and running of such a comprehensive new project, especially wherein the poor and landless stand central, also needs immense public financial supportive input (many times on a gratis basis) via the private sector and the community, which was mostly lacking in the 1994 and 2018 governmental project. Prominent, as already indicated, is the fact that any new project needs to be allowed to development gradually, which on its own needs a slowed down time frame. The evaluation of the 1994 and 2018 land redistribution programme was forced by the antagonists into the immediate completion of the project with 100% successfully functioning Black farmers: required by the antagonists in only 24 years, as said, a 100% success rate in production and profits by these Black farms. Two clear blockages were ignored comfortably by the antagonists: 1) that the incoming Black farmers were novices who first needed time to acclimatise and to grow into independent farming; and 2) that such a new project needs a transition period of at least 20 years and more to stabilise and a further 20 years to grow. The success rate of more or less 20% (even the alleged 10% success rate of the antagonists) of the ANC regime’s 1994 to 2018 land redistribution project in the end, according to the propagandists, must be seen and respected as a phenomenal success.61

The propagandists believe that the already successful establishment of 26 Black farmers in the Eastern Cape at the costs of R1.4-billion is a worthwhile enterprise. To argue further by the antagonists that the incoming Black farmers in the ANC regime’s planned land redistribution will not contribute to the economy or will disturb the country’s economic system, is without any proven fact. The propagandists believe that it is plain thumb-sucking by the antagonists for their own opportunistic political reasons.61,123

For the propagandists it is clear that the antagonists are very fast to criticize the ANC regime’s so called failed land and farming redistribution efforts (1994-2018), but in this process ignore many external and uncontrollable factors contaminating the ANC’s sincere effort. Looking back to the country’s negative political history, evidence is there that the same kind of failures occurred, often in a more extreme context, under the White SAP regime and the NP regime over many years in the governing of the Union of South Africa and the Verwoerdian-republic. Indeed, precisely the same kind of contaminating factors were present for the Afrikaners from 1908 up to 1994, as well as with the rehabilitation of the poor proto-Afrikaners and the empowerment of the Afrikaners (but in these many cases long term development corrections were allowed and constant financial governmental assistance offered). It is specifically the nationalist Afrikaners with their NP regime, according to the propagandists, who socio-economically and politically botched up South Africa in many ways and cost the fortunes and lives of many Blacks, which had in 1994 overloaded the incoming ANC regime with many seriously problems which the NP regime could never solve themselves. The issues of poverty, inequality, unemployment and landlessness of the Blacks were pertinent unsolved problems of the NP regime (which they as a regime with their racial discrimination and exploitation of Blacks over many years indeed created themselves).3,4,22

The abovementioned early negative outcomes around the Afrikaners’ actions, coupled also to immense Afrikaner/White failures, are today erased from the mindsets of many hostile antagonists who are now fighting Black rule and any form of land redistribution which can negatively impact upon the Whites.

The present efforts of the antagonists to constantly focus the public’s attention on the so-called “failure of the 1994 to 2018 land redistribution programme”, are according to the propagandists to obstruct Ramaphosa’s plan of land distribution and prevent the introductiong of mass Black farming. For the propagandists this obstruction is more than that: it is the intentional steering of White political opportunism and the creation of falsities against the ANC as a political party with the main, but masked intention, of the fighting of the continued Black political rule of South Africa after 2018.123,125

Regarding the limitation of enough time for the ANC regime to introduce and establish its 1994 dispensation land reform, the propagandists note that the nationalist Afrikaner had in their immense rehabilitation plan of the poor Afrikaners far more than a half century’s time available to activate their various comprehensive upliftment schemes exclusively for Whites. In addition, the proto-Afrikaners, as opposed to the politically suppressed and abused Blacks, had already been exposed to independent government from 1853 at the Cape Colony and were far more financially independent than were the Blacks in 1994. This early Afrikaner process of White political development and emancipation, which was also streamed into the Boer republics, was further improved all over South Africa after 1910, especially after 1948 when the NP grabbed political power. As the Whites benefitted from the political setup, the Afrikaners were offered the opportunity to experience the long term (over far more than 100 years of exclusive White upliftment) the test-retest of good politics versus bad politics, and the gaining of valuable experience on governing. Hereto the ANC regime only had 24 years to test-retest the failed racial political setup which they unwillingly inherited from the nationalist Afrikaners under the NP and which they were forced to improve as fast as possible. The ANC, until 1994 a suppressed Black liberation movement, was totally cut out and cut off from any role-playing in the direct experiencing of the pre-1994 South African politics. Basically, the ANC was totally inexperienced and under skilled in 1994 to govern the then most troubled South Africa effectively. For the propagandists, this unhealthy political setup of 1994 limited the ANC regime to fast initiate the execution of their official land redistribution programme, making them a false culprit.3,4,22

For the propagandists, the 1994 dispensation steering the post-1994 governing period up to 2018, was a statutory ruling to fit par excellence the outgoing NP-AB-DRC-Alliance’s politics and economics. Although political rights were transferred to the ANC regime in 1994, the economical rights were kept until today by the old White establishment (who are also the majority land owners). This limited the ANC, through the 1994 Constitution, to be able to take extraordinary steps to rectify the unbalanced and corrupt land ownership coming over centuries from 1652. It is only from 2016 that the political and economic situation started to turn favourable for the ANC regime to break out from its White capturing and to address land reform on a limited scale.3,4

Furthermore, the Constitution, which the antagonists describe as excellent and untouchable, is for the propagandists a piece of legislation which exclusively favours Whites. The propagandists see the Constitution right in the path so far of a total South African Rehabilitation. Today, as a result of the immense backlog created by the centuries old complete deprivation of non-Whites, aggravated by the further financial imbalance after 1994, the propagandists believe land reform requires a dramatic approach: even where and when needed, the application of land grabbing in order to obtain balance and to prevent serious civil unrest.4

It must further be noted that the White Union regimes from 1910 to 1948, and the NP regime from 1948 to 1994, were rich and were for a long time in power to build up exclusive strong financial empowerment and governmental foundation for Whites, especially the Afrikaners. Thus the majority of non-Whites of South Africa are impoverished. Built into this exclusively White Helping Hand Only for Whites was the practice of economical discrimination of the already poor Blacks and non-Whites, forcing them further down the ladder of poverty, inequality and joblessness. This masse of poor Blacks has totally lacked from 1652 the sympathy support of rich private non-White institutions and non-White persons up to 1994, to aid the ANC regime immediately in and after 1994 (as was the case of comprehensive, ongoing support for the poor Whites in the 1930s, besides the White government’s support, by wel established and financially strong Afrikaner organisations (such as the Dutch Reformed Church and the AB), to activate an effective and well steered government plan of successful land redistribution. As indicated, this immense lack of official and unofficial financial support and guidance (as well as training, moral, social, and psychological support) to aid non-Whites to better themselves in general, were absent from 1910 when the Whites began to be uplifted. For the propagandists this was an outright failure and a well planned ongoing discrimination to non-Whites by the various White regimes. Even the Theron Commission’s urgent recommendations in 1979 to better the mass of non-Whites were wantonly ignored by the White NP regime, as postulated by the propagandists.4

The propagandists challenge the hypotheses of Opperheimer61 and the IRR that in terms of the 1994 to 2018 land redistribution programme “nearly 95% the land in dispute was successfully solved and that the process around land redistribution is nearly fully complete”. Evidence contradicts this final outcome and the closing down of the South African land ownership issue as based on the 1994 dispensation. For the propagandists, this 1994 to 2018 official programme by far does not include all the land legally qualifying for redistribution. Motsoko Pheko9, in his explication of the official stealing of Black land by Whites, shows that the Native Land Act 1913 illegally allocated 93% of the Africans’ land to 349 837 European settlers, leaving only 7% of their own country to over five million Africans. This illegal transfer of Black land to Whites is also confirmed by the 1955 Thomson Commission56 which posits that the Blacks were in 1955 more or less in possession of only 15% of their original land. Ramaphosa makes reference of 13% of land today owned by Blacks in the new South Africa. Opperheimer’s61 and the IRR’s 15% ownership of land by Blacks, leaving 85% of the country’s total soil in the possession of Whites, is again a excellent example of the frame of mind of the antagonists. At least as much as 70% plus of the Blacks’ land was excluded from the 1994 dispensation and thus needs to still be addressed. This unjust outcome is why it is so important for the propagandists that Ramaphosa’s land reform plan must be activated with great speed.4,9,61

The arguments of antagonists such as Opperheimer61 and the IRR that the Blacks were nearly fully compensated in 2018 for all the land they had lost before 1994, is false and misleading. At least 70% and more of the land of Blacks lost before 1994 must still be transferred back to them.9,61

3.2.14. Home ownership in South Africa matches the racial demographics

The reference of Opperheimer61, based upon the statistics of the IRR, which reads61:18: “…home ownership [in South Africa] matches racial demographics”, is shown by the propagandists to be a falsity, or better, as Mthombothi puts it126:25: “… the use of own facts to make myths truths!” The same can be said about the misuse by the antagonists of the recent government’s own land audit which shows ownership of property (not farm land) a racial parity with 49% of properties owned by Whites and 46% owned by Blacks. The audit reflects more or less the same ratio for sectional title ownership of Whites versus Blacks.4,61,128

However, the antagonists argue that it must be noted that the definition upon which the IRR based its conclusion to state that home ownership matches racial demographics, is highly debatable. Indeed, it is a superficial and a misleading conclusion.4,61,126-129

Firstly, this is a one-by-one racial comparison, simply based upon the definition: who are the owners of what property in South Africa, absolutely ignoring the true numbers of the various racial populations in the total ownership of land. The comparison here by the antagonists is faulty in that the total White population of 5 million versus a sub-population of 5 million Blacks is used, in a manipulating equalisation of the various races, to give the ratio 1:1, which is a myth. In reality the comparison should be the total White population of 5 million versus the total Black population of 55 million, to give the ratio 1:11, which is the truth. This means that in real life for every eleven Whites owning a property only one Black person owns a property! More precisely, in theoretical statistical terms, it means that: if 5 million Whites own houses, only 5 million Blacks also own houses, with 50 million Blacks homeless or lacking the ownerships of houses. This immense joyless situation gives insight into why the ANC regime can refer with honesty to the present day definition of mass of poor and landless Blacks who urgently need land and their own accommodation, and why the activating of land expropriation is urgently needed.

Furthermore is it clear that the selective and manipulative definition of ownership, wherein the theoretical good quality existence of 5 million Whites’ houses and the 5 million Blacks’ houses is fronted to the public – which is used so promptly by Opperheimer61 and the IRR to illustrate the antagonists’ evidence of the “justice” around Black housing, is in an effort to obstruct and nullify the intended land expropriation. It ignores the low quality of the so-called present day “other houses” of most of the Blacks all over South Africa. These “other houses” (excluding the low quality HOP houses) theoretically accommodate 50 million Blacks. Looking critically at these so-called “other houses”, the best and only definition in describing them are “shacks”. These shacks are mostly of sink and/or cardboard which fail to withstand the harsh element (extreme sun, cold, rain) and are of short term duration. Again note: These shacks represent more or less eleven Blacks’ accommodation against every single White’s accommodation (White accommodation: a standard house fulfilling the building prerequisites of municipalities and building societies). Moreover, these shacks are mostly illegally erected on the land of White land owners or municipalities, permanently under threat to be demolished by the ‘Red Ants” and the shack dwellers to be arrested by the SAPD. The propagandists note that this illegal land occupation with the erection of shacks is not a willing action by the Blacks, but a delinquent action, forced on the poor Blacks, due to their immense poverty, joblessness and landlessness. This negative setup, as already shown many times in this research, is a direct result of the practice of the Whites’ racial discrimination, land theft and the utmost deprivation of Blacks, coming from 1652 under White rule. For the ANC regime to rectify this immense South African socio-economical and political chaos in the short period of 24 years, created by the various White regimes over hundreds of years, especially the NP-regime after 1948, is totally impossible. [In 1948, as much as 35 years after the start-up of the Afrikaners’ rehabilitation in 1913, all efforts to better the Afrikaners’ economical and social position were still fruitless. It took the nationalist Afrikaners more or less 47 years, from 1913 to 1960, to stabilise the Afrikaners poverty with their first stage of the Afrikaners’ rehabilitation. It was only in the 1980s onwards (nearly 70 years after 1913) that the second phase of Afrikaner rehabilitation worked positively for them and economical growth and political maturity started to really appear].4,61,126-138

The thousands of RDP/HOP houses erected by the ANC regime since 1994 as an emergency measure (just as a temporary measure to accommodate and to steer the immediate 1994 Black housing problem in a limited positive way, away from the mass political troubles the country under the ANC regime inherited from the previous Whites) – were immensely welcomed by the Blacks without a roof over their heads. RDP/HOP houses were a temporary solution to the chaotic Black housing situation of 1994, but they do not solve the greater problem around Black house ownership. This introduction brought much improvement for the living conditions of the poor and landless Blacks. But looking critically at it, is it clear that the RDP/HOP houses’ basic standards and facilities fail the average test as houses and are, when compared with the average houses of Whites, absolutely on the zero standard level.4,61,126-138

What Opperheimer61 and the IRR cleverly side-stepped and are deathly silent on – as are most of the antagonists in their justification of the present day imbalanced housing setup between Blacks and Whites in post-1994 South Africa – are the comprehensive negative “housing environments” wherein millions of Black shack dwellers are living: a lack of their own electricity, water, toilet facilities; unfavourable living areas without good roads; situated in isolated and underdeveloped areas, located far from public transport, shops, public schools and medical facilities; areas mostly ridden by crime and not integrated into rich, even middle class White housing areas; and many times located on river banks exposed to constant fluids and other life threats.61,132,139

What many of the rich White land and home owners, and also the antagonists missed out on, those who selfishly only think and act in the interests of Whites’ land ownership and richness, is that every poor and landless Black shack dweller belongs to the greater South African society: a society where the poorest of the poor Blacks deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Democracy never really arrived in 1994 in South Africa. The inclusive capitalistic propagandists, other than the cold-blooded exclusive capitalistic antagonists, believe that nobody must be without a house or at least land to build a house and must enjoy basic services such as water, electricity and sanitation. It is in this context of inclusive capitalistic upliftment that the ANC regime is planning and steering its land expropriation intentions, trying to bring land and house ownership to the poor Blacks.132,139

The arguments by the antagonists that land redistribution is a well planned and masked social engineering initiative by the ANC leadership to activate RET and RST as fast as possible, is unsubstantiated and malign. The present day wealth and privilege captured by most Whites are so immense that any organised RST would fail from day one to disturb it, forget to remodel it. The opportunity for the masses of poor Blacks to ever be able to move into the expensive traditional living areas of Whites is zero. Their poverty is of such an extent that it would take them at least two decades of financial upliftment even to be able to move into the lower and middle level living areas of Whites. It seems to be the antagonists’ deep-seated fear that the bringing about of economic upliftment to the masse of poor Blacks would undermine their traditional socio-economic and political privileges, rights and positions in greater South Africa. The antagonists again demonstrate for the propagandists their intense racism by their selection of an unsubstantiated subject such as racial demographics to make a kind of statement to block the land expropriation initiative. Also it is the antagonists’ postulation that land expropriation is a selective effort by the ANC regime to force the integration of White into the greater Black community. It is extremely arrogant, racistic and malign. For the propagandists is it an open question whether Blacks want to integrate with Whites and whether they really want them as dwellers in the greater Black community. It is clear for the propagandists that the antagonists’ political confusion is so immense that they miss out on the reason for the government to bring the poor Blacks to better living areas: to uplift them out of their immense poverty and emotional deprivation, which are ongoing consequences of Apartheid and which the antagonists are blind to.4

The IRR’s and Opperheimer’s61 postulations that present day home ownerships match racial demographics must be rejected outright with the contempt they deserve. Central for the propagandists’ is one single concept: Black discrimination. For the propagandists, the antagonists’ outright blindness to indigenous South African realities and their urgent needs, is a cognitive disfunction. The antagonists’ obstruction of the rightful claims on land by the poor Blacks will one day cost them their heads, as it did the politically rigid and selfish Tsar and his rich nobles.

3.2.15. Strength of political contamination and obstruction of the antagonistic rescuers and saviours

Prominent in the present fight against land expropriation and the unchangeableness of the Constitution, according to the propagandists, are the so-called Afrikaner/White rescuers and saviours, or better: the White Knights, who seemingly believe rigidly that they are going to maintain Afrikanerism and White richness and land ownership at all costs for ever. The propagandists show that the numbers of these so-called rescuers and saviours of the Afrikaner/White group, do not amount to more than 350 000 in number or 7% of the total White population. From a political empowerment point of view they are thus insignificant as policy makers or changers. At the moment they figure prominently in public speeches, court cases, political and public petitions and do not hesitate to attack groundlessly every action that can “endanger” White land ownership, White richness and exclusive White political rights, favours and privileges. Looking critically at their functioning and the pre-requisite for “White Knight membership”, the propagandists see them as clear remnants of the late NP-AB-DRC-alliance which sent South Africa into doom. Critically, in perspective, the contributions of the Afrikaner/White rescuers and saviours to positive modern day South African politics are null and void.4

The Afrikaner/White rescuers’ and saviours’ constant foolish civil and sometimes even criminal actions against their main political enemies, the ANC regime and the various political independent Black political thinkers, politicians and leaders, are for the propagandists nothing less then wanton window dressing to recruit new members for their various White rightwing organiations, which are mostly masked White labour unions in private ownership. The sole aim of the recruiting of membership of antagonistic organisations (together many times with outright begging of money under the cover of donations for the so-called Afrikaner/White case) is to generate income for these organisations’ own workers, directors and leaders, and undoubtedly not the noble aim to safeguard the Whites’ interests, which they try so hard to reflect to the public. Of course there are also the foolish “know-all sympathisers” and other hangers-on to this small band of White Knights, also coming from the “good old days” of the NP-AB-DRC-alliance, with only one mission: fighting at all costs and at all times the ANC regime and Black Nationalism. For the propagandists the antagonists are besotted by the belief that they are going to be successful in the instituting of a Siener van Rensburg White South Africa in the near future.4,140

What is abundantly clear for the propagandists in this context of ongoing White supremacy, is that the antagonists do not hesitate to divide South Africans into different race groups simply to uphold their White rights and privileges. At the moment the antagonists’ sole intention is the reflecting of “White discrimination” by the “Black” ANC regime, without any clarification as to what precisely these “discriminations” are. Looking at the antagonists’ presentations on the South African “racial” discrimination to the international world, they are totally silent on admitting to the immense existing present day injustice and unfairness, together with the huge economic separation between the haves (Whites) and have-nots (Blacks) which were created solely by the antagonists through their Apartheid. In this context the country has a rich, largely White group, forming a strong branch of the antagonists (fighting at present not only for the upkeep of stolen riches like land through Apartheid, but further enlarging it with exclusive capitalism’s exploitation of the masses of poor Blacks) versus a mass of poor Blacks for whom it is impossible to ever escape from their dire circumstances without extraordinary help over an extremely long period of rehabilitation.140,141

Gandhi140 brings this planned delinquent “memory loss” of the antagonists of their contaminated past prominently into focus as follows140:21:

A result of no acknowledgement and no sharing is that we have a very large majority of people living in poverty with no facilities, while others have excessive wealth and privileged access to resources. Racism is linked to this privilege.

There is a reluctance to rectify the injustices of the past through constructive programmes and voluntary sharing of wealth gained through apartheid privilege. Instead, there is agitation for the protection of individual rights and privileges at the expense of the common.

For the propagandists, Gandhi describes precisely the modus operandi of the antagonists, to uphold stolen land through their various agitations to protect the Whites’ individual rights and privileges, notwithstanding the coming of the 1994 democracy and Black rule.140

For the propagandists, two prominent outcomes are more and more reflected in the antagonists’ present agitation for the protection of individual rights and privileges of Whites at the expense of the common poor Blacks: an insecurity as a group, knowing precisely that their crooked intentions with their so-called “saving” of the Afrikaner-volk, are detected by their own people and that they are going to be ousted in future from the Afrikaner/White inner-circle as well as the South African politics, wherein Black politics is going to steer the country constructively outside the White Knights’ contaminated racial and self-enriching politics of White supremacy. Secondly, a direct outcome of the White Knights’ insecurity, is that they, in an effort to still be accepted and to still be seated inside the greater Afrikaner/White circle, start to act extremely in attacking everyone politically and personally, from the ANC regime to other Afrikaners/Whites, who dare to criticise or oppose any of the delinquent thinking, planning and action of the antagonists.4

For the propagandists, this is degenerate of the antagonists’ political integrity and is a dangerous sign, reflecting back to the politically extreme actions of the NP regime against its opponents, which included murder. It echos again the foolish thinking and action of the rightwing Janusz Walusth, who believed that by murdering Chris Hani, the leader of the South African Communist Party and Umkhonto we Sizwe, he could incite a civil war to end post-Apartheid reconciliation and the incoming ANC as the new regime.142

Important for the propagandists is the antagonists’ negative labeling in public of any person, even persons from their own clan, who dare criticise or expose the falsehood of their antagonistic politics. This labeling is apparent many times in the Afrikaans media with the classification of their political opponents as “anti-Afrikaners” and “anti-Whites”, even sometimes as blockheads. Many of their political writings and speeches are nothing more than fake news, which, it seems, need the ANC regime’s attention and reaction.4,143

Prominent in the subjective attacks on critics of the antagonists’ foolish politics, is the abusive and confused writing of a said Du Plessis, in his reaction to the sound arguing and criticism of seasoned political and academic Afrikaners, because they dare to take on his so-called elite Solidarity, AfriForum and the Freedom Front Plus. Although his response is pie in the sky and does not have any impact in terms of opinion-making on the ANC regime’s well argued and planned politics around land expropriation, the propagandists believe that it must be reflected to demonstrate the antagonists’ poor present day perception of political reality and their foolishly aimless fighting of Black rule since 1994 (and the inherent dangers to the antagonists’ politics which many times go undetected). This present political confusion by many antagonistic journalists and writers is a surprise, seeing that some of them have spent years in political journalism. It seems as though their life long sojourn inside the politically corrupt NP-AB-DRC-alliance tragically contaminated their thinking of political and indigenous realities.143

Du Plessis143, in his focus upon so-called White antiAfrikaners who dare to fight the so-called mighty elite Solidarity and AfriForum, as well as Donald Trump, write as follows143:6:

Nes in die VSA, is dit hoofsaaklik dial-a-quote-professore en lessenaar-ontleders wat lostrek. In dieselfde mislik neerbuigende trant as hul geesgenote in die VSA. Met nóg minder resultate hier as daar.

Want Solidariteit/AfriForum het, nes die ANC van weleer, die EFF vandag en die Trumpiste in die VSA, die kragtige persepsie aan hul kant dat hulle “basies aan die kant van die mense is”, in hul geval meerendeels Afrikaanses.

Du Plessis’s143 reference – or more his self-appointment to be able to speak on behalf of the so-called Afrikaanses – reflects two outcomes: political confusion of who the Afrikaanses were in the time of the racist NP-AB-DRC-alliance government; and political arrogance, reflecting again the despair of the antagonists in their phasing out of present day politics and their last minute attempts to make a kind of come back in the already starving White politics. Firstly, the propagandists see Du Plessis143 speaking on behalf of the so-called Afrikaners, is already inapplicable and political stupidity, because he in no way represents them in present day politics. It reflects his present political confusion par excellence. Secondly, for him to speak on behalf of the Afrikaanses (all Afrikaans-speaking people including Coloureds, Blacks), is blatant arrogance and even totally outside Du Plessis’s143 self-mandate as a 2018 political prophet. Political confusion is again prominent here for the propagandists. For them all the evidence is there that the political ideologies of Du Plessis’s143 elite Solidarity, AfriForum, IRR and the Freedom Front Plus hold doom for the Afrikaners as well as the Afrikaanses. His actions and writings are making the adaptation of the Afrikaners and the Afrikaanses to the realities of the new South Africa extremely difficult. They may be doomed in the end.4,143

The propagandists view these antagonistic organisations as blind and blunt opposition to any form of land expropriation or better: “any so-called endangering of White interests and richness”. Thankfully, the propagandists believe that these obstructive White saviour and rescuer organisations, which are trying every day to derail the ANC regime’s positive undertakings and guarantees, together with the many arrogant and dial-a-quotes of Du Plessis and of the antagonists who are “guiding” confused Afrikaners on South Africa post-1994 politics, will disappear summarily from public life in less than a decade. Looking very carefully at the contents of these Afrikaner rescuers’ and saviours’ political rhetoric, the propagandists feel that much of the content is “false and fake news”, which can activate racial conflict and citizen disobedience, and as such, needs to be curbed by legislation in the near future.4,143

3.2.16. Exclusive capitalism and inclusive (social) capitalism in the South African economy

It has been referred various times in this article as well as in the other articles of the project to the concepts exclusive capitalism and inclusive (social) capitalism in the South African economy. It is important, in evaluating the land expropriation initiative of Ramaphosa, to bring the two concepts, exclusive capitalism and inclusive (social) capitalism, into perspective.

On the definition of inclusive capitalism Khumalo writes144:10:

Whilst the definition of inclusive capitalism remains largely fluid, the general consensus seems to be a form of capitalism which seeks to put society rather than profit at the heart of decision-making and action by business. This has to be contrasted with contemporary capitalism which places profit at the centre and argues that somehow society will benefit.

Despite its universal appeal, classic [exclusive] capitalism has resulted in the super-rich and the super-poor, and a widening inequality gap across the world. It has led to an economic universe where the benefits of capitalism are amplified for the minority and its shortfalls felt by millions of poor and marginalised people.

It is important to note that exclusive (classic) capitalism is a foundation in the drive of the antagonists to upkeep the exclusive ownership of the White farmers’ land and riches; and to keep out the mass of poor and landless Blacks, driven by inclusive capitalism, from the dominant White South African farming sector. Looking closely at the actions of many of the antagonists’ self-appointed spokesmen, such as Du Plessis143, it is clear that besides their besottment with White supremacy and the upholding thereof in future South Africa, their upholding of exclusive capitalism (unknown to most of these antagonists as a masked vehicle used by the exclusive capitalists for the further enrichment of a few of the rich in charge of the country’s purse), has became intertwined in their mindset with the practice of so-called Western democracy. The central (but wrong) belief is that only through the so-called Western exclusive capitalism and Western exclusive democracy can every South African‘s interest be promoted and upheld. The antagonists believe, without real arguments to confirm it, that international or global inclusive capitalism (which the propagandists promote together with exclusive capitalism in South Africa) to uplift the mass of poor and landless Blacks, is Marxist, revolutionary and anti-Western. Looking critically at the official practice of exclusive capitalism in South Africa, it becomes clear that the antagonists’ view thereof is a farce. South Africa’s political and economic system has for years, specifically under the nationalist Afrikaners, been inclusively capitalistically driven. The nationalising from day one of most of the South African service-delivery old enterprises (such as today’s Transnet, SABC, Eskom and SAA), primary and secondary education, the so-called Bantustans of the NP, etc., are examples par excellence of inclusive capital models. Hereto is exclusive capital always vested in South Africa in the hands of a few capitalistic bullies (mostly White till 1994), who are manipulating every financial interest and step of the individual (even that of persons like the self-appointed spokespersons of the antagonists, although this reality is totally lacking in their mindset) to enrich themselves selfishly through the exclusive capitalist model.4,98,143

This exclusive capitalist manipulation and management, especially since 1910, is well planned and executed by the exclusive capitalistic bullies, contaminating the ordinary Whites’ mindset through the fear and danger of the horrors of communism, nationalisation of the private capital and assets, and the rise of suppression of Whites politically, socially and personally (the so-called horrors of Mao, Stalin and Mugabe!). This doctrine by the nationalist Afrikaner capitalists intensified from 1948 with the arrival of DF Malan and has not abated until today. Looking at the so-called upliftment of the post-1910 Afrikaners, it becomes clear that certain Afrikaner leaders and their families (who with time, became the guardians of the NP-AB-DRC-alliance through their newly allocated richness) solely benefitted inside exclusive capitalism. Although the nationalist Afrikaners, forming most of the present antagonists, pride themselves today on their good pensions and ownership of houses etc., brought to them through Afrikanerism, the value of these monies paid out to them, is peanuts in terms of the direct financial benefits and richness their membership payments to pension and medical funds, etc. These monies have been brought to the White exclusive capitalists who own, run and manage these various funds and financial institutes. Most of the antagonists’ mindsets became so doctrine mesmerised and filled with fear over the years by these few White exclusive capitalists’ ideology on the dangers awaiting them if the communists and the practitioners of so-called inclusive capitalism take over, that they lost their cognitive insight of what is politically and economically a myth versus what is politically correct, while the few exclusive White capitalists were laughing all the way to bank their billions at the cost of the individual poor South African.3,4,16,144-146

Firstly, with the suppression and dangers alluded to by the exclusive capitalists awaiting South Africans if the so-called “communists” take over, the facts show that South Africa was a country characterised by suppression and genocide of its people during 1948 to 1994 (the NP-regime of the nationalist Afrikaners). This extreme suppression never happened before 1948 and never after 1994. Secondly, in 1994 a strong element of communists became part of the ANC regime, but never activated suppression or genocide of South Africa’s people, specifically not of the Whites. Neither was nationalisation introduced by them. Thirdly, it must also be clear in the mindsets of the antagonists that socialism was always strongly anchored within exclusive capitalism in the 1948 to 1994 regime of the NP; prominently here again reflected by the business principles of the old public services like the South African railways, primary, secondary and tertiary education and health services, etc. It was only from the 1970s that so-called privatisation of public enterprises began to develop, bringing a parallel system of socialism and private exclusive capitalism to run hand in hand. Fourthly, the propagandists emphasise that there is no intention to change the South African economic system to the PAC’s exclusive socialism model, and thus to replace altogether the present economic system of exclusive capitalism. For the propagandists this is nothing else than the” Malema-nationalising” model which the ANC sees as undemocratic and an outright business failure.3,4,16,144-146

Looking further critically, specifically at the presence of White exclusive capital versus White inclusive capital, is it clear that the ±32 000 commercial White farmers – farming outside the exclusive circle of 3 200 White mega-farmers producing 90% and more of country’s food security – were in the past and are still today, themselves underwriters and practitioners of inclusive capital (although the reality of it is suppressed in their mindsets by the doctrine of Afrikanerism on communism and Black empowerment). Journalists such as Du Plessis are in the same boat of financial functioning (Du Plessis as a pensioner) inside inclusive capitalism, without cognitively recognising it! He and most of the 32 000 commercial White farmers and other salaried and self-employed Whites became since 1948 just too spell-bound by the nationalist Afrikaners crooked politics to comprehend their true situation. If Du Plessis doubts the truth of this posit he can just ask his previous boss and mentor, Koos Bekker, to confirm it and to teach him more about the goodness of inclusive capitalism. For the propagandists the ANC regime’s land redistribution with or without compensation, and the foundation thereof on inclusive capitalism, are not new in the South African financial and economical setup. This was always there and will always be there in the future. In the past inclusive capitalism did immense good to White farmers and it is going to do good to them again in the future.4,143

What is important at this stage for the propagandists is that most of the antagonists, who are still themselves today excluded from exclusive capitalism and its immense benefits, start to observe their position inside the well established and functioning inclusive capitalistic system and make a change to the side of the propagandists. Cyril Ramaphosa’s uplifting of the poor and landless Blacks is just an extension of the old inclusive capitalism, coming from the 1913 and which was also extensively used by the early White regimes to uplift the poor and landless Whites. It worked then: why will it not work now again with the poor and landless Blacks and the South African Nation as a unity?9,98

It is astonishing for the propagandists that so many of the antagonists, well educated and intelligent people, are still opposing the ANC regime, notwithstanding knowing that there are very few differences between their own political and economic ideologies, aims and intentions and those of the ANC elite. For the propagandists, one negative driver in the antagonists’ fight against the ANC regime since 1994 stands out: the antagonists’ foolish and stupid racism which was internalised into their mindsets by the opportunistic Afrikaners’ exclusive capitalists.145 ***

The propagandists believe it is time for the antagonists to look critically to present day South African politics: only then they will be surprised by the false Western democracy and Western exclusive capitalism which they have lived in since 1910. It will give them insight into their personal, political and economic abuse by the exclusive capitalists. It is time for most of the ±350 000 antagonists to make a wise political turn around: most Afrikaners/Whites (more than 4.6 million already did this and are happy). These turned around antagonists can not only help to solve the poor and landless Black Problem, but can at the same time assure themselves and their ancestors a personal, political and economic haven in future South Africa.4 For the propagandists, all people are born into certain societies and, as Martinez1 shows, are introduced to and formed in these setups by certain cultures and beliefs for the good or bad. The White Afrikaners did not have a choice who were going to be their parents and what effect Apartheid would have on their characters, and thus how they were going to approach the South Africa of 2018. But, as Martinez1 also shows, no-one needs to be a victim of his/her circumstances: all persons can change. It is time for the antagonists to follow Lailah Gifty Akita’s proverbial advice: “Don’t be a victim of circumstances. Choose victory by gracious endurance”.

For the propagandists it is time for the antagonists to whole-heartedly join Ramaphosa’s land reform initiative!

4. Conclusions

Looking in perspective at the intended land redistribution of the ANC under the leadership of President Cyril Ramaphosa, the editor147 of the Sunday Times can rightfully say that there are more snakes than ladders in our silver anniversary year of democracy: there are indeed manifold problems and obstructions to overcome; the question is if it can be overcome. He writes147:8:

When Nelson Mandela delivered his inspiring inauguration speech on May 10 1994, he imagined a different SA than the one we live in today. Paying tribute to the heroes of the struggle and the sacrifices they made, he said: “Their dreams have become reality. Freedom is their reward”. Sadly, Mandela’s rhetoric soared far higher than the reality that has unfolded since then. His dream of a non-racial, non-sexist, equal society remains just that, a dream. Under apartheid, he said, SA was “the skunk of the world”. Now it is the country with the greatest levels of inequality, one burdened by a schooling system memorably described this week by the man who runs it as “not the worst in the world”.

As we prepare to celebrate a quarter of a century of democracy, South Africans have little to show for the vision held out by Mandela. The non-racial project has all but collapsed. Legitimate calls for redistribution have been hijacked by opportunists hellbent on sowing racial tension. Lingering racial discrimination refuses to let the wounds inflicted by apartheid heal.

It is so far clear for the propagandists that a mass of contaminating elements and role-players, integrated and established in the age-old injustice and discriminative White political and socio-economic system of South Africa, are obstructing the change to Section 25 to be able to effect land expropriation without compensation. The presence of myths and lies, used masterfully by the antagonists to assure the continuation of exclusive White land ownership, are prominent in the antagonists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints.

The propagandists have no other choice in their fight for a just South Africa, free from White supremacy and enrichment, but to take on the change to Section 25 to effect land expropriation without compensation. It is the only path to uplift the mass of Blacks out of their inequality, landlessness, poverty and unemployment, which stem from Apartheid’s exploitation and suppression of Blacks for centuries. The immense land grabbing by Whites of non-Whites’ land, coming from 1652, can at last effectively be reversed.

For the propagandists, the antagonists’ hostility and manipulation, to hold on to their multiple privileges coming from pre-1994 South Africa, are prominent. Central is their rejection of Black empowerment, making their responsibility and contribution to society, especially the poor, in the end null and void. The antagonists’ intentions are all to activate self-profit. For the propagandists, the country is still today financially run by a small class of a White elite under guardianship of White males versus a mass of Blacks who posses little in social, cultural, racial and financial rights and privileges. The undoing of the historical trajectory of the age-old injustice and discriminative White political and socio-economic system of South African society is one of the biggest challenges for the government. There is still the belittling of and the ignoring of Blacks as incompetent, which took root from the founding of the Union of South Africa. This setup is forcing the ANC government to activate and to bring democracy to every citizen, with no other alternative to comprehensive land redistribution to relocate exclusive capital to inclusive capital, so as to erase inequality, unemployment, poverty and landlessness.

The reference by Khumalo146 of the hanging of an economic-political revolution over South Africa’s head is clear when he says that146:10: “South Africans at large would do well to remember the words of the late English historian, EP Thompson, who spoke of the need to understand the moral economy and avoid becoming a world in which economic and moral concerns are gradually drifting apart”.

South Africa has failed totally since 1652 to understand the concept of moral economy; let alone to implement it in any form at any time outside a racial division with the Whites as the privileged and the Blacks as the victims. The presence of a mass of poor and landless Blacks is the clear result of this failed moral economy. This is evidenced by the hard fact that so much as 29 million Blacks are poor (more than 50% of the total population) and that the democracy of 1994 could not overcome the Blacks’ immense poverty, inequality and unemployment created by racial discrimination of centuries. The propagandists show that in this morally sick setup, the privileged Whites so far have blocked a free civilian transfer of some of their wealth to the Blacks, forcing a compulsory civilian transfer of land expropriation into practice.

Khumalo144 contends that the legitimacy of exclusive capitalism is at a crisis point in South Africa. Here its pitfalls are exhibited with the dubious distinction of the world’s greatest inequality quotient, a crisis of youth unemployment and a lack of upward mobility for millions of South Africans. Khumalo writes144:10:

The captains of [exclusive] capitalism – big corporate and wealthy individuals – are being found engaging in corruption and dubious business practices that seek to prioritise profit at the expense of society. In a society so polarised by the ongoing consequences of its history, this only feeds into the growing sense of resentment that the general public has against those seen to have economic power.

In this form of capitalism, business has the imperative of maximising internal wealth and doing little to advance society. Inevitably, it falls upon government and regulators to put in place guidelines to keep capitalism in check. Such guidelines range from compulsory regulations – workplace safety standards for example – to optional ones such as corporate social responsibility [and undoubtedly land expropriation legislation]. And yet even such interventions have failed to bend the arc of capitalism towards something more equitable and reflective of a shared prosperity. Partly because even when complying with guidelines, the primary focus of business remains profit.

Central to the overcoming of this Black immense poverty, inequality and unemployment versus the extreme wealth of a selective minority inside South Africa’s failed moral economy, stands the message of Barack Obama which he presented on the 17thJuly 2018 at the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture during the centenary celebrations in Johannesburg: A message for the propagandists fully in line with that of Cyril Ramaphosa’s reflecting as inclusive capital, his intended land expropriation as the best way for the rich to help to create a more equal society here.98,147148 Joffe148, in perspective on this message of Obama (and indirectly also thus that of Ramaphosa), writes148:10:

His call was for an inclusive, market based economy and, essentially, for an ethical [moral] capitalism. In South Africa the debate is, understandably, often about transformation in the racial sense, but Obama’s comments should prompt us to think more globally and innovatively about the kind of inclusive, ethical capital he urged. Crucially, first, he didn’t suggest the rich shouldn’t be rich – but rather questioned, in a gentle sort of way, how much money they really needed, and urged them to give some of it away.

In the sequential Article Six (entitled: “The propagandists arguments, opinions and viewpoints for changing Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution to make land redistribution without compensation possible: Part 2”), the various other contaminated elements and role-players (as already described in this Part 1), which form, support and drive the age old injustice and discriminative White political and socio-economic system, will be described further in-depth and comprehensively evaluated.

5. References

  1. Martinez R. Creating Freedom. Power. London: Canongate; 2016.
  2. Boot-Siertsema B, Boot LLG. Praatboek uit Suid-Afrika. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn; 1982.
  3. Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
  4. Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
  5. Louw GP. Who are colonists and who are indigenous people in South Africa? Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 7(3): 1-59.
  6. Powell J. Talking toTerrorists. London: Penguin; 2014.
  7. Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press; 1996.
  8. Makgoba T. Community needs, not politicians, should lead the redistribution debate. Sunday Times 2018 Sept. 23; p. 21.
  9. Khumalo A. Land debate the first of many we need to save SA. Sunday Times (Opinion), 2018 Mar 11; p. 10.
  10. Mthombothi B. Africa is being betrayed by its leaders – now it’s up to us to hold them to account. Sunday Times. 2018 June 3; p. 17.
  11. Ancer J. Life is wonderful. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr 8; p. 12.
  12. Barron C. Land plans would cost SA on the ground. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Feb. 25; p. 9. 13.
  13. De Jager T. ‘n Mening: Met onteiening is meer as plase op die spel. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 3.
  14. De Jager T. Grond: Koeël is nog nie deur kerk. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; pp. 4-5.
  15. Khumalo F. Beloved book, still crying. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 September 30; p. 17.
  16. Mamphele R. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begin. 2018 Mar. 11; p. 2.
  17. Brun B. Africans must be first in line for empowerment. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 22.
  18. Nortje B. Lessons from our close neighbour’s house fire. Sunday Times. (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
  19. A day for reconciliation and reflection. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Dec. 16, p. 18.
  20. Mthomboth B. Mbeki’s intervention on land collides head-on with the direction of the new greed ANC. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 30; p. 21.
  21. Tabane OJJ. Mbeki’s take on land is a necessary provocation. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 7; p. 6.
  22. Friedman B. Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
  23. Giliomee H. Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001. In: A Fisher, M Albeldas (eds). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  24. Ginsberg A. South Africa’s future: From crisis to prosperity. London: MacMillan; 1998.
  25. Malloch-Brown M. The Unfinished Global Revolution. Johannesburg: Penguin; 2012.
  26. Venter T. ANC volg NP se pad. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 7.
  27. Verwoerd WJ. Verwoerd: Só onthou ons hom. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis; 2001.
  28. Boëseken AJ. Jan van Riebeeck en sy stigtingswerk: 1652-1662. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  29. Scholtz GD. Suid-Afrika en die Wéreldpolitiek: 1652-1952. Pretoria: Voortrekkerpers; 1964.
  30. Van der Merwe PJ. Van Verversingspos tot Landbou-Kolonie: 1662 – 1707. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  31. Van der Walt AJH. Die Eeu van die Veeboer-pionier: 1707-1779. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: NASOU; Annon.
  32. Grundlingh MAS. Vyftig Jaar Britse Bestuur, 1806-1854. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  33. Chomsky N. Occupy. Parktown: Penguin; 2012.
  34. Engelbrecht SP, Bosman ID. Federasie en Anneksasie, 1872-1881. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  35. Engelbrecht T. ‘n Kroniek van ‘n kaalgatperske. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Jan. 21; pp. 12-13.
  36. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of the South African: 1652 to 2018. Part 5: Performance profiles of executive political leaders and regimes for the period 1652 to 1795. Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 7(3): 1-59.
  37. Wiid JA. Politieke ontwikkeling, 1872-1896. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  38. Joshua 11:14, 11:16 and 11. 23; pp. 325-326. In: Life Application Bible. The living Bible. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers; 1988.
  39. Dousemetzis H. The man who killed apartheid. Cape Town: Jacana; 2018.
  40. Dousemetzis H. Messenger of death. Sunday Times (Insight) 2018 Nov. 25; pp. 15-16.
  41. Smith T. Understanding an assassin: a new look at the man they called insane. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 November 25; p. 16.
  42. Bruce P. Genocide on the farms? Show us the facts. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 March 25; p. 20.
  43. Nair N. Take us or leave us – Cyril on land reform. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 4.
  44. Corrigan T. There’s madness in the land debate, but not in pointing out the risks. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  45. Bruce P. Careful moves as the endgame begins. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 31; p. 12.
  46. Eisenberg G. A parallel, shadow regime has hijacked control of SA’s borders. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
  47. Maimane reasserting his leadership to steer his party on a new course. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 16.
  48. Mthombothi B. Gupta heist was an inside job, but the insiders are about to get away with it. ST 2018 May 20; p. 17.
  49. Tshabalala M. Beware, the snake myth be dead but these who share its secrets can still bite.ST 2018 Jan. 7; p. 13.
  50. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 2: The entities in government and society that executive political leaders used to aid their political behaviour. Ensovoort, 2018; 8: 6(2): 1-44.
  51. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of the South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 3: Factors that influence the development of executive political leaders. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(1): 1-54.
  52. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 4: A basic checklist for the appraisal of executive political leaders and regimes. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(2): 1-36.
  53. Morudu P. Wie dra die meeste skuld? Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 22; pp. 4-5.
  54. Retief H. ‘n Halfeeu oue seer brand nog. Rapport (Nuus). 2016 Mar. 15; p. 11.
  55. Sampson A. Mandela. The authorised biography. London: Harper Collins; 2000.
  56. South Africa. Unie van Suid-Afrika. Samevatting van die verslag van die Kommissie vir die Sosio-Ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
  57. Smith T. Timol inquest breakthrough is an important step in exorcising ghost of BJ Vorster. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Oct. 15; p. 18.
  58. Olof Palme. Prime minister of Sweden assassination 1986. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/europe/sweden-olof-palme-killing.html
  59. De Groot S. The politics of perspective and the power of dissent. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Ap.r 15; p. 16.
  60. Spence J E. Republic under Pressure. A study of South African Foreign Policy. London: Oxford University Press; 1965.
  61. Opperheimer M. Six myths about land reform that show the folly of meddling with Bill of Rights. Sunday Times. 2018 May 13; p.18.
  62. De Lange J. Grondwet kan op vroegste middel Mei 2019 verander. Rapport (Nuus) 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
  63. Mthombothi B. ANC fawns over Malema and takes SA down the road of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Sunday Times. 2018 Mar. 4; p. 15.
  64. Munusamy R, Kgosana C. NO, NO NENE! Sunday Times. 2018 Oct. 7; pp. 1-2.
  65. Grant-Marshall S. Passion and prejudice. Sunday Times.(Insight). 2018 Dec. 2; p. 19.
  66. Grant-Marshall S. Your People Will Be My People. Cape Town: Protea Boekhuis; 2018.
  67. Halt descent to law of jungle. The Star (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 12; p.12.
  68. Is Ramaphosa willing to sacrifice our rights to the Zulu king’s blackmail? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 8; p. 22.
  69. Kok A. Lys: AfriForum het volste reg. Beeld (Kommentaar). 2018 Aug. 16; p.16.
  70. Monama T. AfriForum slams farm murders stats. The Star. 2018 Sept. 12; p. 2/.
  71. Monama T. Murder spree leaves SA reeling. The Star. 2018 Sept. 12; p. 3.
  72. Monama Ď, Mashaba S. We are a country under crime siege. The Star, 2018 Sept. 12; pp.1-2.
  73. Mthombothi B. Now that Zuma’s gone, if not forgotten, the red berets reveal their true colours. Sunday Times. 2018 July 29; p. 19.
  74. February J. Spektakelpolitici haal streke uit. Beeld (Kommentaar) 2018 Apr. 18; p. 16.
  75. Cousins B. Your land rights may be trampled every day if you’re an ordinary black South African. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 11; p. 22.
  76. Massey B. A lot still to be done. The Star (Letters). 2018 July 16; p. 21.
  77. Shain M. A coup could never happen here. Or could it? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 10; p. 22.
  78. Maughan K. ‘Zuma’s worst nightmare’. Sunday Times. 2018 July 8; pp. 1-2.
  79. Mthombothi B. Ramaphosa may have won the leadership battle but he’s lost the ideological one. Sunday Times. 2018 Mar. 11; p. 21.
  80. Pelser W. EFF-steun verdubbel. Rapport. 2018 Sept. 23; pp. 1-2.
  81. Van Zyl O. Grondhervorming in SA móét geprivatiseer word. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Dec. 24; pp. 8-9.
  82. Barron C. Standing firm amid ill wind of populism. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 10.
  83. Barron C. WEF paints ’too bleak’ a labour picture. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 13; p. 8.
  84. Bruce P. Business is still willing to help a responsible state. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 16.
  85. Mulder P. ‘n Slegter lewe vir almal. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; pp. 4-5.
  86. Derby R. Black business bears brunt of the excesses of ruinous Zuma era. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 2.
  87. Derby R. Populism is still ad tantalising and easy an option as in Zuma years. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Oct. 21; p. 2.
  88. Groenewald Y. Banke oor onteiening: ‘Ons leen nog; ons is net versigtig’. Rapport (Sake). 2019 Sept. 19; p. 1.
  89. Haffajee F. Ramaphoria just can’t keep up with Addo-ration. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 6; p. 2.
  90. Kawadra H. Finance sector code will help fund black business. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 10.
  91. Khumalo A. The billions Africa needs are available. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Nov. 11; p. 10.
  92. Kodwa Z. The ANC is not on trail at the commission of inquiry into state capture. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  93. Mtongana L. Black miners fear charter will fall short. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Mar. 25; p. 6.
  94. Mtongana L. ‘Cyril effect’ could restart the stalled mining engine. Sunday Times. (Business). 2018 Feb. 25; p. 7.
  95. Mvumvu Z. Transnet brass clash over ‘nonexistent’ meeting. Sunday Times. 2018 Aug. 19; p. 1.
  96. Mthombothi B. Zuma’s homage to Biko seeks to fill the abyss left by the ANC’s exhausted ideology. Sunday Times. 2017 Sept. 17; p. 21.
  97. Seccombe A. “It’s not too late to turn corruption around”. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 5.
  98. Stremlau JJ. Obama’s Mandela lecture comes at an auspicious time for democracy. The Star (Inside). 2018 July 16; p. 11.
  99. Shoba S, Mthetwa B. Ramaphosa bends the knee to Zulu king on tense land issue. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 2018; p. 4.
  100. Taljaard J. Dalk is ANC se sebra ‘n donkie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; p.15.
  101. Barron C. Tread carefully on new land reform. Sunday Times (Business) 2018 Aug. 26; p. 9.
  102. Derby R. Beware the traps of populism in dealing with land reform. ST (Business) 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
  103. Bruce P. Cyril making ground on craft; not so much on policy. Sunday Times (Opinion) 2018 Aug. 19; p. 20.
  104. Derby R. Populism is still a tantalising and easy an option as in Zuma years. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Oct. 21; p. 2.
  105. Du Plessis C. Baie emigrante kom terug na Suid-Afrika. Beeld (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 16; p. 14.
  106. Land expropriation talk spreads to Namibia 28 years after independence. [Cited 2018 Apr. 10]. Available from https://www.biznews.com/africa/2018/09/28/namibia-land-grabs-poverty?utm_source=Biznews.com+Main&utm_campaign=e99d7
  107. Mantashe, ANC praat bont oor grond. Rapport (News). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 2.
  108. Mangu X. Early Zimbabwe land reform showed the value of small-scale farmers. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 22.
  109. Munusamy R. It’s easy to scoff and jeer from the cheap seats as SA stumbles in confusion, but getting invoved would achieve a great deal more. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 22.
  110. Steyn P. Zim-boere dink nuut oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 12.
  111. Van Rensburgh RJ. Só bereik Kriel, Buys en Van Zyl niks nie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 10.
  112. Wyngaard H. Grondkwessie bied die land ‘n tweede kans. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 6.
  113. Mangu X. Early Zimbabwe land reform showed the value of small-scale farmers. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 22.
  114. 75%-meerderheid nodig vir wysiging. Rapport (Kommentaar). 2018 Sept. 16; p.16.
  115. Bruce P. EFF’s Dr Charming pulls a fast one on TV. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 20; p. 16.
  116. Speckman A. Little consumer relief in GDP data. Sunday Times (Business) 2018 Sept. 2; p. 3.
  117. Bulger P. A melting pot in which the flavours refuse to mingle. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 10; p. 20.
  118. Jordan B. Land: first fix state’s own tenant crisis. Sunday Times (Busines). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 10.
  119. Malema J. Land restoration began five years ago with the birth of the EFF. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22; p. 3.
  120. Ngcukaitobi T. Land could right so many wrongs. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 8; p. 23.
  121. Skenjana S. SA must make most of investor interest. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
  122. Mthombothi B. This week’s protests had faults, but flying the apartheid flag was the least of them. Sunday Times. 2017 Nov. 5; p. 25.
  123. Khumalo A. A persistent beggar that needs to learn to fly by itself. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 10.
  124. Speckman A. Treasury rallies to aid of a recovering SARS. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 125.
  125. Vilakazi HW. The probability of revolution in South Africa. In: M. Albeldas, A. Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  126. Mthombothi B. Our double dose of despair, courtesy of Zuma and his cabinet of incompetents. Sunday Times. 2017 Oct. 29; p. 25.
  127. Collins F. ‘No vacant land in city is safe from occupation. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Apr. 1; p. 4.
  128. Haffajee F. Who owns the land? It’s not all black and white, audits reveal. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 6.
  129. Mthombothi B. Failure to crack down on the wave of anarchy will let it swell to a flood that destroys democracy. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 17.
  130. Bruce P. Integrity and boldness must be Ramaphosa’s strategy. Sunday Times. (Opinion). 2018 Apr. 29; p. 16.
  131. Jansen J. ‘Besetting gebeur net te glad en gou’. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 4.
  132. Leon T. On expropriation, let’s not be glad to settle for half a loaf. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 18.
  133. Nair N. MK veterans arrested for South Coast house grab. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Apr 1; p. 4.
  134. Nombembe P. Cyril’s word seen as land grab go-ahead. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Apr. 1; p. 4.
  135. Savides M. Home occupiers hit back at city over housing allocation. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 15; p. 10.
  136. Schreiber L. Zuma and Jesus aside, the future does not belong to the ANC. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 17.
  137. Umraw A. True voice of the people on the land question is being drowned out by a politicachorus. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 18.
  138. We have waited long enough for Ramaphosa to axe Mahumapelo. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Apr. 29; p. 16.
  139. S’fiso Ngcobo: Land rights activist who was snubbed by town hall1969-2018 (Obituaries).Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 20.
  140. Gandhi E. It’s time we really get to know each other across the racial divide. Sunday Times. 2018 Mar. 18; p. 21.
  141. Mthombothi B. Ugly Australians – Peter Dutton and the precious lot who are here playing cricket. Sunday Times. 2018 Mar. 18; p. 21.
  142. Smith T. Understanding an assassin: a new look at the man they called insane. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Nov. 25; p. 16.
  143. Du Plessis T. Anti-kamp kry sójuis teendeel vermag. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Apr. 29; p. 6.
  144. Khumalo A. Capitalism needs to find its conscience. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 22; p. 10.
  145. Ditshego S. Decadent ruling class in SA remains undaunted. The Star (Opinion). 2018 Sep.12; p. 12.
  146. Khumalo A. In the downfall of two business leaders lies a lesson. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 10.
  147. More snakes than ladders in our silver anniversary year of democracy. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 8.
  148. Joffe H. Obama’s economic lessons from Mandela. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 22; p. 10.

PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author has no competing interests to declare.

FUNDING

The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa.

UNSUITABLE TERMS AND INAPPROPRIATE WORDS

Please note that I, the author, am aware that the words Creole, Bantu, Kaffir, Native, Hottentot and Bushman are no longer suitable terms and are inappropriate (even criminal) for use in general speech and writing in South Africa. (Even the words non-White and White are becoming controversial in the South African context). These terms do appear in dated documents. These terms or translations are used for the sake of historical accuracy in this article. Their use is unavoidable within this context. It is important to retain their use in this article in order to reflect the racist thought, speech and writings of as recently as sixty years ago. These names form part of a collection of degrading names commonly used in historical writings during the heyday of apartheid and the British imperial time. In reflecting upon the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanisation and distancing involved by showing the language used to suppress and oppress. It also helps us to place leaders and their sentiments on a continuum of racism. These negative names do not represent my views and I distance myself from the use of such language for speaking and writing. In my other research on the South African populations and political history, I use Blacks, Whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaners, Coloureds, KhoiSan (Bushmen), KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and Boers as applicable historically descriptive names.

Who are colonists and who are indigenous people in South Africa? (1)

Gabriel P Louw

iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093

Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).

Corresponding Author:

Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PU for CHE), DPhil (PU for CHE), PhD (NWU)

Email: profgplouw@gmail.com

Keywords: Age-old custom, colonist, frontiersman, humanity, impoverishment, indigenous people, land grabbing, landless, land ownership, land redistribution, political history, radicalism, terrorism, unemployment

Ensovoort, volume 38 (2018), number 12: 1

1. Background

1.1 Introduction

So Joshua conquered the entire land – the hill country, the Negeb, the land of Goshen, the lowlands, the Arabah, and the hills and the lowlands of Israel. The Israeli territory now extended all the way from Mount Halak, near Seir, to Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon, at the foot of Mount Hermon.1

All the loot and cattle of the ravaged cities were taken by the Israelis for themselves, but they killed all the people. For so the Lord had commanded his disciple Moses; and Moses had passed the commandment on to Joshua, who did as he had been told: he carefully obeyed all of the Lord’s instructions to Moses.1

and

So Joshua took the entire land just as the Lord had instructed Moses; and he gave it to the people of Israel as their inheritance, dividing the land among the tribes. So the land finally rested from its war.1

The Jews became colonists, and with time indigenous colonists, and at last indigenous people to a part of Palestine and of today’s Jewish nation-state of Israel. The Western and Christian world believe this as the truth and the only truth, and acknowledge today these Jews as indigenous people of Israel and as true and rightful owners to it. The fake stories of the Jewish past became the grandparents of the fake news of today’s Israel and Israelis.

When one reads Old Israel’s political and biblical history, it is striking how similar South African political history reads. Only the geography, regional names, the names of leaders, participating tribes and historical periods are different. These histories boast the same radical ideologies on racism, cultural dogmas, doctrines, religious blindness and murderous intentions. The Jews of the Old Testament perpetrated violence tantamount to a rape of humanity, shedding the blood of the innocent. It did not matter if the victims were men, women and children in their own homeland. Their actions were justified as a divine command. Today these murderous biblical acts of ethnic and racial cleansing and land grabbing would be classified as psychopathic and mentally disturbed behaviour on the part of political and religious leaders.1,2

In South African history, we see this abnormality in the murderous sprees of Shaka [Chaka], the King of the Zulus, during the Mfecane and Lifaqane wars. He not only murdered the warriors of the many Black tribes he conquered and whose land and cattle he stolen, but also the women and children of these tribes, just like Joshua. We also see it in the history of the early Afrikaners, the White frontiersmen. They murdered the KhoiSan and captured their women and children to keep as slaves in their hunger for land, money and political power in the early Cape. We see this abnormality in the genocide of Boer women and children during the Anglo Boer War (1899–1902) under Alfred Milner. His British Empire had an insatiable hunger for self-enrichment, political power and control of the land in South Africa.2,3

What stands out here is land ownership and physically taking land with war, killing and murder. These killings and murderous acts always lead to a vicious cycle of more wars; killing and murder ensure “legal” land ownership through land occupation and forced land transfer. This land transfer is simply land grabbing. Other direct outcomes of the efforts to maintain power and ownership include the development of exclusive political and economic government models, like racial domination. The Grand Apartheid of the Afrikaners and the European supremacy of the British through their Empire serve as examples.2 Enclosed here stands the distortion of history, leading to each group embracing a “fake story”.

The fake stories of the South African Blacks and South African Whites gave birth to the fake stories and fake news that dominate the relationship between South African Blacks and Whites.

The main aim of this project of seven articles is to examine the land redistribution debacle harrying South Africa now in the light of the country’s history of land grabbing as an age-old custom. The article series offers a perspective on the current troubled political state of South Africa and the possible future awaiting the country if the envisaged land redistribution fails.

The aim of this first article is to evaluate and describe land ownership in the period 1652 to 2018 by considering the following:

  •     Who pass as indigenous peoples, colonists and indigenous colonists?
  •     Legal indigenous land ownership versus predatory land ownership
  •     The role and influence of the land terrorism and land grabbing in South Africa’s past

The evaluations and descriptions outlined above are contained in the Results and Discussion sections (Sections 3 and 4).

2. Method

The research was been done by means of a literature review. This method aims to construct a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research develops. This approach is been used in modern political-historical research where there is often not an established body of research, as is the case with ownership of South African soil for the period 1652 to 2018. The sources included articles from 2016 to 2018, books for the period 1944 to 2018 and newspapers for the period 2016 to 2018. These sources were been consulted to evaluate and to describe past and present land ownership in South Africa. This would put the different thoughts, views and opinions on land grabbing as an age-old custom in South Africa into perspective by identifying indigenous and colonial people; indigenous, legal and predatory land ownership; and the role and impact of land terrorism and land grabbing in the past of South Africa.4-6

The research findings are presented in narrative format.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Land ownership obtained by means of modern terrorism in South Africa

Land ownership has always been problematic in South Africa. Problems started when the early proto-Afrikaners, supported by the VOC at the Cape, drove the KhoiKhoi off their traditional land in the Liesbeeck Valley (Western Cape) during the KhoiKhoi War (1658–1660).2,7 Geen7 describes it as the first commissioning of White terrorism perpetrated on non-Whites in South Africa in the form of planned land grabbing. This early White terrorism meets all the requirements of the current British definition of terrorism, which reads8:9:

  1.     Violence against a person or serious damage to property;
  2.     Designed to influence a government or an international organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public with the aim of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

It is politically-historically correct to describe the moment that Jan van Riebeeck planted the VOC-flag at the Cape in 1652 to establish the Cape Refreshment Station as the first land grabbing by Whites in South Africa. However, generally speaking, land grabbing in South Africa goes further back to the southwards migrating fore fathers of the modern Black South Africans. They ousted the KhoiSan and KhoiKhoi from their South African territories, which these tribes in turn possibly grabbed from earlier unknown inhabitants.2,7,9

It is interesting that in South African land ownership is been established along the same route as that of land ownership in the time of Joshua’s Old Israel (land/property being stolen from inhabitants, who in turn settled there by stealing it from another group by means of terrorism). The recently established (1948) new democratic Jewish state of today looks similar. Kaari Ward10 writes as follows on this type of land ownership during Joshua’s time10:101:

Land ownership, was a matter of family inheritance. In Scripture, the tradition can be traced back more than 1,000 years to when Joshua distributed the lands of the newly conquered Canaan among the tribes of Israel according to God’s plan. Ownership was supposed to pass in an unbroken line down through the generations, from father to sons, the eldest receiving double the share of any of his brothers. As the younger sons usually received shares too small to sustain independent farms, they had little choice but to shell their inheritance to the principal heir, who was thus able to keep the ancestral family farm intact. The then landless younger sons might remain in the village, taking up a trade or working as farm labourers for their brother, or they might leave the village to join the large numbers of migrant workers who found casual labour where they could, or they might even resort to becoming brigands. If a landowner died, leaving no sons, the property went to his daughter or if he had no daughter to his brothers, uncles, or nearest relative.

The above ownership of land (of the land obtained by their ancestors through land grabbing), that is passed on to the ordinary Jew through inheritance, has changed dramatically. The Jewish political environment and the country’s executive political leadership were been taken over by powerful foreigners (colonists) and rich and politically untouchable Jewish groups (indigenous colonists). Land ownership changed during the Roman occupation and rule. The Romans favoured Jewish civil and religious elites. This left many of the ordinary Jews landless as peasants and labourers, living in poverty. The same metamorphosis is apparent when one looks at South African history. Early Afrikaners (colonists) and later Afrikaners (indigenous colonists) experienced a growth in their land ownership and riches as result of land grabbing from non-Whites. This left most of these non-Whites (indigenous colonists) landless and poor, and that state of affairs lasted up to today.1,2,3,7,9 Ward comments as follows on the Jewish experience10:100:

…in some parts of Palestine, the best properties at this time were in the hands of a relatively few landowners – mainly Rome’s rulers, the Herodian family, and the priestly aristocracy. In these places, the farmers working the land might have been tenants or even slaves.

South Africa currently has to balance two strong opposing views on land ownership at present. There is a clear division between those who favour land transfer and -redistribution with compensation on the one hand, and those in favour of land grabbing without compensation on the other. This mostly Black-versus-White issue started in 1652 and results in a daily growth in hostility. In this context is it the landless Blacks, mostly unemployed and impoverished, who are standing up against what they see as South Africa’s modern “Rome’s rulers, the Herodian family, and the priestly aristocracy” of Whites”; the people who are also still the land owners of the country. The developmental economist Jason Musyoka11 emphasises that the South African land reform issue has become more than a showdown between Blacks and Whites. It is now a fight between two types of South African localized nationalisms – one progressive and the other conservative. The basis of the conflict centres on whether the Blacks or the Whites are the rightful franchisees of the South African land. Musyoka11 classifies the two opposing role-players, each representing various subgroups, as follows11:18:

The progressives (or left-wingers) consist of the Nationalist left (the EFF), the social democratic left (the ANC and alliance partners), and solidarity groups such as the Black Management Forum, and others. The conservative nationalists (right-wingers) range from the centre-right DA, agriculture-based associations – most of which represent the interests of White commercial farmers – to far-right groups as the Freedom Front Plus and solidarity groups such as AfriForum.

The support of the progressives mostly comes from the poor masses of blue-collar workers and the untrained rural population. The conservatives are more representative of the minority richer classes and the financial sector, with a strong foundation in the global economy. Although there is undoubtedly a clear Black-versus-White inclination here, Musyoka11 emphasises that there is a crossing of Blacks and Whites to both sides of the dispute over land ownership, making it a critical issue that should be addressed urgently.11,12

The fact that more than 24 years have passed since 1994 without land ownership having been addressed in a balanced and just manner, draws attention to the failure of the new democracy to serve the individual citizen. This failure equally pertains to farmland and plots for housing in urban areas near the financial hubs. The poor landless and unemployed Black population attribute (rightly so) much of their misfortune to Grand apartheid and the years of White political domination. However, the failure of the ANC regime to address land reform constructively in the course of their 24 years of reign is also prominent8.12-14 Land ownership is becoming a political stew pot. Musyoka11 in this regard warns11: 18:

South Africa’s land reform is therefore no longer an innocent national conversation. Rightly so, given that two decades have passed since the country became a democracy, and South Africa’s half-a-generation-old miracle moment is well in the rear-view mirror. It would be naïve, therefore, to imagine that the outcome of land reform is a fait accompli simply based on public utterances and intentions from either the right or the left.

Worse still, Zimbabwe bungled its land reform process, thereby becoming the rulebook of what expropriation of land without compensation in South Africa might look like.

On this basis, even if the South African government follows a different methodology, it is difficult to imagine any different outcome. Zimbabwe’s nationalism blunder has become the reference point for the nationalist right in South Africa.

Like language and culture, while land is a national asset, it reflects a struggle for nationalism – and these have been unkind to the history of the last century. The nationalisms of the 20th century are howling from the other side of the grave, and South Africa’s current land debate is answering their call with enthusiasm.

3.2 “Uhuru” has arrived in South Africa at last

Musyoka’s description11 of the present-day conflict surrounding land ownership is excellent. His precise rendition shows that land ownership far more than a general, one-sided emotional debate. Uhuru has arrived in South Africa at last, although sixty years too late. Musyoka’s11 emphasis that land is a national asset is clearly meant as a wake-up call to the predominantly White farmer class and many ordinary Afrikaners who argue (and seem to genuinely believe) that land ownership is (and always was) the exclusive right of a certain group. Musyoka points out that it is a right to all South Africans, a national asset, not a personal asset. Any occupation of land sealed by a deed of conveyance for the purpose of improving the land and making a living from it is always a temporary right of care of the state’s assets, nothing more. South Africa’s political history from 1652 reflects this well. Land ownership changed involuntary from the KhoiSan and KhoiKhoi to the migrant Black tribes from North Africa and later to the colonial White frontiersmen (early Afrikaners) who came from Europe and moved north from Cape Town. The ownership of the Black tribes in northern South Africa changed to the White frontiersmen (Trekboers and later Voortrekkers). This chain of tragic South African events confirms the vicious cycle of war, bloodshed and terrorism, built on a foundation of ethnicity and racism.2,7

The envisaged process of Black occupation of White farmland and other land – land that Whites obtained from the KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi and Black tribes by means of force from 1652 onwards – is therefore a normal and unavoidable process in the post-1994 South Africa. The decisions on whether land reform should be with or without compensation clearly do not constitute a first autocratic act as portrayed by especially White landowners. It is a democratic act based on majority consultation and decision. This process of majority consultation and decision-making on the country’s interests is a principle that the Afrikaners endorsed when they transferred their political power in 1994. They cannot deny this reality or try to obstruct it with all kinds of foolish arguments and actions.2

It does not really matter how the process of land transfer takes place. Whether it is a Zimbabwe-style act of violence or a democratic process without conflict or bloodletting, it will happen, perhaps as soon as this year given the ANC’s clamouring for votes in the 2019 elections. There is very little difference in the thought process at the foundation of land occupation by the VOC, the British, the Boers, the apartheid government and Robert Mugabe. All these instances are overshadow by a lengthy history of murder, genocide, injustice, impoverishment and suppression of the previous landowners who had lost their land to outside intruders and conquerors through multiple atrocities. What is different in South Africa is that many White citizens have erased knowledge of the cruel and unjust political history of land grabbing from 1652 to 1994. They have selective amnesia, brought on by a political history that deceived them to perceive themselves as good. White Christian capitalism is central to this skewed perception, although Christian principles always came in second to the Afrikaner drive for self-enrichment at the cost of non-White South Africans.2

3.3 The Herodotus Rules as predictors of South Africa’s current land dispute

The current uncertainty on land ownership is been saw as the curse of revenge and counter-revenge. This mechanism is not only apparent from the teachings of the Old Testament, but also of the Greek historian Herodotus. This is undoubtedly belief systems that the Afrikaners and the Blacks have embodied from early on. Land transfer, radical economic transformation (RET) and radical social transformation (RST) is an inevitability awaiting the Whites in South Africa if one views it in the context of revenge. The Herodotus Rules were been formulated more than 2 500 years ago as a guideline for good governance. The goal is respect for other persons in governing, no matter their race, religion or status. Herodotus reasoned that any ruler (or ruling group) should adhere to six rules to stay in power and to lead a long and happy life as a ruler. The rules are meant to ensure that when a group is no longer in charge, there would not be reprisals and retaliation from aggrieved subordinates or conquered groups and their descendants.2,15,16

The six rules that a good ruler should underwrite, practice and respect are2:

  •     Always act with fairness and wisdom towards your subjects;
  •     Empower each individual politically, legally, socially, and economically;
  •     Do not favour or put certain individuals or yourself above others;
  •     Act with self-control at all times;
  •     Do not be self-enriching at the expense of your subjects, and
  •     Given the power of a ruler, avoid and be free of power mismanagement and     emotional and physical exploitation, abuse and misuse of your subjects.

The above six basic rules provide an excellent explanation of the deep-seated views among Blacks about racism and its accompanying land grabbing by the Afrikaners. One of the revenges is grabbing land “back” from Whites, a sentiment fuelled by the EFF and other radical Black politicians. The current hostility of some Blacks towards Whites, especially Afrikaners, and their rejection of Afrikaners as an indigenous tribe is a predictable political, psychological and pathological response within the framework of the Herodotus philosophy. It makes a dramatic land redistribution policy and programme inevitable. It will happen and Whites must enter the process less rigidly and address the situation constructively.15-17

3.4 The shortcomings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) with respect to addressing land ownership

The TRC’s main aim was to bring reconciliation between Afrikaners and Blacks with respect to apartheid crimes, a task that they mastered to a certain extent. Criminal prosecutions and civil action against the culprits of apartheid are the primary tasks of the NPA and of course the ANC regime itself.18

South Africa’s complexity of politics, racism, discrimination, Black and White colonialism and need for Black empowerment asks for more than the emotional catharses of forgiveness for politically and morally reprehensible behaviour by individuals and groups that characterized the TRC proceedings. The TRC left many Black persons not only with unsolved personal, emotional and psychological issues, but also with enormous financial difficulties rooted in the racial discrimination that began in 1652. Most of these issues are exacerbated by landlessness, either for farming or for housing.3,18-20

The ANC is now emphasising the rectification of apartheid wrongdoings and the role Afrikaners played in the previous regime. Other Black factions are joining in to mobilise the poor as voters, using false rhetoric to reclaim land that has never really been the land of the Blacks. A kind of Land Reconciliation Commission (LRC) seems needed. A Poverty Obliteration Commission is needed.

There has indeed not been any real legal, civil and financial transformation and correction in the form of criminal prosecutions of apartheid leaders and their immediate accomplices after 1994. The TRC could not rectify wrongdoings, like the land grabbing of Black land during apartheid. There has been no organised effort by the ANC regime to repossess the properties and assets of the Whites who benefited or to compensate those who lost their land or the land of their fore fathers.3,18-22

Many of the poor, landless and jobless Blacks of yesterday are still waiting for a restitution process that would do them justice at last. Many are of the opinion that grabbing White property, land and assets, a more radical BEE, and reducing government protection of the rights of Whites, is an unavoidable process that must start soon.3,15,21-21,30-32,35-36

However, at the centre of South African legal land ownership is the question of who should be regard as a colonist and who should be see as an indigenous person who could claim. Emotional and political rhetoric and opinions became intertwine; overshadowing logical, historical and legal reasoning. Whites are been regarded as the sole thieves of South African land and as unwelcome and uninvited settlers. South African land is seen always having belonged to Blacks; arguments that are not always true representations of the facts.29-35

3.5 The failure the National Prosecution Authority to start land reform

The envisaged efforts by the NPA to prosecute individuals for apartheid crimes (which includes the possibility of compensating the victims by repossessing properties and assets if found guilty), are too late and will surely involve only a few prosecutions. This is a task which should have started in 1994; most of the NP culprits are deceased or have left the country. Only a programme of immediate, dramatic and fast land reform would solve the “long outstanding land-reforming issue” to which Musyoka11 refers. He sees it as a “crucial issue” that can address the NPA’s failure to start some form of redistribution in 1994. This suggestion is the wish of many wronged Black persons who are still living in dire financial situations on White farms, caught in abject poverty and economic deprivation. The present post-1994 political dispensation offers these unfortunate citizens no hope of escaping poverty or becoming farmers or homeowners. Essentially, their lives are very similar to the pre-1994 political setup. Land redistribution is the only solution to get them out of this hole. Anyone who sees the failed land reform policy introduced in 1994 as a fait accompli is underestimating this troublesome matter. Terrible violence is waiting if the matter is not successfully settled.11

The South African government and its justice system failed the Blacks in terms of addressing their loss of land over many years as Whites grabbed land without compensation. Land ownership should be immediately after 1994 be addressed, but the political system was manipulated and inefficient. Had this matter been settled, there would have been better reconciliation between White and Black, instead of the present ongoing uncertainty and fighting around land ownership (which is becoming more and more racially laden).18,20,36

3.6 The failure of the ANC to offer a sound programme of land redistribution from 1994

It is important to understand why land redistribution is now only after 24 years of democracy and Black rule addressed. The ANC regime’s failure to create an LRC in 1994 was not due to a lack of political will, but rather a lack of political power (which includes military). It is important to note the nationalist Afrikaners under their NP leadership was well armed in 1994. Any provocative action, like the large-scale prosecution of the political and military leaders, or redistribution of land, assets and property of the nationalist Afrikaners would been seen as a threat to the Afrikaner’s immediate safety and rights. It would have triggered a White military intervention that could have thwarted the transfer of power to the Blacks. The late Nelson Mandela and his counsellors knew this well and took the wise route of not prosecuting the NP-regime and its elite immediately after 1994.2,15,21,22,37-42

The further failure of the ANC to correct the imbalance in land ownership later on between 1994 and 2018 when the ANC had the political and military power is not a strange case of political failure. The constant manipulative efforts of Whites to de-empower Blacks – politically, socially and economically – are cemented in South Africa’s political history. This manipulation began in 1652 and involved brute force from 1853 up to 1994. It is a still present in South Africa’s political dynamics; planned, steered and dominated by the country’s mighty business bullies and their political associates. At moment, it takes the form of well-organized opposition to any form of land redistribution.43

This outcome of a disempowered Black populace – politically, socially and economically – are traced in more detail below to show why 2018 brings with it an awakening from political passivity, leading to an overemphasis on land redistribution.

3.7 The sidelining of Blacks from politics and land ownership from 1853 to 1994

3.7.1 The Cape Constitution of 1853, Constitution Ordinance Amendment Act of 1872 of the Cape Colony and the Union of South Africa of 1910

The Cape became in 1853 a colony of the British Crown. The Queen instituted in the same year a parliament in terms of the Cape Constitution of 1853.7,9,46- 48

This first Parliament (1854–1858)7:81-82 gave the vote to all British adult male subjects who earned at least ₤50 a year or who had occupied a property with a minimum rental value of ₤25 per annum for at least a year. This Act was been applied to its logical conclusion with Ordinance 50 that prohibited any discrimination on the grounds of race or class. This created a non-racial qualified franchise. The same qualifications for suffrage applied equally to all males, regardless of race. However, the impoverished non-Whites experienced what Geen7 refers to as the so-called “liberal franchise” awarded to British subjects as discriminatory. The Cape Constitution of 1853 used wealth as a selection criteria to deny non-Whites their right to political decision-making, including their right to vote on matters related to land ownership. The Blacks found themselves in a situation of declining political power and the matter of land ownership that had been contentious from 1652, became the worst it had ever been.7,9,46- 48

Eighteen years later the Constitution Ordinance Amendment Act of 1872 upheld the non-racial nature of the Cape Constitution of 1853 as a core value. The universal qualification for suffrage of ₤25 was seen low enough to ensure that most owners of any form of property or land could vote. The political position improved for Blacks, seeing that their economical welfare was much better than in 1853, while the franchise requirements of 1953 had not been amended.7,9,48 This improvement in the financial position of Blacks led to the registration of large numbers of new rural Xhosas voters on the frontier on the grounds of communal land ownership. Geen’s7 “liberal franchise” was quickly becoming a “Black danger” for the Whites with respect to political, social and economic power because of the growing political self-empowerment of the new Black voters. The Cape Whites mobilised to limit the liberal policy on Black political rights propagated from London to keep Blacks from gaining a possible majority at the Cape. Such a majority would have had a great impact on the government and land possession.7,9,48

The Whites’ political manipulation to de-empower Blacks with the 1886 adjustment of voting qualifications was to counter the possible influx of Black voters as result of the annexation of British Kaffraria in 1865. When the Transkei territories were been incorporated into the Cape Colony, bringing more potential Black voters, the White parliament enacted a bill that disqualified Black voters specifically. It read7:86: “No person [could] be deemed to be a registered voter by reason of holding land on tribal or communal tenure”. There was already a differentiation between “Coloured non-Whites” and “Black non-Whites” in 1886, showing the worsening political situation of Blacks when it came to human rights, equality and unrestricted rights to land ownership in South Africa, then the Cape Colony. The “Coloured people” had a slightly better deal when it came to voting, but they were in truth also being kept out to ensure White power.7,9,46,48-50

The above discriminatory changes of 1886 were been upheld when the franchise laws were amended in 1892 during the premiership of Cecil Rhodes. Geen7 reports that this had to 7:86: “prevent the ‘blanket’ Kaffirs of the Transkeian territories from the right of voting”. They had to be cut out of White and Colonial politics.7,46,49

The law was been amended in 1892 and the salary qualification was abolished. The occupational qualification was been raised from ₤25 to ₤75 per annum. The Act was also been amended with the stipulation that voters had to be able to write their names and occupations. This change was racially oriented, although well masked. The fact that no drastic change was been made to the liberal franchise created by the 1853 Cape Constitution, reflects a thoroughly considered racially discriminative plan on the side of the Cape Whites to get the 1872 dispensation going without obstruction by London. On the surface, the legislation gave equal rights, but the door was left wide open for future human rights abuses without interference from London. The 1872 negative change to the Cape Constitution was a result of the hidden intentions of the Cape parliament to discriminate against Blacks later on.7,9,46,48,49

The 1853- and 1872-constitutions were nothing more than paper constitutions when it comes to the political, economic and social rights of non-Whites in South Africa. Both constitutions ensured that the country would be steered by the Whites, mostly at the costs of the Black inhabitants. The British Empire’s ability to uphold the rights of non-Whites and to safeguard them from White opportunism was limited from 1892. From 1892 onwards, Black political rights were gradually limited, especially given the post-1892 passivity of London with respect to the political, social and economic rights of non-Whites in South Africa. Black land ownership and just political policies never reached maturity in the Cape Colony. This discriminatory policy, although liberal in comparison with that of the Transvaal and Free State republics (British colonies after 1902) was later transferred to the Union of South Africa in 1910. By then the liberal Cape Dutch inhabitants were politically trounced by the racial Transvaal and Free State burghers and the wheels had been put in motion for ever-limiting policies of discrimination against non-Whites, ultimately culminating in the Grand apartheid of 1948 to 1994. Land grabbing from Blacks and land ownership became an issue that needed urgent attention, but it was bluntly and blindly ignored by the Whites. The fact that non-Whites were the majority from 1652 caused the Whites, especially the Afrikaners after 1910, to see this as the “Black problem” or the “Black question”. The Whites conquered by means of military, social and economic domination, so one could say there was actually a White problem. The British imperial mentality at the time was that numbers did not count in politics and government, only military and political power. The White problem continued uninterrupted up to the end of apartheid. This “problem” is now very visible in the dissatisfaction of the Black masses with respect to land ownership, the enforcement of restitution and the completion of the transition to new dispensation and its constitution.7,9,46,48-50

The great political injustices committed in South Africa from 1652 bring Blacks and Whites into direct conflict on land ownership. It all started with the rather innocent intention to establish the Cape Refreshment Station as a temporary settlement. Now there is an age-old conflict between the White colonists or settlers and the indigenous Blacks. Under below is the validity of the claim that all Whites are colonists and all Blacks are indigenous, as the foundation for the legality of the demands from Blacks with respect to land redistribution, evaluated.

3.8 The dilemma of ignorance about the indigenous status of the South African peoples

3.8.1 Myths, lies and facts on the rightful franchisees of South African land

Political clichés on the rightful franchisees of South African land and on which Black tribes and White groups have rights to South African land ownership have become prominent over the last five years.2,11 Many of these statements are purely political, filled with emotional rhetoric. They often reflect the speaker’s lack of understanding of the political history of South Africa, and, most of all, a lack of basic knowledge on political governance and science. Remarks range from Blacks referring to Whites as colonists who stole Black land, to threats to kill the White colonists, with a cursory “but not yet” added on. On the other, some Afrikaners claim ownership based on their fore fathers who took possession of undeveloped, uninhabited and barren land. References to the Boer victory over Dingane of the Zulus in the Battle of Blood River, are frequent.7,9 This kind of rhetoric is many times fake news, but fake news is only a very small part of political misinformation and intolerance. Governments worldwide use the media to stay in power and to crush any opposition. The NP was and the ANC is a master of the art of exterminating enemies. History and false histories are part of this political misinformation and intolerance.

It is therefore of great importance to separate myths and lies from the truth to determine who the non-indigenous colonists (the land predators) are, who the true indigenous people (the native or natural people) are, and who the indigenous colonists (foreigners who become natives over time) are. Only then can the various claims of who the rightfully owners of the country’s land is, be discussed. It will help us determine if the intended land redistribution without compensation by the Blacks is justified, or if a process of land redistribution with reasonable compensation should be followed to do justice to all South Africa’s people.

3.8.1.1 Early inhabitants and their indigenousness

The earliest inhabitants (settlers) of South Africa, before the Europeans and Blacks arrived, were undoubtedly the KhoiSan and the KhoiKhoi. It is unknown who the people were before them, if there was any. The settlement at the Cape brought an infusion of an Asian, Indian and Malay blood, resulting in a new race in South Africa, namely the Coloureds. This kind of a mixed race was commonly in the Far East, the Middle East, or in European territories. In addition to the Coloureds, this infusion resulted in an Indian population that has become as indigenous as any White, Black, KhoiKhoi and KhoiSan group. This unique constellation of ethnic groups in South Africa brings the many clichés on who the rightful landowners are to the foreground. The pre-1900s South Africans’ were six broad racial and ethnic categories, namely the KhoiSan, the KhoiKhoi, the Black tribes, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. Their history and arrival in South Africa are discussed below.2,7

3.8.1.1.1 The KhoiSan

This group, probably the first inhabitants of South Africa, seems to have migrated from the central parts of Southern Asia. The theory is that their migration to South Africa was by a scarcity of food and/or that they were been driven from Asia by other stronger races. The initial tribe ultimately split into three sub-tribes: one group moving south-east to the Malaysian Peninsula, the Philippines and as far as Australia; the second group moving west as far as Spain and the third group moving into North Africa and from there southwards as result of attacks by the Hamites in the Nile region. A subgroup of this third group moved downwards from the eastern part of Africa to gather south of the Zambezi in the 1600s.

The KhoiSan was nomadic hunters, living largely on game and gathering roots for their daily food. Geen7 describes them as follows:7:10

Their family and tribal ties were weak, their ideas of religion rudimentary and their vocabulary limited, but they had considerable artistic talent; and

…their neighbours, both the Hottentotte [KhoiKhoi] and Bantu [Blacks], doubted whether they were quite human and so it is not surprising that the Europeans also proved enemies, and that today Bushmen [KhoiSan] remain only in very small numbers in the Kalahari Desert and South-West Africa.

Today the KhoiSan are not prominent role-players when it comes to land due to their small numbers and lack of political and economic power. The KhoiSan of today sadly finds themselves in the age-old position of the winner(s) takes all. They can claim land based on their history of miscegenation with Blacks, Coloureds and the KhoiKhoi.

3.8.1.1.2 The KhoiKhoi

The KhoiKhoi are slightly bigger and a little darker than the KhoiSan. They probably owe their origins to an intermingling of KhoiSan and the Hamites in Somaliland. Geen7 states that it seems they travelled south-west down into Africa to the region of the Great Lakes, and, after staying several centuries, they moved further southwards around 600AC to reach the Orange River. They established themselves along the banks of the river and the West Coast, from Walvis Bay to the Umtamvuna River. Later on, they split into smaller group, each group with a name and their own customs.7

The KhoiKhoi were pastoralists and hunters. During the 1713 small pox outbreak, many died.7 Geen writes7:10: “…today few pure-blooded Hottentots exist, but their blood has been absorbed by the Griquas and the Cape Coloured people and, in varying degrees, by many Bantu tribes”.

As a group in itself, apart from their intermingling with the Coloureds and Blacks, the KhoiKhoi have very little impact on today’s land ownership debacle. However, in terms of equality and human rights as protected by the South African Constitution, they should as a group given the opportunity to claim ownership of the South African soil.

3.8.1.1.3 The Indians, Asians and Malays

These late comers to South Africa, mainly as result of the import of labour to Natal in 1860, have like all the other races in South Africa, become indigenous to the country. Many of their fore fathers or tribal associates were Asian, Indian and Malay female slaves who came to the Cape Refreshment Station between 1650 and 1670.2

It is important to mention that research adds a 7.2% to 10.7% Indian influence into the Afrikaners’ matrilineal gene pool from Malaysian and other slave women (up to the early 1800s, 80% of the slaves came from India. It was only from 1730 onwards that the import of slaves from Madagascar was intensified).50,51

These historical facts reflect a horizontal biological association between the races in the Cape, especially immediately after the introduction of the free burghers in 1657 up to 1671. The fact is that three out of four children born to slave mothers during 1650 to 1670 had White fathers (meaning that the direct, first line infusion of “non-White blood” into the White parent stock can even be as high as 75%). Between 1657 and 1671, the early male ancestors of the Afrikaners at the Cape also took Black and KhoiKhoi women. These non-White women were accepted into the White community as either concubines or wives. They, together with some White women, became the parent stock of the White population and the later Afrikaners. These non-White women’s children, especially the females, were mostly assimilated into White society directly and horizontally to make up for the shortage of women without any discrimination or stigmatisation.2,50,52,53

It is clear that the Asians, Indians and Malay claim on South African land ownership is not limited to their South African identity, it is strengthens by their interbreeding with the Whites and the Coloureds.2

3.8.1.1.4 The Coloureds

There is an erroneous argument that the early Cape Settlement’s intermingling with non-Whites was limited to a small number of White families, and that these 6% to 10.7% mixed Afrikaner descendants were pushed from the White society to form the new Coloured population at the Cape. A vertical biological development of a closed and outcast group of mixed people, mostly excluded from the White nucleus that formed the modern Afrikaners, is surely true as evident from the existence of South African Coloureds and other mixed people of today. The fact is that the situation can be described as a “schizophrenic” split between the Whites and the Coloureds, peoples of the same bloodline, basically because the one group supposedly has “more non-White blood”. One can explain it as the same father having children by two different women (the Arabs and the Jews have the same “schizophrenic” origin). Evidence of an immense horizontal biological impact of “Coloured blood” on Afrikaners’ genes confirms the superficiality of this split between Coloureds and Whites. This contradicts the idea that there is only 6% to 10.7% of mixed Afrikaner descendants and of an exclusive separate vertical development of the Coloureds as a separate ethnic group. This fellowship between White Afrikaners and Brown Afrikaners makes the claims of White Afrikaners on land ownership applicable to the Coloureds and vice versa.50,54,55

Looking more critically at nationhood in South Africans is it only the Coloureds who can pride themselves on being a true mix of the various racial and ethnic groups in South Africa. They are indeed South African Creoles to the quick. Notwithstanding this right of birth and the fact that they are the second largest tribe in the country, they are still politically, economically and socially marginalises as in the previous dispensation.2

3.8.1.1.5 The different Black tribes

The first real physical contact between the White settlers and the Black settlers occurred more or less in the 18th century. The Blacks, like the Whites, are comparative newcomers to Southern Africa, writes Geen7:10. The South African Blacks probably came from Central Asia. They moved into Africa en masse, splitting in two: one group moving down into the middle of Africa and the second group moving along the East Coast to reach Sofala by the 10th century. When the Portuguese established themselves on the East Coast, various eastbound Black groups moved as far down as Natal and in the 1650s the area around the Kei River. The central group also moved southwards to establish themselves in the vicinities of the Vet and Caledon Rivers in the 1750s.7

Geen7 describes the unique characteristics of these various groups of Blacks, moving as foreigners southeast and southwards into Southern Africa. They constituted an ethnic group who matched the power and political intentions and motives of the White frontiersmen from day one at the Eastern border of the Cape Colony. Geen says the following7:11: “The Bantu [Blacks], mentally alert and physical strong, had a complex tribal system with hereditary chiefs whose powers were limited by their councils of headmen”.

Looking critically at the tribal and leadership customs and traditions of the early Blacks during their First and Second Colonization of South Africa between 1810 and 1840, we see similarities with Joshua and Moses and their conquest and creation of a New Israel. The Blacks wanted to become permanent settlers with indigenous status (especially through land grabbing, war and the extermination of their opponents by robbing them of land and cattle).2,3

The constant references to the Afrikaner as an alien, murderous colonist in South Africa, the only colonist in South Africa, are clearly false. It is an undeniable fact that the current Black population are also foreign to South Africa and is indeed in the same boat as the Afrikaners. The term “alien murderous colonists” is also applicable to them.

The Blacks have no more right on land ownership in terms of citizen-rights than the KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds, Asians, Indians, Malays, Whites and Afrikaners. They are simply a larger population and can therefore occupy proportional more land as the smaller groups. Their present claims on land and their focus on land redistribution without compensation amounts to land grabbing and terrorism, as did their fore fathers when they settle here as foreigners.2

3.8.1.1.6 Whites and the Afrikaners

The widely accepted and propagated views that the Afrikaner is a unique and “pure” White, European and Caucasian race that had its cultural origins in 1652 at the Cape Settlement, is, as indicated above, wrong. The proof in literature of miscegenation and a multiracial component is a fact that most Afrikaners hush. The White Afrikaners’ earlier Afrikaner families are descending from various racial and ethnic bloodlines to form the trunk (nucleus) of the Afrikaner family tree that branched out to today’s Afrikaners.52,56

The multiracialism of today’s Afrikaners makes their legal claims on land ownership equal to that of South Africa’s Asian, Indians, KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds and Blacks. The Afrikaners have become indigenous, as have the Asians, Indians, KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds and Blacks.50-53,57,58

3.9 Liberation, terrorism and land grabbing in South Africa

As indicated in the title of the article, land grabbing is an age-old practice in South Africa. The question is by whom. Two main ethnic role players are prominent: Whites versus Blacks. From a modern political perspective, the two main role players are the National Party (NP) up to 1994 and the ANC after 1994.

3.9.1 The liberation and terrorism heart of the ANC elite and their supporters

An in-depth analysis of the political history of the ANC is helpful for understanding more of the political heart of the party and its leaders in 2018 and of their demand for land grabbing. Mhtombothi writes23:17 that the ANC’s modus operandi, their raison d’être and their main skill is to destroy rather than to build. Liberation movements (like the ANC) in Africa, Latin America and East Asia have been unable to run passable governments or to improve the quality of life of the people beyond giving them handouts. These handouts come from the redistribution of the wealth of the “conquered” groups. Instead of growing the cake, they redistribute what is already in existence by means of land grabbing and stealing from the minority and defenceless individuals and groups. What is more, there is an unbalanced allocation of these resources to party cadres and elites.23,59-64

Historical and modern land grabbing alike are been founded on liberation and terrorism. This has to be high light here. The official British description of terrorism (See: 3.1Land ownership obtained by means of modern terrorism in South Africa) is quite applicable to the South African situation. Terrorism is been described as serious violence against a person or serious damage to property to influence a government or an international organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public with the aim of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.8

The ANC’s current ideas on land grabbing are rooted in the first Black colonization of South Africa. Their fore fathers simply sought freedom and a better life in Southern Africa. This soon turned into fighting with the other incoming Black tribes and local non-White tribes and groups. The resulting land grabbing and murder of the legal owners of the territories by the fore fathers of the present ANC, was nothing else than terrorism. The unique characteristics that we associated with many of the ANC’s executive political leaders are the same as those associated with their fore fathers, who were without doubt freedom fighters, terrorists and liberators.2,3,8,26,52,65,66-67

Many of the current behaviours of Black leaders, like their intentions of land grabbing, RET and RST, are part of a culture passed on from their fore fathers. The unjustified oppression they experienced at the hands of the Whites (specifically the early Afrikaners and Afrikaners between 1910 and 1994) undoubtedly exacerbated their desire for terrorism and land grabbing with the focus on Whites specifically.2

These early negative values, internalized long ago as good customs, traditions and habits inside the Black culture were been transferred over the years to later generations. Many of the modern South Africa Black leaders who come from this culture have captured the unstable political setup after 1994 for their benefit and to spread their terrorist thinking among their Black supporters.23,27,59-62,68-71

The Black population initially migrated to South Africa to settle in areas that were at that time mostly KhoiKhoi and KhoiSan territory (territory that they also occupied as settlers earlier). These occupations were illegal in terms of modern international law. The establishment of a permanent stronghold in their new homeland is been seen, as said, as the first Black colonization of South Africa. However, the initial colonization did not last long. There was infighting over land, livestock, water resources and political rights. This led to brutal wars in the newly occupied areas. Groups tried to drive each other out of the new territories. These series of expulsions are been regarded as the second Black colonization of South Africa. The years 1810 to 1840 (known as the Mfecane in the coastal areas and the Difaqane inland) led to widespread Black-on-Black bloodshed in the northern parts of South Africa. This “Black re-colonisation” process took place more or less simultaneously with the northward migration of the Trek Boers and Voortrekkers into the interior from the Cape Colony.3,7,9

In this second Black colonization, King Shaka, the king of the powerful newly formed Zulu kingdom is been pinpointed as the main culprit of wrongdoings. His murderous behaviour around 1819 led to political, social and economic chaos and large-scale land grabbing. He was the main perpetrator of Black colonialism and land grabbing between 1810 and 1840, leading to the eradication and re-colonization of other Black tribes. The remnants of these broken Black tribes fled and settled away from the Zulus and other occupying tribes. This led to the depopulation of large parts of South Africa because of further infighting and land grabbing. Intense food shortage followed and it is been estimated that more than 28 independent Black tribes were completely wiped out. The total death toll has never been determined, but the estimation is between one and two million.3,7,9

Mzilikazi (Msilikazi), the king of the Matabele in Transvaal between 1826 and 1836, also played a prominent role in this genocide. He also ordered widespread killings of other Black tribes and the removal of all opposition to his new Ndebele order.3,7,9

These first and second Black colonisations represent South Africa’s first genocides. This is a political-historical fact that is been ignored and hidden from the public eye in the present context of the ANC’s post-1994 policy on guarding the Blacks’ political power and unity. Today, Black South Africans seem to refuse to accept personal blame and responsibility for their ancestors’ colonial atrocities. These atrocities were committed simply to obtain new land.2,3

3.9.2 The liberation and terrorism heart of the early and later Afrikaner leaders and their supporters

The current noises of land redistribution without compensation are making some Afrikaners nervous, especially White farmers. However, they are wrong to point a finger at the ANC when it comes to land grabbing. The early proto-Afrikaners grabbed land from the early 1700s up to 1910, where after the Afrikaner Nationalists continued from 1910 to 1994.2,3,9,48,52,67,72-74

The Afrikanerism of the early and later Afrikaners represents terrorism, supporting and upholding a liberation movement. It often became radical and extreme, especially between 1948 and 1994. The modus operandi of the early proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaner Nationalists and the liberation principles of the ANC is the same. In the Afrikaners’ case, their initial early enemies were the English. Later, the “Black danger” came to the foreground as the most pertinent issue. The tendency of Afrikaner leaders to see themselves as the liberators of the Afrikaner tribe and to pursue White supremacy, were found necessary to explore. 2,48,52,62,71,72,74,75

The history of the Afrikaners, from the early days of the Cape Colony to the later Boer republics, the period from 1910 to 1948 and the Afrikaner Nationalists from 1948 to 1994, reflect active and destructive terrorism by a liberation movement. This was long before the ANC appeared on the scene. The timeline concurs with that of Shaka and other Black leaders. Both the White and Black groups destroyed the opposition and preyed on their assets. Afrikanerism also meets the British definition of terrorism, just like the ANC. Land terrorism and land grabbing without compensation (but with bloodshed) as propagated by ANC was part and parcel of the way in which Afrikaners took possession of land from 1652 to 1994. It brought the Afrikaners in possession 85% of the South African territory. In other words, the ANC is not planning anything that the Afrikaners did not do.2,3,7,9 Both of the two prominent role players were and are nothing other than political mobsters. Boon3 describes their characteristics as follows3:75:

Selfishness; delinquent inclinations all-over; strategies total stripped of all democratic principles, traditions, thinking, planning and doings; absolute intolerant; anti- order; minorities are quickly eradicated; coercion actions characterized by destruction, threat, killings and brutalities; aim the creation of a delinquent mob-reign; aim the exclusive of executive political mob-leaders to reign the country.

Just as some of the bad early political-history of some of the Black-tribes of in South Africa became part of ANC’s culture, the years 1652 to 1910 cemented certain thought patterns in the Afrikaners. From 1910 up to 1994, it took an extreme form. The Malan manifesto of 1948 that introduced Grand Apartheid confirms this.48,52,71,72,74-76

The radical racist land grabbing behaviour of 1948 to 1994 on the side of the Afrikaner Nationalists has a much deeper aetiology that dates from the 1700s. Some of the deviant behaviours are been founded in the history of the Boers on the borders (Grensboere) and the migratory Boers (Trekboere). Geen7 describes these groups as White frontiersmen. Some deviating behaviours became entrenched as acceptable in the minds of these White frontiersmen.2,7,52,76

Geen7 quotes Deneys Reitz’s book titled “No outspan on the early Afrikaners”, as follows7:69: “Knowing my countrymen as I do, I think the cause of their leaving [Great Trek] was not so much hatred of British rule as a dislike of any rule”. Reitz7 reflects on the foundation of the racist and defiant thinking of the early Afrikaners. They expressed their Afrikanerism without inhibition, among other things by means of terrorist attacks on Blacks. Geen7 writes7:69:

The frontiersmen – and it was they and not the well-to-do farmers of the western districts who went on trek – were stock-farmers and hunters with a low standard of living who were used both too isolation and trekking, so that though the Trek implied an uprooting it did not mean a change in their way of life. The dangers of the interior were undoubtedly great, but at any rate, the leaders of the various parties knew that of all the tribes the Griquas, Matabele and Zulus alone were to be feared. Any other people but the Boers might have rebelled in similar circumstances, but since the trek-spirit was in-born farms were either sold or abandoned and their holders went off into the interior, where cheap land and labour would be plentiful and government interference of the slightest. It seems probable that the Great Trek would not have happened had the scene not been South Africa and the actors Boers.

Geen7 continues to describe the defiance of the White frontiersmen and their refusal to submit to law and order. He states7:68-69:

Traditions of government in the Cape Colony were bad, as the frontiersmen had been used to too little control in the days of the Dutch Eastern India Company, when they had provided their own defence and so had become their own law. They had become a race of extreme individualists with an inherited suspicion of any authority and discipline, so that they viewed with dismay the steady extension of magisterial districts, which in their eyes meant stricter government control and, moreover in 1828 involved the abolition of the representative Courts or Heemraden.

It is very important to pause for a moment to consider this early Boer mentality and their views of what is civilized and uncivilized behaviour, of what is right and wrong. Land grabbing and suppression of other groups were part of their way of doing. This was been transferred to the Boer republics and later to the modern Afrikaners. Geen continues7:72-73:

For many years, the trekkers and their descendants led a roving life in the interior cut off from educational facilities and other civilizing agents. Their education was first that of the open veld and then that of the isolated farm, but it was neither literary nor industrial and made the Boers far more backwards than their counterparts in Australia and the American Middle West. The isolation in which the children and grandchildren of the trekkers grew up has helped to create the Poor White problem of today [1946], for the civilizing work of the original trekkers was superficially done and was spread far too thinly over a wide area.

The fact that the Boers constantly moved northwards confirms that: “they wanted to do things their way”. Their way was not always within the limits of the law (like land grabbing and the planned termination of non-Whites like the KhoiSan). It resembled terrorism as described by Powell8 and Boon3. Their terrorist behaviours, as already indicated, reappeared during the Great Trek when the Voortrekkers started to occupy land that they argued and rationalized as “uninhabited and ownerless,” while in reality it was the property of Black tribes who used it as hunting grounds and pasture for their cattle and as a defence zone between hostile tribes. Despite this reality, the Boers occupied the land, often by brute force and the loss of Black lives. This first forceful occupation of Black land north of the Cape Colony’s border took the same form as the killing and atrocities during the migration of Black tribes southwards with the first and second colonization of South Africa.2,52,76

It is important to look at Powell’s8 description of terrorism again. When considering the actions of the Boers, it resembles Saddam Hussein’s unlawful occupation of Kuwait that caused the world to react with full military force. In modern times, the behaviour of the early Boers would bring them before the International Criminal Court for terrorism, the unlawful occupation of foreign land and murder.8,77

The aggression of the Boers escalated with the large-scale occupation of Black territory to form the Boer republics. They drove away or killed the Black owners. They used the same tactics that Shaka used to take over the land of other tribes. This early occupation facilitated the founding of the two Boer republics, both of which supported racial discrimination. This shows how much terrorism and Boer liberation are internalized in the minds of the Afrikaners.2,9,47,52,65,66,67

The purpose of the terrorism and land grabbing of the Boers was to create an economic system that would be theirs exclusively. Their dehumanization of Blacks also served this purpose. Chomsky78 says it well78:28:

Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle.

After the fall of the two Boer republics, the Transvaal and the Free State, the Boers gained the political upper hand again with the formation of the Union of South Africa. They were still been driven by their rigid racism (which included the dehumanization of Blacks and the capture of Black interests). This negative energy was been channelled into the racial policy of the Union and from there into the Grand Apartheid of the Verwoerd Republic, which only ended officially in 1994.2,52,68,69,76,79

Researchers have thus far refrained from studying the land grabbing of the early Boers in the Transvaal and the Free State because it is so politically sensitive. The same goes for the earlier actions of Whites in Cape Colony and later in the greater South Africa. The South African situation does not differ much from the early American terrorism against the Native Americans (Red Indians) in their land grabbing. Martinez80 writes as follows about the ignored colonial history of the Americans80:151:

 When freedoms clash, some must take priority over others. In the economy, the     mechanism that determines which freedoms are prioritized is the property rights system. Property rights bestow the freedom to control and profit from what is owned. They determine who has     decision-making authority over a given commodity. Ownership is     necessarily exclusive: as soon as one person owns something, the     rest of the world does not. When the Wild West pioneer claimed to     own ‘newly discovered’ land and made it his home, he appropriated resources that had been the preserve of Native Americans for thousand s of years.

Martinez80 reports further80:153:

The history of colonialism and imperialism poses further challenges to the legitimacy of property rights today. From the fifteenth century onwards, European nations took control of much of North, Central and South America, large swathes of Asia and, by the twentieth century, most of Africa. Indigenous populations were wiped out or pushed off their land, communities were devastated and resources were appropriated for Western profit; and

There is nothing voluntary about this process. Indeed, it is hard to see the original appropriation and privatisation of commonly owned resources as anything but theft.

Geen’s7 description of the early Boers’ land grabbing by terrorism is reminiscent of the White Europeans early land grabbing from the indigenous populations of Norh, Central and South America, large parts of Asia and most of Africa (1500s to 1800s). The behaviour of the Whites, aggravated further after 1910, has contaminated all possibilities of successful and civilized land transformation in South Africa. Land grabbing is an evil that has affected all the populations of South Africa. Geen7 writes as follows in the context of the tragic chain reaction of early White land grabbing7:73:

As the Trek is responsible in some measure for the Poor White problem of the present so also it made the segregation of the Bantu [Black] tribes forever impossible. Despite the wars of Chaka and Msilikazi in the land into which the trekkers moved was by no means empty of population for Native [Black] wars were not unduly destructive of life. Having subdued the Native tribes the trekkers soon disposed them of their lands and thus helped to create a landless class of Natives, which is the source of many of the Union’s economic troubles at the present time [1946].The trekkers hardly exemplify a judicious Native policy, for their haphazard apportionment of land often without survey at all mean that the Natives became mere squatters on their own tribal land; and in looking at the things exclusively from the point of view of European interests the trekkers set the disastrous fashion of ignoring the very existence of the Native population. Sir T. Shepstone was near the truth when he wrote to the Colonial Office in January 1880 that “the government of the (Transvaal) Republic never thought it necessary even as a matter of mere prudence, to set apart land for the occupation of the natives”. The Native Problem that exercises the attention of S. African statesmen today [1946] is largely the creation of the trekkers, who in the interior provinces of the Union laid the foundation of a civilization based on a landless Bantu proletariat and a rigid maintenance of the Colour Bar in State and Church.

Looking at the current landlessness of many Blacks and their dire ongoing poverty, the above words are applicable to the South Africa of 2018. The fact that the Afrikaner Nationalists are no longer in power makes it possible for widespread land redistribution to start at last to erase the injustices of the past.

4. Conclusions

The political dispensations of Cape Colony of 1853 and 1872 and the Union of 1910 offered excellent opportunities to redistribute land and hand it back to Blacks to create an open, just South African society. The much later 1994-dispensation failed completely. This makes the current land redistribution, which may also just become land grabbing, a natural and unavoidable interference and intervention. Land redistribution is a necessary must. It is unavoidable. It needs a solution.

From 1652 to 1994, many Whites in South Africa had it good, especially the Afrikaners. They still see their possession of certain valuable land as normal, rightful, certain and permanent in 2018. This is an illusion that has lasted nearly four centuries because of the Afrikaner’s refusal to become an indigenous South African and to make the change from an outdated European to a modern African identity.

The bad parts of South African history are as intertwined as the bloodlines are. South Africa’s Blacks and Whites are indeed equals when it comes to freedom fighting, land terrorism and land grabbing. Now is there only one prominent difference between the two: The Afrikaners own most of the land that the Blacks want. The prominent question is how the transfer will take place: Will it be another land grab; or will there be a reasoned, a balanced and a just land transfer and redistribution? The last option has been absent for all of South African political history.

The refusal on the part of the Whites to surrender capital to the Blacks is concerning. Not even the various political consequences of the post-1994 dispensation could detangle and break down the intertwined self-enriching politics and economics of especially the Afrikaners.

Louw writes in this regard2:93:

Negative thought patterns like racial discrimination, forged by years of exposure, examples and compensation, will not be erased easily from the thinking of most Afrikaners, especially if they are not rational. The lost privileges, rights, benefits and empowerments are seldom reclaimable. Most Afrikaners find themselves in an unbearable dilemma today.

The Afrikaners as individuals and a tribe are over-estimating their current importance and role in South Africa. They do not see the fact that they are probably moving towards dissolution in a century’s time. Some of the ANC elite and other radical Black politicians know this well.2 For these Blacks, especially those still thirsty for revenge after apartheid, the prominent question is: So why care about the Afrikaners’ rights and concerns? Did the Afrikaners care for non-Whites from 1652 to 2018?

Land redistribution has the potential to become a much more devastating and life-threatening phenomenon than Europeans have ever seen in the history of Africa. It has the potential to overshadow the murderous acts of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Patrice Lumumba in the Belgium Congo. In this new South African history there seems to be only one short-sighted loser: the Afrikaner landowner. The position of the Whites will certainly be far less favourable than their present one if there is a orderly land redistribution, but the alternative is anarchy that the Afrikaners would be lucky to survive.2,68,69,79

The Blacks have no more right to land ownership than the KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds, Asian, Indians, Malays, Whites and Afrikaners. The present claims by some Blacks that they have the sole right to grab land, are been based on a false indigenous identity. It is a new land terrorism, similar to what their fore fathers did when they settled here as foreigners.2

What is been needed is an appropriate, equal land redistribution programme in terms of the tribal proportional numbers of the Blacks, KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds, Asian, Indians, Malays, Whites and Afrikaners. The issue of land for the poor should take centre stage. This will bring some justice and harmony to the South African population at last.2

The Blacks and the Whites of South Africa are equally foreign, equally indigenous, equally colonialist. The claims that the Blacks deserve to be here more in anyway, are based on a denial of history.2,3,7,9,81

Mthombothi82:21 write as follows on the lack of a South African patriotism:

Sometimes we view other people either as enemies or as the source of our problems.

One often wanders why some South Africans, for instance, are filled with love for complete strangers from Europe or other parts of Africa – which is a good thing – but at the same time show an aversion for some of their compatriots who happen to be of a different colour.

Perhaps South Africans on the whole are still struggling with the notion of identity. We’ve been rudderless for a while. Are we one people or a collection of different nationalities who happen to inhabit a single geographic area? And where in the political cosmos do we belong?

Mthombothi82 is correct when he posits that South Africa is not an empty landscape: that it is flesh and blood and its people needs respect. To address land expropriation needs first the healing of South Africans’ estrangement from each other. If we addressed this matter many years ago, we would be a united nation today.

5. References

  1.     Joshua 11:14, 11:16 and 11. 23; pp. 325-326. In: Life Application Bible. The living Bible.     Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers; 1988.
  2.     Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
  3.     Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press;     1996.
  4.     Bless C, Higson-Smith C. Fundamentals of Social Research Methods: An African Perspective. 2nd ed. Kenwyn: Juta; 1995.
  5.     Louw GP. A guideline     for the preparation, writing and assessment of article-format     dissertations and doctoral theses. 2nd ed. Mafikeng Campus: North-West University, South Africa; 2017.
  6.     Maree K, Van der  Westhuizen C. Head start in designing research proposals in social     sciences. Cape Town: Juta; 2009.
  7.     Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
  8. Powell J. Talking to Terrorists. London: Penguin; 2014.
  9. Scholtz GD. Suid-Afrika  en die Wéreldpolitiek: 1652-1952. Pretoria: Voortrekkerpers; 1964.
  10. Ward K. Jesus and his times. New York: Reader’s Digest Association; 1989.
  11. Musyoka     J. Ghouls of global nationalism stalk our land question. Sunday     Times (Opinion). 2018 May. 6; p. 18.
  12. Tabane OJJ. Calling the ANC’s dangerous bluff on land reform. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 18.
  13. Derby R. Land reform is a necessary fix for the fault lines in our economy. Sunday Times     (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 2.
  14. Mkhondo R. Let’s put it to a vote – referendums would rejuvenate our jaded democracy.     Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 18.
  15. Dalrymple W. From the Holy Mountain. London: Harper Perennial; 2005.
  16. Kapuściński R. Travels with Herodotus. London: Penguin; 2007.
  17. Van Rensburgh JPJ. Die Ooste teen die Weste. Herodotus se geskiedenis. Pretoria: Hans     Kirsten; 1994.
  18. Boshomane P. ‘Want us to get over it?’ Send them to jail. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2016 Apr. 10; p. 19.
  19. Morudu P. Wie dra die meeste skuld? Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 22; pp. 4-5.
  20. Retief H. ‘n Halfeeu oue seer brand nog. Rapport (Nuus). 2016 Mar. 15; p. 11.
  21. Ramphele M. The ANC is no longer the solution. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 June 4; p. 20.
  22. Ramphele  M. State capture: how ‘liberation culture’ damage SA’s future. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2016 Apr. 10; p. 21.
  23. Mthombothi B. Zuma’s political demise no instant cure for a country caught in the grip of     an unreconstructed ANC. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 10; p. 17.
  24. Barnes M. Throw away the rule book, draft a new one. Sunday Times. 2017 Feb. 5; p. 2.
  25. Cwaile M. Class traitors cleave to an unjust status quo. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Feb. 5; p. 17.
  26. Mpofu D. Niks so ergs as skoen pas nie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 Nov. 20; p. 6.
  27. Hartley R. The rainbow nation in Black and White. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2014.
  28. Young J. Rassisme: Waarom nou? Beeld (Kommentaar). 2016 May 18; p. 24.
  29. Chigumadzi P. Helen Zille and the myth of the White Saviour. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 21.
  30. Chigumadzi P. White men – the Black woman’s burden. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Mar. 26; p. 6.
  31. Du     Preez M. ANC se misdaad teen mensdom. Beeld (Kommentaar). 2016 Dec. 13; p. 6.
  32. Khumalo     A. Transformation not pacification. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 10.
  33. Khumalo A. Sowing the seeds of real change. Dlamini should take a leaf out of Creecy’s book on BEE initiatives. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Mar. 12; p. 10.
  34. Mbatha K. Unmasked. Cape Town: KMM Review Publishing; 2017.
  35. Zille H. White-bashing cancer destroys SA from within. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Apr.     30; p. 18.
  36. Lesufi P. Racism is not making a comeback: it never quit. Sunday Times. 2016 July 10; p. 17.
  37. George L. Die Hlope beskaam nie. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 June 11; p. 6.
  38. Malan K. Of jy daarvan hou of nie: Howe is elite se regsarm. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 15; p. 11.
  39. Malan K. Dié hof se visie is dieselfde as die ANC. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 1; p. 4.
  40. Molewa E. A tendency to be swayed by tears, M’lady. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2016 July 1; p. 18.
  41. Mombembe P. Hlope showed bias for lawyer, appeal judge finds. Sunday Times     (News). 2017 June 11; p. 6.
  42. Scholtz L. Kruispaaie. Pretoria: Kraal-Press; 2016.
  43. Anestos P. Big business bullies choke SA’s economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 20, p. 7.
  44. Immelman RFM. Men of Good Hope, 1804-1954. Cape Town: CTCC; 1955.
  45. McCraken JL. The Cape Parliament. Oxford: Claredon; 1967.
  46. Parliament of the Cape of Good Hope. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Apr.18]. Available from     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_Cape_of_Good_Hope
  47. Wiid JA. Politieke Ontwikkeling in die Kaapkolonie, 1872-1896. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  48. Friedman B. Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
  49. Cape Colony. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Apr.18]. Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Colony
  50. The purity of Arthur Kemp’s People: The Afrikaner. [Internet]. [Cited     2016 Nov. 18]. Available from http://www.geocities.ws/kempcountrymen/afrikaner1.htm
  51. South African History Online (SAHO). History of Slavery and Early     Colonisation in South Africa. [Internet]. [Cited 2017 Mar. 4]. Available from http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/histiry-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-africa
  52. Giliomee H. Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001. In: A Fisher, M Albeldas (eds). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  53. South Africa. Unie van Suid-Afrika. Samevatting van die verslag van die Kommissie vir die Sosio-Ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
  54. Afrikaner genes could hold key to diseases. Bioformatics Database.[Internet].     [Cited 2016 Aug 27]. Available from http://ichts.tripod.com/Julyupdate/trJuly9-3.html
  55. Population genetics and Huntington Disease. [Internet]. [Cited 2017 May 2].     Available from http://web.stanford.ed/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/population-genetics-and-hd/
  56. Van den Heever CM. Generaal J. B. M. Hertzog. Johannesburg: AP. Boekhandel; 1944.
  57. Afrikaners are black. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 July 8]. Available from     http://www.news24/Afrikaners-are-black-20130223
  58. Greeff J. Deconstructing Jaco: Genetic Heritage of one Afrikaner. Annals of     Human Genetics: 2007; 71(5), 674-688. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Dec. 5]. Available from https://DOI:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00363.X
  59. Mthombothi B. By his friends – thugs, smugglers and scoff laws – shall you know him.     Sunday Times (Opinion); 2017 Oct. 29; p. 24.
  60. Mthombothi B. Our double dose of despair: courtesy of Zuma and his cabinet of     incompetents. Sunday Times (Opinion); 2017 Oct. 29; p. 25.
  61. Mthombothi B. A constitution designed for a Mandela buckles when someone like Zuma     is at the helm. Sunday Times (Opinion); 2017 Oct. 22; p. 21.
  62. Bezuidenhout A. Spelreëls van SA politiek. Die Burger (Forum); 2017 July 22; p. 15.
  63. Gumede W. Zuma has been so bad, he has in some ways actually been good. Sunday Times (Opinion); 2018 Jan. 14; p. 13.
  64. Bruce P. A country imperilled by one man’s strange fears. Sunday Times (Opinion).     2017 Oct. 22; p. 20.
  65. Bosman ID, Oorheersing en Vrywording, 1877-1884. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  66. Grundlingh MAS. Vyftig Jaar Britse Bestuur, 1806-1854. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL     Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  67. Sampson A. Mandela. The authorised biography. London: Harper Collins: 2000.
  68. Engelbrecht T. ‘n Kroniek van ‘n kaalgatperske. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Jan. 21; pp. 12-13.
  69. De Lange J. Die plan: Stuit die wit mens! Rapport (Nuus). 2017 Dec. 17; p. 2.
  70. Mnguni L. ANC sidelines constitution and its own processes in secret “talks”. Sunday     Times (Opinion). 2018 Feb. 11; p. 21.
  71. Venter T. ANC volg NP se pad. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 7.
  72. Ginsberg A. South Africa’s future: From crisis to prosperity. London: MacMillan;     1998.
  73. Kenney H. Verwoerd: Architect of apartheid. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2016.
  74. Verwoerd WJ. Verwoerd: Só onthou ons hom. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis; 2001.
  75. Malloch-Brown M. The Unfinished Global Revolution. Johannesburg: Penguin; 2012.
  76. Boëseken AJ. Jan van Riebeeck en sy stigtingswerk: 1652-1662. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA     Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  77. Chomsky N. Masters of Mankind. London: Penguin; 2015.
  78. Chomsky N. Occupy. Parktown: Penguin; 2012.
  79. Holomisa B. South Africa is in the grip of ‘citizen rage’. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Feb. 4; p. 18.
  80. Martinez R. Creating Freedom. Power, London: Canongate; 2016.
  81. Ngcukaitobi T. Land could right so many wrongs. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 8, p. 25.
  82. Mthombothi B. The country we love is not an empty landscape, it is flesh and blood. We should act accordingly. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 3, p. 21.

PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author has no competing interests to declare.

FUNDING

The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa.

UNSUITABLE TERMS AND INAPPROPRIATE WORDS

Please note that I, the author, is aware that the words Creole, Bantu, Kaffir, Native, Hottentot and Bushman are no longer suitable terms and are inappropriate (even criminal) for use in general speech and writing in South Africa (Even the words non-White and White are becoming controversial in the South African context). These terms do appear in dated documents. These terms or translations are use for the sake of historical accuracy in this article. Their use is unavoidable within this context. It is important to retain their use in this article to reflect the racist thought, speech and writings of as recently as sixty years ago. These names form part of a collection of degrading names commonly used in historical writings during the heyday of apartheid and the British imperial time. In reflecting on the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanization and distancing involved by showing the language used to suppress and oppress. It also helps us to place leaders and their sentiments on a continuum of racism. These negative names do not represent my views and I distance myself from the use of such language for speaking and writing. In my other research on the South African populations and political history, I use Blacks, Whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaners, Coloureds, KhoiSan (Bushmen), KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and Boers as applicable historically descriptive names.