Sunday, July 24, 2011

Taking Back South Africa

ANC Youth League website hacked by ‘Warbird’

At about 3pm on Tuesday the ANC Youth League’s website was hacked. The hack came just before a radio presentation from Youth League president Julius Malema on Metro FM Drive, who was coincidentally also the target of the hack.
The news of the hack was broken on Twitter with users posting snippets of the hacker’s message which was a supposed press release from Malema. The fake press release cited Malema’s resignation from the Youth League and listed various “essential” reasons behind his resignation.
The hacker posted the following statement:

From our investigation, it appears that the hacker gained administrative access to the Joomla site, giving him free reign over it. The hacker then went on to expose the site’s directory structure, systematically deleting core config files (see screenshot below) before — we suspect — a backup was implemented.
t is still unclear as to how the hacker gained access to the admin console. As of yet, the ANCYL have not commented on the matter. has an estimated value of US$ 21 147 and receives about 1 102 page views per day. The site has Google PageRank of five and ranked no. 464 861 in the world, based on its Alexa traffic ranking. The site’s domain is currently hosted by a South African-based hosting company, Internet Solutions.
Statistically the site is not high in ranking and could been seen as insignificant for a hack but politically it may have been a target.
After the initial posting, the site was then opened completely. For those familiar with web development, the entire index to the site was revealed, leaving the ANCYL’s site completely bare to attack.

This was then fixed, but the site was still encountering errors, as seen below.

A look into the source code at the time of attack revealed that ‘Hacker Warbird’ took credit for the hack.

At the time of writing, no information could be found about this hacker.
This attack comes on the back of the hacktivism group Anonymous’ message to South African, urging citizens to rise up. It begs the question of whether South Africa has now entered into the hacktivism era? Is this part of an online political protest and will these become more commonplace? Perhaps it’s a once off in anticipation for April 1st.

ANCYL Website hacked again

Juju Salute

...................../..../ /
..........''...\.......... _.•´
I salute you Malema...........

Malema's R1.2m car


ANC Youth League president Julius Malema has been roaring around in a R1.2m car - thanks to the generous boss of a construction company which has scored more than R200m in state contracts in Malema’s powerbase province of Limpopo.
And the man who gave him the luxury Range Rover, MPPJ Property Development boss Matome Hlabioa, boasted this week that he had given the high-living youth league leader other fancy cars before.

He also said he was a key funder of the league’s recent elective conference.

“He has been driving my cars long before he became president. If Julius wants something like a car I give it to him. I own more than 10 cars. If you look at the car he is driving which is (worth) about R1.2m, it is the cheapest car I own,” Hlabioa said.

But he denied claims by a company insider that the cars were a direct “thank you” for Malema’s help in swinging deals for Hlabioa’s Limpopo company.

Shared business interest

City Press has also established that Hlabioa and Limpopo premier
Cassel Mathale – accused by ANC opponents of allowing Malema to “run the province” – have had a shared business interest.

City Press has discovered official records which show that MPPJ’s success in housing tenders enjoyed a winning trajectory which mirrored that of Malema’s rise in political power from 2008, when he was first elected league president.

The Limpopo contracts MPPJ won include:

» A R115m housing tender to complete 2 981 low- cost houses in Mopani and Waterberg district municipalities in Limpopo in the 2007/08 financial year;

» A R15.4m tender in the Waterberg district municipality in 2007;

» A R3.35m tender from Public Works for work in the Greater Giyani district in 2008;

» A R11.6m housing tender for the Mogalakwena local municipality for 300 units in the 2008/09 financial year;

» A R12.9m tender for additions and renovations at a primary school last year;

» A R15.9m tender for work at another primary school last year; and

» A R38.2m housing tender for 700 units in Greater Marble Hall local municipality, also during last year.

Lifestyle audit

This latest revelation comes amid calls for the SA Revenue Service (SARS) to scrutinise Malema’s financial affairs and subject him to a lifestyle audit. This as it emerged that he has flattened his R3.6m Sandton home to replace it with a new one at an estimated construction cost of between R7m and R16m.

This week a defiant Malema told those querying the source of his wealth: “It’s none of your business... you must mind your own business.

“One of the things I’ve learned in my short life in politics is the ability to live in the conditions of capitalism while fighting it and defeating it.”

The registration of the car in MPPJ’s name means it would not show up in any lifestyle audit and would not incur any tax liability for Malema.

SARS spokesperson Adrian Lackay said a person using a vehicle owned by another entity would only attract tax implications if the person was employed by the other party, and that it would then be viewed as a fringe benefit which would need to be declared.

Malema has been driving the Range Rover (registration ZBM 223 GP) for several months already.

City Press understands that for the last three years he drove a similar model vehicle that was also registered to MPPJ.

An MPPJ insider said: “Hlabioa is a businessman who is benefitting from government tenders and he has to look after people like Malema with gifts because they support him to get those tenders.

“It is a mutually beneficial relationship. There is no other explanation for Malema driving his car while he is a businessman dealing with government.”

Lehlogonolo Masoga, Malema’s former friend and now ousted Limpopo youth league chairperson, said: “There is nothing called a free lunch in this world. What your investigation has discovered is sufficient”.

Political influence

But Hlabioa dismissed claims he was looking after Malema because of his political influence.

“Malema is like a son to me, I have been looking after him for many years even before he became the president of the youth league. It is just a coincidence. There is no benefit for me in any way because he has no capacity to give tenders to anyone.”

Malema could not be reached for comment despite numerous attempts. But youth league spokesperson Floyd Shivambu said: “We are not going to comment anything about that. We only discuss political issues in the media, not personal matters.”

Mathale did not respond to requests for comment this week.

Malema’s Secret Fund


A secret family trust of which ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema is the sole trustee may explain how he has been ­bankrolling his lavish lifestyle.

