What's the name of the Boer leader? He did extremely well in this interview I thought, articulated himself well, didn't let the BBC interviewer push him around, and illustrated how ridiculous and nonsensical the PC perspective really is.
This is Eugene Terre'Blanche, leader of the AWB, but considering him the Boer leader would be misguided. The media is trying its hardest to portray him as such, though - his histrionics and sub-intellectual approach are detrimental to mainstreaming Afrikaner nationalism, so it plays right into their hands. It's a fact that pro-Afrikaner media of a more intellectual approach largely ignores him as a fringe figure, while the liberal (especially English) media absolutely loves him.Originally Posted by baroqueorgan
I thought he articulated himself rather poorly. A convincing argument for intrinsically tying ethnicity to race is completely absent, for example.
See also: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=130694
He is perhaps not intellectual in method, but he is not unintelligent. He is a man full of soul, without artifice, sure of himself, unwilling to bandy words with some idiot liberal foreigner who has no idea of the experience his people have shared. He knows when he's being set up, knows it is unjust and he does not care for it. I have seen others like him speak before, and I have to say, without a doubt, these are the best of people.
That being said, you're right, Raven, that he did not have good arguments prepared to fight the libertard on his own terms, which certainly could be done, but I understand the distaste of being forced to do so. Perhaps there needs to be a more seasoned politician to dissect this liberal idiot's arguments one by one, but I certainly don't blame Terre Blanche for his impatience. He would make a great general or a great leader, because he appeals to the common soul, but perhaps it is a compliment that he would not make a good politician.
I think he is a great speaker! He does allot better than the BNP's Nick Griffin or ex-KKK David Duke.
Really, the perfect analogy for that idiot liberal's question, "must all Boers be White?" is this: "Must all Cheetahs be cats?" Perhaps if you introduce some PC multicultural administration of lies you can say a dog can be a cheetah too? Sorry, saying it does not make it so.
I wouldn't presume to call him unintelligent either. He's probably less articulate in English than in Afrikaans as well, which in turn could also lend to frustration when conversing with a liberal-sided interviewer. But I have to wonder how intelligent it is to put oneself in a position complicit to propagating the current pitiful perception of the separatist Boer movement. To me it seems that his arguments delivered on-the-fly falls short, so, being in the position that he is, it would have only been responsible to have strong arguments and counter-arguments prepared for things like why race is a necessary consideration.
I can understand why outside sympathizers find his character likable, but the fact on the ground is that he's not winning anyone over, and Afrikaners in the politically left-to-neutral spectrum would be all too happy to continue disregarding mono-ethnic ideals if it means they won't have to associate with the AWB image.
I thought Terre'Blanche got his tactics just right against this liberal wimp!
Sometimes Nationalists tend to go on the defensive, like Nick Griffin did on Question Time, and they come off badly when this happens. Even if you fend off 90% of the flak some of it will get through whereas, if you attack, not only does your opponent have less opportunity to get his shots off but you score some hits as well.
Another good exponent of this method is Jean-Marie Le Pen. There was a TV programme in the 80's where they were trying to put the squeeze on him re. Naziism/the Holocaust etc... so he suddenly went on the offensive and declared a minute's silence for all the victims of Soviet Gulags - a classic moment!!
Eugene got his moments. I really don't see him as political leader or head of state, but let's face it, he got sound support in the 80's. Just that neither he nor others in the movement were able to provide the necessary organo-political or intellectual leadership. That happens when you focus on the "urgent" / emotional issues first and try to start changing things with the wrong class of people.
While the low-class image given to the AWB was somewhat misplaced, the movement tended to recruit more attention from blue-collar Whites then from the more educated people - Who were of course often enough dependend on the National Parties favor for their position.
... That's a good point. The defensive position equals being ostracised to some extend. And if they can put you in a position were you have to explain things, you easily can sound shaky, since you and not the opponent has to use more cognitive resources. They also can start twist your words. So you are right. If someone asks you, "Are you racist", ask him whether he thinks that White people have no right to exist.
That's a way to put it. Posing historical questions towards a politician may also be a means of getting him off track. Instead of giving a detailed answer to a potentially complex historical question. Admit that it isn't your area of expertise, but point out that you find it kind of fishy that people that utter the wrong opinions about the Holocaust get thrown into jail or have to face other problems. Then as whether there should be open research and debate on the Holocaust just like with any other historical issue.
The racist label has been used similarily in South Africa. I do not think the 90% of White people will actually differe significantly in their opinions on race matters, when they stand around a braaivleisvuur talking about the issue. But concerning the way to handle hit one half will be more timid, while the other half tends to favor a more firm response. Just that the later failed to gain the upper hand. On the other hand it seems that the racists have been right all the time.
"And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia
This is something that I posted on SA sucks before it closed down.
Isn’t it interesting how the rule of nature always seems to reflex the way things work around us. There are an opposite virtually for everything around us. This seems to be the case concerning religion and politics as well. It amazes me what people are willing to fight over and sometimes even go to war. Three major reasons are religion, politics and race. There is always something to differ about or to create hostilities over. What would it be like if none of these ever existed? What would we look for to start a war? What would a world without any differences be like? Would we fight over food, woman, beer, other sorts of earthly thing because that how narrow minded the average person is. In our case, every idiot wants to be a leader and dominate the weak as they see it in their thinking. They think they know better. What is a leader? How do we even recognize one? This individual may be already among us and we are blinded with internal fighting. What do we look for in a leader? Someone to take the fight to our enemy’s. Someone who are willing to lay down his live for his people. Someone who will be humiliated in order to safe his people. Someone who has strength around him that no other can match. Someone who wouldn’t care about criticism. Are we waiting to see a person taking on the ANC single handedly and then label him a leader? Imagine this, you turn on the TV and there he is, Van Der Merwe. He took on the ANC on any issue that we ever wanted to but were to afraid to. They arrested him more times than he could remember. He has to repair his front door virtually every week. Liberals and anti white groups lashed at him at daily bases. This man can’t even drive to the petrol pump without been harassed but stand firm in his believes when you ask him. He wages a daily crusade against our enemies. In the long term people all over the world will know his name. They will publicly announce every wrong deed that he ever committed in his live, every scandal to shut him up. They will threaten his live. Does this sound like a leader to you? This person will not use the internet to create awareness but will make it public. He will not care about politics or religion, but only the well-being of his people. This is also not some one that will be appreciated by his people in is live time, but he is definitely someone that will give his enemies sleepless nights. This is the kind of leader that we need.
We should not disregard someone like ET. He made a lot of sacrifices towards his nation and almost lost everything in return. He might still make a difference or someone like him. He is no political jewel but people do intend to listen to him even if they don’t like him, but what he stands for are what all of us wants. He did make a lot of stupid mistakes but in the end we may need him. The way I see things, we are going to need a military leader more than a political one. Negotiations are not going to help us. They see us as too little and too disliked by the world for any one to care.
Southern Africa
Southern Africa
Southern Africa
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks