By Mike Smith
23rd of February 2012
Ever since I wrote Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box part 32: Who does the land belong to? we have seen a lot of people sit up straight probably thinking for the first time about the lies the ANC tried to force feed the public for the past 100 years...That whites stole the land of blacks. That the 1913 land act disowned blacks of their land.
Many famous people read this blog, although they will never admit it. I know Helen Zille, Thabo Mbeki, Pieter Mulder , Beeld editor Tim du Plessis and many more frequent this blog.
That is why Pieter Mulder could stand up for white history in parliament and rubbish the lies of the ANC, saying that enough proof exists that blacks were historically never in the Cape, West of the Kei River. He is 100% correct.
A storm erupted in the media after he threw a thunderflash in the chicken coup. He came under severe personal attack, mostly from the ANC and their supporters, but also from some liberal academics.
Then in a series of articles, I again focused the attention of the public about the land issue on the historical facts...
Mulder, the land issue and the truth about who the land belongs to
I even showed how the famous traditional healer and black historian Credo Mutwa told the truth that it was the blacks who stole the land from the Bushmen (San-people) and committed genocide against them, not the whites.
So who stole the land from whom?
Then I challenged the best lawyers and the best historians to an open debate on this issue so we could settle the matter once and for all and move on. As could be expected the silence was deafening.
Actually when I was thinking about the “best lawyers” I had the descriptive Afrikaans word for a lawyer, “regsgeleerde” in mind, meaning literally “someone learned at law”.
The last person I had in mind as an “expert learned at law” was the fairy queen of UCT Prof Pierre de Vos who in 2004 won a case against a Cape Town gay bar called “Sliver” for discriminating against his coloured lover, Marcus Pillay. The bouncers also severely assaulted both. He is obviously liberally biased.
Read the pathetic details here
Nevertheless Pierre de Vos has probably read the facts presented by me, like the Feinberg and Horn Study that proved that contrary to common belief, the Land Act of 1913 resulted in as much as 65% more land for blacks, not less. This fact was already pointed out by Blacks journalist Jacob Dlamini in 2010 in an article called JACOB DLAMINI: Was Natives Land Act SA’s original political sin?
The entire Land Act of 1913 can be read here The 1913 land Act
So two days ago, almost straight after my challenge, the learned professor De Vos decided to launch a pathetic tirade against the facts presented.
The historical amnesia of Pieter Mulder
Right from the start the arrogant proffie (or is that spelled with an m?) tells us whites that we all want to bury Apartheid.
Say what? I for one want the debate in the open. That is why I named my series of articles, soon to be a book, “Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box”
“Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box”
Then the self loathing proffie wanted us to share his guilt feelings by harping on about “the injustices committed by our forefathers against black South Africans”.
Whose forefathers? Not mine. My forefathers were only good to blacks. Employed them, fed and clothed them. Built schools for them, hospitals, universities, etc. Maybe he is speaking about his own forefathers and the imaginary injustices he constantly nurses in his warped liberal mind.
Then he goes one…” This Stalinist yearning to whitewash the past and to try and make us forget about the role white people played in the exploitation and dispossession which occurred during the periods of colonialism and apartheid”
He is right about the Stalinist part of whitewashing history, but the only ones I see wanting to do that is the ANC. I and most White South Africans are proud of our history and we have nothing to be ashamed of. Proffie De Vos should not include us in his self loathing guilt trips.
He’s tirade continues with the ANC swear words of “white Settler”…when he said: ”Mulder is only one of a long line of white settlers”…
As far as I am aware, Pieter Mulder is a South African born citizen who has only ever held one citizenship in his entire life. He is further an Afrikaner. There is no Afrikaner homeland from where he could have colonizsed or settled from or where he can go back to. Afrikaner culture and language is unique to only one country on earth and that is South Africa (I include Namibia that I concider a legitimate part of SA since 1914). The Afrikaners of SA are totally indigenous.
In his rush to “prove” how whites dispossessed black land and “forced Blacks” onto farms, the learned proffie copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia about the Glen Grey Act of 1894. So I see… that is where he gets his knowledge of the law from…Wikipedia.
What the proffie forgot to tell us is that the Glen Grey act was a British experiment that applied only to one location (now called a township), the Tambookie location outside of Queenstowns after the place got so overcrowded, because of the Xhosa’s own created famine of 1856-1857 in which they killed all their cattle and burned down their crops because a teenage prophetess called Nongqawuse told them that it would make the whites disappear into the sea.
It wiped out 4/5 ths of the Xhosa population, the rest dwindled with their skeleton bodies through white areas scratching for food in bins. The whites saved them from their own self induced genocide. If it were not for the whites taking pity on them and feeding them there would be no Xhosa people today. Yes. That is what you get for interfering with nature, today the “Xhosa Nostra” rule South Africa.
Nevertheless the proffie created the dishonest impression that the act applied to the entire SA and all its blacks. It did not.
Further the act gave each black family a farm of four morgen (about 0.86 hectares in SA). The word “Morgen” is the German word for “morning” and one “morgen” equated to the land one man could plough with an ox in a morning from sunrise to midday.
So after getting a farm the size of eight football fields the British said the blacks had to pay tax just like all the whites. But the black farmers as we know are useless and were not as productive as the whites so they could not pay the tax. In order to do so they send the kids and women out to go and work for the whites in town.
This practice of sending the children and the women to work and the men sitting in the sun all day drinking beer is still practiced today in SA and has always been the practice amongst blacks for time immemorial.
This natural custom of the blacks, the proffie in his infinite wisdom wants to call oppression and enslavement. What rubbish. The sign of a truly deficient leftist intellect.
Nevertheless the proffie continues with his lies and distortions by saying “The most important provision of the Act stated that Africans could no longer buy, lease, or in any other manner acquire land outside a scheduled area, except by acquiring that land from another African, and Europeans were prohibited from buying or leasing land from an African.”
As I have mentioned before, the Native Land Act of 1913 never referred to “Africans” and “Europeans”. It did not refer to Blacks and whites. It only referred to “Natives and other people”.
His interpretation of the law into an “African” and “European” or “Black” and “White” context is a gross distortion of the truth. Under “African” or “Native” the Afrikaners definitely qualify.
Further the law applied to both sides equally, so if the act denied “Natives” the right to buy land from “Other persons” it equally denied “Other Persons” the right to buy land from “Natives”. So either both sides benefitted or suffered equally under the law.
But as I have pointed out there was an escape clause, like in every law, as the proffie should now, seeing that he considers himself an expert.
It said “Except with the approval of the Governor-General…”
As I have pointed out blacks and whites continued buying land from each other…
Quoting from Dlamini’s article…
“Between 1913 and 1936, for example, Africans bought about 3200 farms and lots outside of native areas. What’s more, the 1913 act was not retroactive, meaning that Africans who already owned land outside of the native reserves could not have it taken away from them. Feinberg and Horn say that between 1913 and 1924, under the governments of Louis Botha and Jan Smuts, there were 302 exemptions granted, amounting to 35% of the total. Between 1924 and 1936, when JB Hertzog was in power, there were 565 exemptions granted, amounting to 65% of the total. “
In his eagerness to show how the white man’s laws was bad for the black man he cites from Feinberg and Horn: “Rapid population growth among Africans and soil erosion in the reserves (partly due to over-grazing) seriously undermined African agriculture.”
Excuse me, but “Rapid population growth”, “soil erosion through over grazing”, etc are fully self inflicted by the blacks themselves and totally preventable by blacks themselves. How can you make whites responsible for the sexual behavior of blacks and their inability to grasp scientific farming methods?
The proffie continues: “And, after 1948, the reserves became the cornerstone of a key part of the apartheid system, the homelands.”
Exactly. It is the land they legally settled and bought themselves out of their own free will. Apartheid gave them self rule and fully assisted them every year with billions of rands.
The proffie who is apparently a constitutional law expert, reckons that in section 25 of the constitution the government has the right to expropriate land at will if it is in “public interest”.
Funny then that Section 25 actually means the opposite and is there to actually prevent the expropriation of land.
It starts with “No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.”
So here comes in what we know as “Lawyer speak” and it opens so many loop holes of interpretation that the law looks like a Swiss cheese.
What is “Public interest”? Who is “The Public”,? It says that “the state must take “reasonable and other measures”? What is “Reasonable”? What “Other measures”? What are the criteria of judging something “reasonable”? Who makes up the criteria?
Nevertheless you can see the constitution here. The part I am talking about is on page 8 The constitution of South Africa
I will tell you what these terms mean in Communist Newspeak. “The people” means the communist elite in the ANC and the SACP. “Public interest” means the interest of the communist elite.
And this is the problem with the way the law is written, because it is full of vague words like “reasonable” and “adequate”. What is reasonable? What is adequate? How long is a piece of string?
He then further twists the constitution by saying: “...to this end the property clause therefore does not require expropriation of land in accordance with the “willing-buyer willing-seller” principle. Nor does it require the payment of market value for that land in all circumstances.”
What an utter distortion of the constitution that clearly states in 25(2) and (3) that property may only be expropriated in terms of the law taking various things into account. It is further “subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.”
Things that should be taken into account are the current use of the property, the history of how the land was acquired, the market value, etc
But 25(4) says that “The public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources; and (6) property is not limited to land.
So who is “The Nation”? Is that the Majority of the people? No “The Nation” refers to the communist elite. And their commitment to land reform is clear.
And property is not limited to land. So what is property? Your car, your furniture? Your bank account? Your wife?
Wake up people! Property is anything the “Nation” decides it to be. If they decide tomorrow that white people’s land houses cars furniture, mines, banks etc, needs to be expropriated, they will do so without batting an eyelid.
See what I mean when I say that the constitution is not worth the paper it is written on? According to that piece of toilet paper they can legally take away everything you own whenever they feel like it.
The South African constitution is nothing but a license to genocide of whites in South Africa. If the ruling party, their courts and their supporters decide that it is in “public interest” to take away the mines, the land, the businesses the cars and all property whites own, then they will. It is their ultimate aim.
That is why they are trying to undermine the judiciary and move their cronies into chief justice positions and get constitutional law academics like the proffie into their camp.
If they succeed and pass their legislation there will be nothing whites or any minority for that matter will be able to do, except defend their property with their lives or go to war.
In the end, and ultimately, South Africa is steering down the path of an unavoidable race war.
http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/2012/02/taking-on-experts-on-land-issue-why.html
23rd of February 2012
Ever since I wrote Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box part 32: Who does the land belong to? we have seen a lot of people sit up straight probably thinking for the first time about the lies the ANC tried to force feed the public for the past 100 years...That whites stole the land of blacks. That the 1913 land act disowned blacks of their land.
Many famous people read this blog, although they will never admit it. I know Helen Zille, Thabo Mbeki, Pieter Mulder , Beeld editor Tim du Plessis and many more frequent this blog.
That is why Pieter Mulder could stand up for white history in parliament and rubbish the lies of the ANC, saying that enough proof exists that blacks were historically never in the Cape, West of the Kei River. He is 100% correct.
A storm erupted in the media after he threw a thunderflash in the chicken coup. He came under severe personal attack, mostly from the ANC and their supporters, but also from some liberal academics.
Then in a series of articles, I again focused the attention of the public about the land issue on the historical facts...
Mulder, the land issue and the truth about who the land belongs to
I even showed how the famous traditional healer and black historian Credo Mutwa told the truth that it was the blacks who stole the land from the Bushmen (San-people) and committed genocide against them, not the whites.
So who stole the land from whom?
Then I challenged the best lawyers and the best historians to an open debate on this issue so we could settle the matter once and for all and move on. As could be expected the silence was deafening.
Actually when I was thinking about the “best lawyers” I had the descriptive Afrikaans word for a lawyer, “regsgeleerde” in mind, meaning literally “someone learned at law”.
The last person I had in mind as an “expert learned at law” was the fairy queen of UCT Prof Pierre de Vos who in 2004 won a case against a Cape Town gay bar called “Sliver” for discriminating against his coloured lover, Marcus Pillay. The bouncers also severely assaulted both. He is obviously liberally biased.
Read the pathetic details here
Nevertheless Pierre de Vos has probably read the facts presented by me, like the Feinberg and Horn Study that proved that contrary to common belief, the Land Act of 1913 resulted in as much as 65% more land for blacks, not less. This fact was already pointed out by Blacks journalist Jacob Dlamini in 2010 in an article called JACOB DLAMINI: Was Natives Land Act SA’s original political sin?
The entire Land Act of 1913 can be read here The 1913 land Act
So two days ago, almost straight after my challenge, the learned professor De Vos decided to launch a pathetic tirade against the facts presented.
The historical amnesia of Pieter Mulder
Right from the start the arrogant proffie (or is that spelled with an m?) tells us whites that we all want to bury Apartheid.
Say what? I for one want the debate in the open. That is why I named my series of articles, soon to be a book, “Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box”
“Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box”
Then the self loathing proffie wanted us to share his guilt feelings by harping on about “the injustices committed by our forefathers against black South Africans”.
Whose forefathers? Not mine. My forefathers were only good to blacks. Employed them, fed and clothed them. Built schools for them, hospitals, universities, etc. Maybe he is speaking about his own forefathers and the imaginary injustices he constantly nurses in his warped liberal mind.
Then he goes one…” This Stalinist yearning to whitewash the past and to try and make us forget about the role white people played in the exploitation and dispossession which occurred during the periods of colonialism and apartheid”
He is right about the Stalinist part of whitewashing history, but the only ones I see wanting to do that is the ANC. I and most White South Africans are proud of our history and we have nothing to be ashamed of. Proffie De Vos should not include us in his self loathing guilt trips.
He’s tirade continues with the ANC swear words of “white Settler”…when he said: ”Mulder is only one of a long line of white settlers”…
As far as I am aware, Pieter Mulder is a South African born citizen who has only ever held one citizenship in his entire life. He is further an Afrikaner. There is no Afrikaner homeland from where he could have colonizsed or settled from or where he can go back to. Afrikaner culture and language is unique to only one country on earth and that is South Africa (I include Namibia that I concider a legitimate part of SA since 1914). The Afrikaners of SA are totally indigenous.
In his rush to “prove” how whites dispossessed black land and “forced Blacks” onto farms, the learned proffie copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia about the Glen Grey Act of 1894. So I see… that is where he gets his knowledge of the law from…Wikipedia.
What the proffie forgot to tell us is that the Glen Grey act was a British experiment that applied only to one location (now called a township), the Tambookie location outside of Queenstowns after the place got so overcrowded, because of the Xhosa’s own created famine of 1856-1857 in which they killed all their cattle and burned down their crops because a teenage prophetess called Nongqawuse told them that it would make the whites disappear into the sea.
It wiped out 4/5 ths of the Xhosa population, the rest dwindled with their skeleton bodies through white areas scratching for food in bins. The whites saved them from their own self induced genocide. If it were not for the whites taking pity on them and feeding them there would be no Xhosa people today. Yes. That is what you get for interfering with nature, today the “Xhosa Nostra” rule South Africa.
Nevertheless the proffie created the dishonest impression that the act applied to the entire SA and all its blacks. It did not.
Further the act gave each black family a farm of four morgen (about 0.86 hectares in SA). The word “Morgen” is the German word for “morning” and one “morgen” equated to the land one man could plough with an ox in a morning from sunrise to midday.
So after getting a farm the size of eight football fields the British said the blacks had to pay tax just like all the whites. But the black farmers as we know are useless and were not as productive as the whites so they could not pay the tax. In order to do so they send the kids and women out to go and work for the whites in town.
This practice of sending the children and the women to work and the men sitting in the sun all day drinking beer is still practiced today in SA and has always been the practice amongst blacks for time immemorial.
This natural custom of the blacks, the proffie in his infinite wisdom wants to call oppression and enslavement. What rubbish. The sign of a truly deficient leftist intellect.
Nevertheless the proffie continues with his lies and distortions by saying “The most important provision of the Act stated that Africans could no longer buy, lease, or in any other manner acquire land outside a scheduled area, except by acquiring that land from another African, and Europeans were prohibited from buying or leasing land from an African.”
As I have mentioned before, the Native Land Act of 1913 never referred to “Africans” and “Europeans”. It did not refer to Blacks and whites. It only referred to “Natives and other people”.
His interpretation of the law into an “African” and “European” or “Black” and “White” context is a gross distortion of the truth. Under “African” or “Native” the Afrikaners definitely qualify.
Further the law applied to both sides equally, so if the act denied “Natives” the right to buy land from “Other persons” it equally denied “Other Persons” the right to buy land from “Natives”. So either both sides benefitted or suffered equally under the law.
But as I have pointed out there was an escape clause, like in every law, as the proffie should now, seeing that he considers himself an expert.
It said “Except with the approval of the Governor-General…”
As I have pointed out blacks and whites continued buying land from each other…
Quoting from Dlamini’s article…
“Between 1913 and 1936, for example, Africans bought about 3200 farms and lots outside of native areas. What’s more, the 1913 act was not retroactive, meaning that Africans who already owned land outside of the native reserves could not have it taken away from them. Feinberg and Horn say that between 1913 and 1924, under the governments of Louis Botha and Jan Smuts, there were 302 exemptions granted, amounting to 35% of the total. Between 1924 and 1936, when JB Hertzog was in power, there were 565 exemptions granted, amounting to 65% of the total. “
In his eagerness to show how the white man’s laws was bad for the black man he cites from Feinberg and Horn: “Rapid population growth among Africans and soil erosion in the reserves (partly due to over-grazing) seriously undermined African agriculture.”
Excuse me, but “Rapid population growth”, “soil erosion through over grazing”, etc are fully self inflicted by the blacks themselves and totally preventable by blacks themselves. How can you make whites responsible for the sexual behavior of blacks and their inability to grasp scientific farming methods?
The proffie continues: “And, after 1948, the reserves became the cornerstone of a key part of the apartheid system, the homelands.”
Exactly. It is the land they legally settled and bought themselves out of their own free will. Apartheid gave them self rule and fully assisted them every year with billions of rands.
The proffie who is apparently a constitutional law expert, reckons that in section 25 of the constitution the government has the right to expropriate land at will if it is in “public interest”.
Funny then that Section 25 actually means the opposite and is there to actually prevent the expropriation of land.
It starts with “No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.”
So here comes in what we know as “Lawyer speak” and it opens so many loop holes of interpretation that the law looks like a Swiss cheese.
What is “Public interest”? Who is “The Public”,? It says that “the state must take “reasonable and other measures”? What is “Reasonable”? What “Other measures”? What are the criteria of judging something “reasonable”? Who makes up the criteria?
Nevertheless you can see the constitution here. The part I am talking about is on page 8 The constitution of South Africa
I will tell you what these terms mean in Communist Newspeak. “The people” means the communist elite in the ANC and the SACP. “Public interest” means the interest of the communist elite.
And this is the problem with the way the law is written, because it is full of vague words like “reasonable” and “adequate”. What is reasonable? What is adequate? How long is a piece of string?
He then further twists the constitution by saying: “...to this end the property clause therefore does not require expropriation of land in accordance with the “willing-buyer willing-seller” principle. Nor does it require the payment of market value for that land in all circumstances.”
What an utter distortion of the constitution that clearly states in 25(2) and (3) that property may only be expropriated in terms of the law taking various things into account. It is further “subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.”
Things that should be taken into account are the current use of the property, the history of how the land was acquired, the market value, etc
But 25(4) says that “The public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources; and (6) property is not limited to land.
So who is “The Nation”? Is that the Majority of the people? No “The Nation” refers to the communist elite. And their commitment to land reform is clear.
And property is not limited to land. So what is property? Your car, your furniture? Your bank account? Your wife?
Wake up people! Property is anything the “Nation” decides it to be. If they decide tomorrow that white people’s land houses cars furniture, mines, banks etc, needs to be expropriated, they will do so without batting an eyelid.
See what I mean when I say that the constitution is not worth the paper it is written on? According to that piece of toilet paper they can legally take away everything you own whenever they feel like it.
The South African constitution is nothing but a license to genocide of whites in South Africa. If the ruling party, their courts and their supporters decide that it is in “public interest” to take away the mines, the land, the businesses the cars and all property whites own, then they will. It is their ultimate aim.
That is why they are trying to undermine the judiciary and move their cronies into chief justice positions and get constitutional law academics like the proffie into their camp.
If they succeed and pass their legislation there will be nothing whites or any minority for that matter will be able to do, except defend their property with their lives or go to war.
In the end, and ultimately, South Africa is steering down the path of an unavoidable race war.
http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/2012/02/taking-on-experts-on-land-issue-why.html