The Ratanang Family Trust, named after Malema’s five-year-old son, was registered at the Office of the Master of the High Court in Pretoria on May 13 2008, five weeks after he was elected president of the youth league.

City Press can further reveal that the trust owns a 3.5 hectare smallholding outside Polokwane, bought for R900 000 in cash in June last year. No bond was registered on the smallholding, which is part of the farm Palmietfontein.

Two independent, well-placed sources with knowledge of Malema’s financial dealings told City Press that the trust was a ­vehicle used by the youth leader and his benefactors to fund his lifestyle. “Thousands of rands” are deposited into the ­account on a regular basis, they say.

Said one source: “Frequent deposits are being made from different banks, especially in Limpopo.”

The other source, a seasoned businessman who moves in Malema’s circle of friends and associates, told City Press he deposited R200 000 into the trust’s bank account after Malema facilitated a government tender for his benefit.

According to him, there are at least 20 other business people who do the same.

He said Malema sent him the number of the bank account via SMS. After depositing the money, Malema allegedly thanked him – also via an SMS.

Malema denied that the trust was being used to launder illicit funds, but declined to divulge its purpose or bank balance.

Malema yesterday failed in his attempt to gag City Press from publishing details about his alleged use of the trust as a slush fund for corrupt payments. Malema’s legal team denied that their client was involved in criminal activity.

Viwe Notshe SC, Malema’s advocate, told the South Gauteng High Court that his ­client did not deny receiving money into the trust, but denied that these payments were bribes.
“He says (the payments) are contributions for this cause and that cause.”

Apart from denying that the trust was used for receiving bribes, Malema refused to answer any of City Press’ questions.

Judge Colin Lamont slammed Malema for this, saying it was in his power to set the record straight if the trust was clean.

“The applicant (Malema) dealt very ­superficially with fairly detailed allegations made (by City Press), allegations he could understand. He could have dealt with them in more detail,” Lamont said.

The following questions remain ­unanswered:

» Why did he register the trust?
» What is he using the trust for?
» Who are the beneficiaries of the trust?
» How extensively is the trust used in his business and private dealings?
» Why has he never publicly disclosed the existence of the trust when questioned about his wealth?
» When he says he is poor and the police won’t find millions in “my account”, does he also refer to the Ratanang Family Trust’s account?
» Has the trust declared income or assets to the SA Revenue Service?
» Does he use the trust to fund his ­lifestyle?
» Is it true that contractors, individuals and politicians deposit money into the trust, as alleged by City Press’ sources, in exchange for securing tenders, political protection or their political agendas?

Malema this week lambasted the media for enquiring into his mysteriously acquired wealth, saying his money was nobody’s business.

This came after reports that he is rebuilding and upgrading his R3.6?million Sandown house, and ­installing an underground bunker in the event of his security being threatened.

Malema has persistently claimed he is poor and doesn’t have millions in the bank when questioned about his wealth.

Queries escalated after City Press ­revealed his link to government tenders in Limpopo last year.

In an interview with the Mail & Guardian in March last year, Malema said he lived on “hand-outs” most of the time.

He dared the police to “go to my account and find ­millions. They must take those millions and put them into institutions that can help ­children of the poor.”

Until now, the only public acknowledgment of the trust was at an October 2009 function in Malema’s hometown, Seshego, at which the newly built Seshego Baptist Church was unveiled.

It was reported after the event that ­Malema himself funded the building of the church in honour of his late mother, ­Mahlodi, who was a member.

President Jacob Zuma and Limpopo ­Premier Cassel Mathale attended the ­function, at which Zuma made his controversial remark that Malema would be a ­future ANC president.
A small bronze plate fixed to the church reveals it was built by the Ratanang Family Trust.

Although his salary from the ANC has never been publicly confirmed, it is ­rumoured to be about R50 000 a month.
According to records from the deed’s ­office, Malema’s trust bought a portion of the Palmietfontein farm near the Silicon Smelters last June. It was registered three months later.

At least three of Malema’s neighbours at Palmietfontein said they knew he owned the plot. They said they had seen him at least three times at the farmhouse, which had been vacant for 10 months.

Said one man: “Personally, I have seen him two or three times. He just comes, walks around the property to see whether it is still fine and then leaves. Nobody stays here.”

Another plot owner, who said he was looking forward to living side by side with the youth leader, said: “The place has been vacant for 10 months. The previous owner left. The house has always been like this. No renovations have been done.”

A land claim was registered against the Palmietfontein farm by the Ga-Mothapo community in 1995. In September 2009, the claim was extended to include, among others, the portion Malema now owns.

Meanwhile, Malema yesterday told thousands of villagers in Tshikondeni, Venda, that: “They can write their nonsense, we don’t care about them. They can say whatever they say about us, we don’t care.”

Orania in a nutshell

Wednesday, 08 December 2010  

Rozanne Meyer 

Orania in a nutshell
The definitive guide to Orania, its people and reasons for existence.
Afrikaners are the only indigenous white people of Africa, descending mainly from Dutch, French and German origins. They account for just under two thirds of white South Africans, i.e. 2,5 million people. Afrikaners speak Afrikaans and are predominantly Christian. Their strong Calvinistic roots play an important role in their culture and history.
In December 1990, the town Orania was bought for around US$ 200,000 by 40 Afrikaner families headed by Prof. Carel Boshoff, the son-in-law of former prime minister Dr. H.F. Verwoerd.
The farm on which Orania was founded, is called Vluytjekraal. Along the Orange River grows a fine reed, called vluitjiesriet, or in old Dutch spelling "Vluytjesriet," meaning whistle reed.
The town is privately owned by the Vluytjeskraal Aandeleblok company. All land owners are shareholders of the company and democratic elections are held annually in order to elect the town’s leadership.
Orania is located in the upper Karoo region of the sparsely populated Northern Cape Province of South Africa. Situated on the banks of one of southern Africa’s biggest rivers, the town is characterised by its vast plantations of pecan nut, olive and fruit trees in addition to extensive farmland.
Contributing factors
South Africa has been subject to revolutionary change since 1994, caused by what the African National Congress (ANC) refer to as the ‘national democratic revolution’. This revolution’s purpose in theory is to create a non-racial and non-sexist society while in practice it has caused a developed country’s decay into a corrupt Africanised state.
Today the ANC government is blaming the white minority for all the black majority’s hardships even though apartheid formally ended back in 1991. In the 16 years of ANC rule, South Africans have experienced unprecedented levels of corruption, rape and murder in addition to crippled municipalities and decaying infrastructure. Yet the ANC have enjoyed the support of nearly two thirds of the predominantly black electorate in each election since 1994.
It is important to note that the ANC is member of a tri-party alliance. Its two allies are the Cosatu trade union and the South African Communist Party.
All ethnic groups are being touched by crime. For one group in particular violent crime has taken on the proportions of a genocide. The murder rate under Afrikaners is 0.64 per 1 000 people while South Africa’s national murder rate is 0.49 per 1 000, which is one of the highest murder rates in the world - second only to Columbia (0.61 per 1 000).
The onslaught on the Afrikaner people is visible in every sfere of society. Escalating land grabs, farm killings, racially motivated retrenchment, high murder and rape statistics, marginalisation of the Afrikaans language in the education system and unequalled levels of unemployment all contribute to the crippling of the Afrikaner people.
Although many Afrikaners are confused as to how and why they have to partake in the “national democratic revolution”, there are many new generation Afrikaners who are being born into the contemporary era of ‘transformation’ and assumes it to be the norm.
The popular alternative to transformation is to leave the country for a better and safer life in countries that hold merit and human rights in high regard. This was dubbed as the ‘white flight’ by the Economist or more generally known in South Africa as the ‘brain drain’.
More than 500 000 Afrikaners have emigrated to Australia, Canada, Britain and the United States. Most of these emigrants are highly skilled Afrikaners, who once contributed to South Africa’s status as an emerging first world country.
Not only have we lost thousands of citizens who are now expats, we are also loosing thousands of lives due to the growing genocide launched against the Afrikaner people, not to mention the barbaric farm killings that are now a daily occurrence in the New South Africa.
We have seen what has happened in Zimbabwe and we are being told by ANC government officials such as Gugile Nkwinti, former minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, that it will happen to South Africa as well. The ANC Youth leader, Julius Malema, has gone as far as publicly stating that the government must use Robert Mugabe’s model of ethnic cleansing and land grabs as a blue print in order to take land from whites in South Africa and hand it over to blacks.
Why then would we not want to distance ourselves from these threats and a country that has grown foreign to most Afrikaners?
The answer is not unknown to the world. Countries like the Republic of Ireland, Israel, Eritrea, Czech Republic and Slovakia all stood for the same thing: to be independent of alien rule and to develop their own identity, in their own country among their own people.
We as a people are entitled to be free of a neo-communist system and we have a right to govern ourselves under our own laws defined by our value system and culture. Furthermore, we have a right to speak our own language and empower our people in order to succeed on merit.
We support the notion of relying entirely on our own labour in order to inhabit and cultivate our own country. Besides self determination being our constitutional right, it is also a basic human right that no one can take away from us.
In the past, we have had monumental leaders such as Dr. D.F. Malan, Dr. H.F. Verwoerd, Adv. J.G. Strydom and President M.T. Steyn who inspired us to stand up against colonialism and lead us to freedom. We subsequently attained freedom 59 years after 27 000 Afrikaners died in British concentration camps during the Anglo Boer War (1899 – 1902).
We owe it to our children and our children’s children to keep on building and marching forward in this noble strife for freedom and independence. If we do nothing, the Afrikaner people will die a slow and painful death, similar to all the ethnic cleansing wars synonymous with conflict in Africa.
20 years on
Sustainable development, good governance, growing support base both under Afrikaners and the international community, environmentally friendly, self reliance, zero crime, skills development and own labour – these are all terms that can be attributed to Orania.
One cannot live in Orania simply to escape crime. Orania is a growth point charged with the responsibility of creating a sustainable model on which more Afrikaner towns will be built. These towns will stretch along the Orange River, with Orania in the east and the Atlantic Ocean in the west.
The goal is to create an independent republic for the Afrikaner people. In order to live in Orania one must obviously be an Afrikaner. Furthermore, one must support the concept of Afrikaner independence and understand that the foundation of freedom is self reliance, i.e. Afrikaner labour.
Orania’s constitution leaves no misinterpretation with regards to religion. Christianity is the cornerstone of the community:
“The Orania Movement is an Afrikaans cultural movement with the aim to restore Afrikaner freedom in an independent democratic republic based on Christian values and a healthy balance between independence and cooperation with surrounding areas.”
With thousands of Afrikaners from all around the world taking up membership of the Orania Movement in addition to a population of nearly 1 000 permanent inhabitants, Orania has come a far way during the past 20 years.
Orania has faced many challenges and will face many still but history has proven that Afrikaners will stand up from the ashes and accomplish greatness.
So when people ask: why Orania? I say, why not!

Orania: The Pride of Africa

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

Rozanne Meyer

Coming from a pastoral household, I was raised colour blind and attended non-racial schools all my life. Nevertheless, I was always aware of a natural boundary between cultures during my childhood.

Shortly after the 1994 elections my family and I visited the beach where, for the first time in my life, I saw a white woman walking hand in hand with a black man. I stared involuntarily, not that I was witnessing something wrong – rather, I simply found it to be an odd occurrence.

Questions arose in my mind such as whose language they spoke to each other, whose traditions enjoyed prevalence and which adaptations their families had to make in order to accept their relationship in context of their vastly different cultures.

Racism is wrong but to be non-racial doesn’t change the fact that there is a natural division within mankind. Put aside the contrast between black and white and consider the natural divide that also occurs within races. Afrikaners and English speaking white South Africans are as different from each other as Greeks are from Italians yet we’re all expected to be part of the same nation, i.e. South Africans.

The major challenge that Afrikaners face in the New South Africa is to preserve our rich culture and language amid a predominantly English speaking society that suffers from a relentless drive to empower the non-white majority at the cost of merit. That which is in the best interest of the contemporary South African is not in the best interest of the Afrikaner .

A clear distinction must therefore be made when it comes to the white population in South Africa. The English speaking whites’ mother tongue isn’t being forced from the education system to make way for another language nor are their children denied learning about their history and culture at school.

The new generation Afrikaner knows nothing about their 360 year history because it doesn’t conform to the black majority’s view of what a South African is and should know about their past. It’s a simple case of a clash of interests and as the Afrikaner is a small minority, we have to adapt to the majority in order to integrate with society in general if we want to remain part of South Africa.
For many 1994 symbolises freedom. Why do so many Afrikaners then struggle to accept the terms of our newly found freedom?

Perhaps the fact that 85% of the 2000 Afrikaner schools have either become double medium or completely English has given Afrikaners the impression that we have to change our identity in order to be free. Maybe the 180% increase in unemployment under Afrikaners since 1994 has made it difficult for us to afford celebrating our so-called freedom. Or can it be that the 20 000+ Afrikaners that have been murdered since 1994 has painted a morbid picture of what the black majority calls freedom and democracy? No person that still wants to be an Afrikaner in the New South Africa can be considered free.

For the Afrikaner, the game isn’t worth the candle as far as the New South Africa is concerned.

To put matters into perspective one must firstly understand that the Afrikaner has always wanted freedom. Since 1652 we have created nearly 20 republics in southern Africa in order to be free from either Dutch greed or British imperialism and colonialism.

The last of these republics is in fact the Republic of South Africa, which the Afrikaners declared in 1961 under the leadership of Dr. H.F. Verwoerd. Why then do we have to transform or integrate with the New South Africa if it has never been our intention to be ruled over by other nations at the expense of our best interests?

Furthermore, our case for freedom isn’t subject to other nations as it is for us to decide whether we want to be free or not. Republican independence is in our hands and in our hands alone.

As a result a small group of Afrikaners saw the writing on the wall for South Africa under Afrikaner rule during the late 1980's, which lead to the creation of a small Afrikaner town called Orania in the scarcely populated Karoo region of southern Africa.

The founding fathers of Orania were spot on when they predicted that the Afrikaner will be culturally and economically marginalised in addition to being in physical danger under black majority rule. Since 1991 Orania has been the alternative to integration and emigration for the Afrikaner people.

The concept is unique in the sense that Orania is the first and only community in Africa that is entirely built and run by white Africans, i.e. Afrikaners. The result is zero crime in addition to an eco-conscious and self functioning community that is free of corruption, discrimination and racial tension.

The shackles of colonialism were broken the day when Orania’s foundations were laid with Afrikaner labour. Never again will the Afrikaner be a minority in our own country as a result of relying on black labour. For a nation to enjoy self determination, it must also be willing and able to supply their own labour. This is the crux of the matter as far as Orania is concerned.

Orania symbolises a new era for the Afrikaner. The republic that will stem from this peaceful growth point will stretch from the sleepy Orange River in the east to the mystic Atlantic in the west. It is entirely up to the Afrikaner to build our new country just as e.g. the Irish built theirs after being ruled over by a foreign nation.

Small as we are, we ask the world for nothing except supporting our inherent strife to be free from oppression and foreign rule. Measure the Afrikaner not in number, rather in what we are worth to the future development of Africa.

By denying the 2,8 million Afrikaners the right to self determination and to brand Orania as a ‘white enclave’ (, 24 Nov. 2002) or ‘Apartheid’s last stand’ (, 08 Nov. 2010) is as racist as it is ignorant and goes against all the norms and standards of humanity.

Africa is home to 9 Arab countries, 45 black states and not a single fatherland for white Africans except for a small town in southern Africa. What is wrong with this picture?

Thoughts on the origins of the Anglo-Boer War

Friday, 26 November 2010

Johann Hamman

I first became immersed in the spellbinding tale that encompassed what we knew as the Anglo-Boer war of 1899 tot 1902, when I was still very young. This was our version of Boys’ Own Magazine, and my late parents, who had many forebears who fought with the Boer commandos, told us children stories about concentration camps and heroic Boers who lived in their saddles for months on end, fighting the mightiest Empire on earth.

This story became part of our psyche in a Rider Haggard-like way and when I grew older, I learned that my grandparents were concentration camp survivors. My school years concentrated on this part of Afrikaner history in a determined manner, and I started to swerve in a more fact-finding direction to establish my personal place in this tale. I learned English, and were introduced to people like Winston Churchill, Redvers Buller, Koos De La Rey, Christiaan De Wet and Jack Hindon, a few notables among the thousands of others that inhabits this fascinating narrative.

I drifted through contemporary South African political affairs on the wrong end of employment equity, and ended up as a professional tourist guide in Kwazulu-Natal, where I could work for my own pocket. Military history permeated my genes from the side of my maternal ancestors, and I found myself doing tours to places like Ladysmith, Spioenkop and Blood River. Hundreds of American and British visitors, among others, ambled through my guiding and teaching efforts, and it soon became necessary to know more about this most destructive conflict that seared through my country and my people’s consciousness like the Angel of Death unleashed.

Early in the nineteenth century, when the British took over the Cape and abolished slavery, the Boers moved into the hinterland to escape their rule. They had already developed into a hardy, resourceful, quarrelsome, fiercely independent race with their own language, customs, and system of government. They were a people of, among other, Dutch and French Huguenot descent whose ancestors had gone to the Cape of Good Hope from the seventeenth century onwards. Most of them were dedicated believers in the almost fundamentalist doctrines of the Dutch Reformed Church at the time. These two Boer Republics, the Orange Free State and the South African Republic, also called the Transvaal, carved from a harsh countryside by the Boers, were about a 160 000 square miles in size.

The discovery in 1886 of the largest gold deposits the world had ever seen, led to a massive influx of mostly European immigrants into the Transvaal Republic, and put the fear of God into the old Transvaal president. He feared that this would lead to blood, and he was right. The smell of gold was in the air, in the new taverns and houses of ill-repute that sprung up like mushrooms everywhere, and it added much to the war talk of the time. If gold could indeed smell, the air would have been thick with it.

These so-called “Uitlanders” (Foreigners) were a motley crew from almost all English-speaking parts of the world, mainly Englishmen and Americans. Ian Smith wrote that they were disunited, divided by class and certainly not a homogenous group. More importantly, and I quote: “Few were eager to renounce their existing citizenship and take on that of the South African Republic.” Olive Schreiner wrote in 1899 that the majority of these Uitlanders are not integral parts of the State, merely temporarily connected with it, have no interest in its remote future, and only a commercial interest with the present. The so-called franchise issue had frequently been played up as one of the Uitlanders’ main points of contention, but this problem should be seen from Kruger’s point of view as well. There was no way that he could acquiesce, as this could well wrench the Republic from Boer hands. The Uitlander demands for “reforms” were strident, and their numbers soared rapidly. The Transvaal government was indeed ill-equipped to deal with them, but their grievances were caused by annoyances, and certainly not oppression.

The Anglo-Boer War of 1899 tot 1902 saw unbelievable hardship among the civilian population of the Boer Republics. Why did this war start, and what were the origins of this last so-called “gentlemen’s war?” The real casus belli of the war was the abortive Jameson Raid. Politics of the time saw to it that an explosive situation developed in the Transvaal Republic during the 1890’s. The spurious role personalities like Cecil John Rhodes, Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, and Sir Henry Loch, British High Commissioner, had played in deliberate events leading up to the Jameson Raid, now becomes the focal point here.
The 66 men ‘Reform Committee’ started to make revolutionary noises, and Rhodes pounced upon their so-called grievances as an opportunity to reannex the Transvaal, and afford him unfettered access to the gold fields. Doctor Leander Starr Jameson, Rhodes’s confidant and friend, waited with 500 men at Pitsani, just across the Bechuanaland border. They were mostly Rhodesian policemen and volunteers. They would wait for the Reform Committee to start their revolt against their so-called ‘oppression’ in a country that was not theirs to begin with, but their plans were an open secret. Everybody knew about it. Chamberlain, in London, and Robinson in Cape Town, knew about it too, but they naturally denied all. Farwell was of the opinion that Milner thought it was somehow morally wrong that Englishmen should be ruled by other races, and the Transvaal would simply have to change its ways, or Britain would go to war with it. There could be no way that Kruger could even consider most of their demands, and English politicians like Sir Alfred Milner and Joseph Chamberlain pounced upon this chance to expand their empire-building gains.

There was much bickering among the conspirators, and the Americans among them totally rejected the idea of British Rule. Rhodes was growing impatient, and Jameson even more so. Unfortunately, the troop detail that was to cut the telegraph wire to Pretoria, got drunk, cut the Cape line, and Rhodes could not warn them that the game was up. Jameson thought to spur the reluctant Uitlander plotters in Johannesburg into action with his invasion, but after a running battle with a Boer commando, he was forced to surrender about 10 miles from Johannesburg. This fiasco was the source of acute political embarrasment for Britain, and what is more, the Germans started rattling their sabres. The Kaiser’s congratulatory telegram to Kruger about dealing with “armed bands that invaded your country,” caused a storm of anti-German protest in England. Joseph Chamberlain became colonial secretary a few months before the ill-fated Jameson Raid. He and his jingoist supporters created an atmosphere for war, and he was too powerful a political figure for his cabinet colleagues to disown.

Current issues in Western countries, today, relating to assimilation problems with Muslim people, reminds me well of this. The origins of the Anglo-Boer War of 1899 stem from issues much related to latter day assimilation of Muslim immigrants into Western countries. These Eastern immigrants are loudly clamouring for home government to adapt to the ways of Islam, and they are not above violence, like the hugely offensive poppy burning episode not too long ago. The Uitlanders were also very vocal in their demands for changing the laws, and the right to vote in a country that was not theirs. They also never stopped to contemplate that they were guests in somebody else’s home. Farwell wrote that Sir Alfred believed that the British were natural rulers, and it was simply wrong that Britons could be ruled by other people. After all the futile meetings and endless correspondence, Kruger could not really tolerate the intense disrespect shown to his country and his people much longer. The Transvaal Government’s ultimatum sped up commencement of hostilities, but the war would have happened without it, anyway. Boer commandos soon streamed into Natal, and the Anglo-Boer War was underway.

This conflict saw the participation of many foreigners, on both sides. American citizens flocked to South African shores in 1900. The self-appointed ‘colonel’ John Blake is one such American that comes to mind. He commanded the Irish-American Brigade at the disastrous battle of Elandslaagte. The Americans were joined by Germans, Dutchmen, Irish, Russians, Frenchmen, Italians and various other nations. In the course of the next few weeks we will take a look at them.

Johann Hamman

Were South African Blacks ever cannibals?

Ilana Mercer has a new book out. It is called Into the Cannibal’s Pot, Lessons for America from post-Apartheid South Africa.
I have not read the book yet, but shortly will.

The title got me thinking...We know of cannibalism in Central and West Africa, but were South African Blacks ever cannibals? The answer is yes.

It was Felix Dzerzhinsky, known by his nickname “The Red Terror”, founder of the Russian Secret Police, the fore-runner of the KGB who once told a journalist, “Humans are not much more than animals. Starve them enough and they start eating themselves”.

The barbarism and brutality of blacks in South Africa is well known. Who can forget the terrible necklace murders of the 1980’s and the early 1990’s? Who can ignore the muti murders, thousands of them every year and almost a daily occurrence in South Africa where blacks harvest organs from live people, mostly children to use in witchcraft?

Now I see the necklace murder method is starting to stick out its head again. In the last few days, in Port Elizabeth, four people were killed “necklacing style”. One person had been arrested. Necklacing involves forcing a rubber tyre soaked with petrol over a person’s chest and arms, and setting it on fire. Source Sowetan

Back to history

During the Zulu king, Shaka’s “Defecane” (the great scattering), he wiped out between two and three million blacks in South Africa. That is right, the biggest killers of blacks in South Africa were always and still are, blacks themselves.
In Peter Becker’s book, Hill of destiny: The Life and times of Moshesh, Founder of the Basotho, he tells the story of how the Basotho king Moshoeshoe founded his hilltop kingdom at Thaba Bosiu (Mountain of the night) in what is today known as Lesotho.

The Sothos were fleeing into the hills to get away from the carnage of Shaka. On page 51, Becker explains why Thaba Bosiu was called “The Mountain of the night”, it is because they reached the mountain during the night after a terrible march during which, Moshoeshoe’s uncle, Peete, was captured and eaten by cannibals...

Say, What? South Africa had cannibals who were so hungry that they were attacking armed black soldiers on the march?

I mean, come on...everyone knows that at the time South Africa was still full of wild animals, no shortage of antelope, why eat humans?

Nevertheless, Allister Sparks writes in his book, The mind of South Africa, on page 103 another shocking reference to this cannibalism amongst black South Africans.

Sparks mentions that amongst others, Shaka scattered the four tribes of the Hlubi, the Ngwane, the Ndebele and the Batlokwa, who became tyrants themselves ruling the Highveld of Transvaal, dislodging even more blacks, driving them up and down and criss-cross over the land, plundering and being plundered. Killing and being killed.

“Not a clan was was left untouched, and across the length and breadth of the central plateau, not a single permanent kraal remained. Cultivation ceased and as food ran out many people crazed by famine turned to cannibalism...”

Then in typical liberal excuse for black behaviour, Sparks continues that it was.”...Something totally alien and repugnant to black South African culture.”

Really? Let us investigate...

He then continues, quoting a Hlubi survivor of the time as he was wondering through the land at the time...

“I was wandering on a path. I saw a man who called to me to stop. He came to me and told me to sit down. He caught hold of my skin mantle. I left it in his hand and ran as fast as I could. He was a cannibal and wished to kill me. Afterwards I met two was dead. The living one was eating the flesh of the dead one. I passed on. Next I saw a company of people digging plants. I was afraid of them and hid myself. When I was still going I saw a long stone wall, not very high. There were people sitting there cooking. I saw human heads on the ground. I took another way and escaped from these cannibals.”

And where was the spirit of “Ubuntu” in South Africa back then? Disappeared off the face of the earth I suppose.

So here we are sitting with a conundrum, a cognitive dissonance, several in fact.

A writer like Allister Sparks wants to convince us that these poor blacks...these extremely hungry and starving people only turned to Cannibalism when they ran out of food, but as I have mentioned, they had their pick of wild animals in their millions, even insects and birds, fish in rivers...there was no reason to turn to cannibalism with such an abundance of food, despite them murdering each other in their millions the animal life survived. Even the Boers lived off the land during the Great Trek.

The bushmen of the Kalahari desert managed to survive in much harsher conditions without ever reverting to cannibalism.

But it is the attack on Moshoeshoe’s army and the capture of his uncle by cannibals that should make us think...

If these cannibals were poor and starving blacks, they would have been frail, thin and weak, probably poorly armed as well. I accept that they might have been desperate and hungry, but where they stupid enough to take on armed, trained soldiers? Were they strong enough to capture a member of the Royal Family, the King’s uncle who was like his own father to him? I doubt it.

These cannibals were not starving. They were strong and brutish enough to attack an army of 5000 and take prisoners. They simply loved eating human meat the same way as their cousins from the Congo, where they migrated from.

Today we can only wonder what happened to these cannibal tribes of South Africa. They were absorbed into other tribes, intermarried and had offspring...

The descendants of these cannibals are today working in your garden, sitting next to you at university...and taking care of your children.

Political Correctness the New Racism

Thursday, 02 December 2010     

Jon Phillips

Fifty-three-year-old white South African author Annelie Botes, a novellist, has caused a race-relations sensation in South Africa after remarks she made in an interview with the Afrikaans newspaper Rapport.

She said: "I don't like black people," when asked what sort of people she disliked, continuing, "I don’t understand them! I know they are people just like me. I know they have the same rights as me. But I do not understand them. And then I do not like them. I avoid them because I am scared of them. My neighbour was brutally murdered. For what?

“If black people are hungry, why don’t they, like in the old days, break in, steal the fridge and walk away? I know where their anger comes from. It has f**k all to do with apartheid. They are angry because of their own incompetence.”

Unsurprisingly, her remarks have caused somewhat of a sensation in South Africa, with many blacks accusing her of being “stuck in the past” and many whites supporting her candour.

Deeper issue

No one, I hope, would dispute Botes' right to say what she said; it was not an incitement to hatred – merely an expression of her personal feelings. Indeed, she merely expressed dislike – not hatred, as some would seek to construe. There is, however, a deeper issue here: that of political correctness. Worldwide, it would seem, it is racist to be pro-white, but not to be pro-black. It is acceptable to have associations and clubs for blacks only, but racist if associations or clubs are for whites only.

The barometer of madness perhaps peaked during the recent FIFA World Cup when, in England, blacks criticised English football supporters who proudly flew their country's Cross of St George flag. What nonsense is this? This is not people waving swastikas or even Old South African flags – which some may claim to be offensive for historical reasons, but English people waving English flags. The world has gone mad.

Smear campaigns

There is, of course, a reason for all of this. In England the phrase is “playing the man and not the ball”. If you cannot defeat an opponent by the logic of your argument, you discredit him by smear and allegation.

Recently, Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement) leader Eugene Terre'Blanche was hacked to death in his home – allegedly by two of his workers, although many of us believe that it was the dirty tricks department of the South African secret service. Shortly after his savage murder, newspapers and web sites in this country ran front-page articles concerning the fact that his trousers were round his ankles at the time of his murder. It was alleged, or insinuated, that he had sodomised his black workers. Later, of course, this was proved not to be the case, but the allegation so prominently made was only quietly retracted.

Another Boer leader, former Kommandant (Lt. Colonel) Willem Ratte was arrested along with some young white men he was trying to rehabilitate on his farm. This time, this former Rhodesian SAS and South African Special Forces hero – called South Africa's best soldier – was alleged to have had dagga (marijuana) on his farm and child pornography. It seems that the left will stop at nothing in their systematic campaign to discredit Boere.

The issues

No one, of course, is addressing the issues of what Botes said, because they are too busy naming her a racist and diverting attention from her actual message.
The sad fact of the matter is this: as she said – if you are hungry, why not steal the fridge or food? If you are in a wage dispute (as Terre'Blanche's so-called murderers claimed), why is it necessary to go to conduct negotiations with a panga (machete) and knobkerrie? Why is it necessary to shoot a man down in cold blood after you have stolen his car? Why is it necessary to gang-rape, torture, and then thrust broken bottles into the anus and vagina of an 84-year-old woman who couldn't hurt a fly?

Readers in Europe must ask these questions of themselves – and ask their elected representatives in national parliaments and in the European Parliament what they are doing to bring pressure to bear on SA President Zuma to control his followers or failing that, to apply sanctions as they were quick to do in the past.

The only logical answer to these questions is that blacks are deliberately setting out to terrorise whites. They aim to push us to the brink, at which point we will have no choice but to defend ourselves. Then, of course, they can use this as a pretext to launch Mugabe-style farm invasions. History teaches us where that will lead.

Republics Born and Conquered

Monday, 22 November 2010     

Jon Phillips 

In my last column, “Afrikaner Footsteps: White Africans, a contradiction in Terms?”, I sought – hopefully successfully – to demonstrate that not only are we white Africans, owing allegiance to no other land, but also that our forefathers landed in a largely deserted land. They did not come with fire and sword, but with peace in their hearts and a yearning to negotiate; to buy land rather than take it by force of arms.
Murder and massacre
I mentioned how the voortrekker (pioneer) leader Piet Retief and his followers were treacherously massacred by the Zulu King Dingaan – after he had signed a treaty with Retief granting his settlers land in what is now modern-day KwaZulu-Natal. The massacre of Retief and all of the men of his pioneer column was followed by a Zulu attack on the defenceless women and children left behind at the voortrekker camp. They were massacred and the site of the camp became a town named Weenen (Weeping) in their memory. Other voortrekkers were forced to come to avenge them and fight a series of actions against the Zulus, culminating in the Battle of Blood River, in which 470 voortrekkers decisively beat between 10 and 15 000 Zulus.
The first Boer Republic, Natal, was then born in 1839 but didn't last long. The British government seemed to persist in regarding all of the Dutch settlers as its subjects, due to its annexure of the Cape and despite the fact that ordinary Britons in the Cape lived in harmony with their Dutch brothers and wished them well when they trekked away from British rule.
At the same time, other Boers, trekking north, had crossed the Orange River, but they too were pursued by the British government, which annexed the area in between the Orange and Vaal Rivers in 1848, naming it the Orange River Sovereignty.
Independence given
In the 1850s British policy changed and they began to look for ways to lessen their responsibilities in southern Africa. This led to a convention being signed in Bloemfontein in 1854, in which independence was given to the Boers and the area being renamed the Boer Republic of the Orange Free State. North of the OFS, the Boers in the Transvaal also set about organising themselves and the Transvaal Republic was established by the Sand River Convention, between the British government and the Boer leaders in 1852. Natal, however, had been flooded with British immigrants and became a predominantly English-speaking area. Thus, Britain itself granted independence to the Boers.
Diamonds and greed
The discovery of diamonds at Kimberley changed the picture somewhat. Diggers came from all over the world in search of a fortune, but ownership of the diamond fields was disputed between Boer republics and several Griqua and Tswana chiefs.
Seeing an opportunity when it presented itself, Britain annexed the diamond fields in 1871 and established the Crown Colony of Griqualand West – an act that was seen as both cynical and opportunist in the Orange Free State. British foreign policy suddenly seemed to take a new interest in southern Africa and after the failure of British diplomatic initiatives the Transvaal was annexed by Britain in 1877.
First blood
The annexure met with almost universal opposition from the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of both the republics and, indeed, in the Cape Colony itself. In the course of the next couple of years the resentment grew until a full-scale war broke out in 1877, known in South Africa as the First War of Liberation and in the UK as the First Boer War. It wasn't a long and bloody affair – the Boer commandos quickly brought British forces to battle and scored an overwhelming victory at the Battle of Majuba Hill. This ended the war and independence was achieved under the name of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (South African Republic). Boers believed the issue resolved but Britain pressed ahead with its plans to federate South Africa and Zululand was added to the Imperial Crown in 1879 after the Zulus were finally defeated in the Anglo-Zulu Wars, but not before dealing the British a humiliating defeat at the battle of Isandlwana.
Gold and The Raid
Yet another dimension was added to an already complicated situation with the discovery of gold on the Witwatersrand – the area surrounding modern-day Johannesburg, just south of the Boer capital, Pretoria. The reef was quickly swamped by foreign prospectors and the bantu that they brought with them, the population quickly growing to 100,000 causing great consternation to the ZAR government.
Not content with mining, the prospectors began to claim political rights within the ZAR and, despite concessions granted to them by ZAR President Paul Kruger, nothing seemed to be enough to satisfy their demands.
The discontent on the reef was being fiercely stoked by arch-imperialist and Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, Cecil John Rhodes, who dreamed of the land between the Cape and Cairo coming under the control of the British flag. A private entrepreneur and multimillionaire, Rhodes undeniably had strong supporters within the British government in this aim, most notably Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain.
Unhappy with the slow progress he was achieving on the reef, Rhodes instructed his most trusted colleague, Leander Starr Jameson, to organise a flying column of cavalry troopers from what had then become Rhodesia to prepare to launch a lightning strike into the ZAR, ostensibly to come to the aid of the “oppressed” British subjects in Johannesburg, led by, among others, Rhodes' brother Frank.
In 1895 Jameson launched his attack too soon and his movements were known to the Kruger government, which mobilised commandos to intercept the raiders. After a brief fight, Jameson and his men surrendered and were taken to prison where, despite their deeds, they were treated leniently and quickly freed.
War and conquest
Kruger, by now thoroughly alarmed at the turn of events, entered into an alliance with the sister Boer republic of the Orange Free State.
British demands for voting rights for the 60,000 foreign whites on the Witwatersrand were rejected by Kruger, who called for the withdrawal of British troops from the border of the ZAR. The British, however, refused withdrawal and Kruger declared war.
I do not intend to cover the Second Anglo-Boer War except to say that once the might of the British Empire was brought to bear on the two republics, despite early successes, they were quickly overrun and their capitals occupied. Irritatingly for the British, however, the Boer Commandos did not abandon the struggle along with the occupation of their capitals, as could be expected from a European opponent; instead they fought on by means of mobile commandos living off the land.
In an attempt to curb this, Lord Kitchener had a series of blockhouses built to pen the Boer commandos in and established the world's first concentration camps when he sought to deny the commandos sustenance by the scorched-earth policy of burning farmhouses and herding the old men, women and children into the camps. Despite heroic efforts by nurses, including the British woman Emily Hobhouse who quickly became a Boer heroine, 26,000 Boer women in children died in the camps, due largely to disease and malnutrition. This inhumane policy created a bitterness that lasts to this day.
The Boer forces, seeing inevitable defeat and the total devastation of their countries, finally surrendered and the treaty of Vereeniging ensued in 1902 under which the republics lost their independence and were soon incorporated into what Britain had always wanted: the Union of South Africa, in which they were forced along with the Cape Colony and Natal.
International precedent for a return to autonomy
The trend in recent years has been away from imperialism towards the self-determination of peoples. The collapse of communism in 1990 highlighted this and many of the states that were subjected to Soviet imperialism have been granted self-determination and are now independent countries.
The former Yugoslavia shows great similarities with the South African situation. Both were artificial states cobbled together after war: the First World War in the case of Yugoslavia, which sprang from the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Anglo-Boer War in the case of South Africa. In both countries, states that were formerly independent but internationally recognised prior to imperial conquest, were forced into a union against their will.
Yugoslavia now longer exists; it has now reverted to its pre-imperial collection of independent states. The question must be asked: Why not the same in South Africa? Why cannot at least the independence of the Orange Free State and Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek be restored? Is it a question of double standards or merely hypocisy because the world cannot accept that white men came in peace, made treaties, and built modern countries in a continent where the bantu have never built anything left to their own devices? Is it just because we are white, because, if so, that can only be called racism.

Afrikaner Footsteps

Tuesday, 09 November 2010   

Jon Phillips 

White Africans, a contradiction in terms?
To many people around the world the idea of a white African is a contradiction in terms. They imagine that Africans are black and that, therefore, the entire continent of Africa belongs rightfully to the black man.
This is, of course, a mistaken assumption. The whole of the north of Africa is populated by Arabs, not negroes. Just as this is the case in the north, in the south of Africa the land was originally inhabited by bushmen, the Khoisan, who are now largely extinct.
An empty land
When Jan van Riebeeck arrived in Cape Town in 1652 (roughly the time when the first European settlers arrived in America) to establish a fort and hospital, and a garden to grow vegetables for the crews of passing ships from the Dutch East India company, what is known as modern-day South Africa was virtually uninhabited.
Over the years, in a desire to be free of Dutch East India Company rule, whites started to leave the enclave established at Cape Town and move into the interior of the country.
Black tribal migration
At roughly the same time as this was happening, there was a migratory movement of black tribes southwards from Central Africa. White and black colonisers met each other in 1770 at the Great Fish River, roughly on the border of what is now the Eastern and Western Cape provinces of today's South Africa. So, historically, no black had ever set foot in the Western Cape by the time it was already firmly settled by white farmers.
Conflicts of Dutch and English foreign policy led to the British occupying the Cape in 1795, which further increased the desire among many of the Dutch settlers to trek (move) into the interior in order to maintain their independence.
Peaceful co-existence
During 1835-7, Boer (Dutch farmer) voortrekkers (pioneers/frontiersmen) took part in The Great Trek – an organised move away from British rule into the deep interior of the country. There were many groups of trekkers, heading off into different parts of the interior. They did not seek conquest, domination and extermination (unlike the American settlers), but peaceful co-existence with the black tribes that they encountered.
They bought and paid for the land that they came to own, by signing treaties with the local tribal chiefs. One of the most notable examples of this was the voortrekker leader Piet Retief, who bought land from the local chief, Dingaan, only to be treacherously murdered along with all his men, after they had stockpiled their weapons as a gesture of good faith. The treaty between the two men exists to this day, as it was found among Retief's belongings.
Bought and paid for
From this, two facts emerge. Firstly, that South Africa is not historically a black man's land; they were every bit as much settlers as were the whites. Secondly, that whites have lived in “South Africa” for as long as they have in America. The land that they owned was bought with goods and services, and often paid for by their blood. Thus, whites, are every bit as much Africans as other whites are Americans.