Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: South Africa President, Jacob Zuma, Calls for Confiscation of White Land Without Compensation

  1. #1
    Hundhedensk "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hersir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Håløyg
    Ancestry
    Norway
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Y-DNA
    I2b1
    mtDNA
    J2a1a1b
    Country
    Norway Norway
    State
    South Trondelag South Trondelag
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Posts
    6,077
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,035
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    771
    Thanked in
    349 Posts

    South Africa President, Jacob Zuma, Calls for Confiscation of White Land Without Compensation

    President Jacob Zumahas called on parliament to change South Africa’s constitution to allow the expropriation of white owned land without compensation.


    Mr Zuma, 74, who made the remarks in a speech yesterday/FRI morning, said he wanted to establish a “pre-colonial land audit of land use and occupation patterns” before changing the law.
    “We need to accept the reality that those who are in parliament where laws are made, particularly the black parties, should unite because we need a two-thirds majority to effect changes in the constitution,” he said.
    Mr Zuma, who has lurched from one scandal to another since being elected to office in 2009, has adopted a more populist tone since his ruling African National Congress (ANC) party suffered its worst election result last August since the end of apartheid in 1994.


    The party lost the economic hub of Johannesburg, the capital Pretoria and the coastal city of Port Elizabeth to the moderate Democratic Alliance party, which already held the city of Cape Town.


    The ANC is also under pressure from the radical Economic Freedom Fighters, led by Julius Malema.

    Mr Malema has been travelling the country urging black South Africans to take back land from white invaders and "Dutch thugs".
    He told parliament this week that his party wanted to “unite black people in South Africa” to expropriate land without compensation.


    “People of South Africa, where you see a beautiful land, take it, it belongs to you,” he said. Although progress has been made in transferring property to black South Africans, land ownership is believed to be skewed in favour of whites more than 20 years after the end of apartheid.







    The Institute of Race Relations, an independent research body, said that providing a racial breakdown of South Africa’s rural landowners was “almost impossible”.


    “In the first place the state owns some 22 per cent of the land in the country, including land in the former homelands, most of which is occupied by black subsistence farmers who have no title and seem unlikely to get it any time soon,” the group said.


    “This leaves around 78 per cent of land in private hands, but the race of these private owners is not known.”
    Mr Zuma’s comments caused outrage among groups representing Afrikaans speaking farmers on Friday.


    The Boer Afrikaner Volksraad, which claims to have 40,000 members, said its members would take land expropriation without compensation as “a declaration of war”.


    “We are ready to fight back,” said Andries Breytenbach, the group’s chairman. “We need urgent mediation between us and the government. "If this starts, it will turn into a racial war which we want to prevent.”
    Mr Zuma first mentioned the expropriation of land in his opening of Parliament speech last month, but Friday was the first time he called for a change in the law. In his February speech, he controversially called in the military to maintain “law and order” on the streets of Cape Town ahead of expected protests calling for him to step down.


    It was the first time in South Africa’s history, including the heavily militarised apartheid era, that the president has ordered the military to provide security at parliament.








    Source

    I work with a few Boers, and they are glad to get out. Zulus and other Bantus acting as if they have some superior moral claim to South African soil is so enraging. The only reason they are the majority across the SA is because they genocided the natives. The funny thing is, they did this after the whites moved into SA, so they have even less of a moral claim to the land than the whites have. Of course, you will never ever (ever ever ever) see a Zulu cry tears about his genocidal past, or talk about how he doesn't deserve to be there, or how he should try to pay reparations to the descendants of the people he displaced, etc.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 12th, 2017 @ 07:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Silesia Silesia
    Gender
    Posts
    853
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir View Post
    I work with a few Boers, and they are glad to get out.
    Where they want to go? Most Boers are from today's Netherlands, Germany, and France. If they really all go, it would be a huge lot. And the three countries above mentioned would not let them in. The SA Anglos of course they would have to go to Britain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir View Post
    Zulus and other Bantus acting as if they have some superior moral claim to South African soil is so enraging.
    To a great part, it is also the fault of the Boers. Between 1948 and 1990, the Boers held all power they might have even wished for. During these 4 decades, or at least since 1960, it would have been possible and easy for them, to devide the territory of the RSA along the internal borders of settlement areas. The western half of the RSA is practically free of (autochthonous) negroes, the negroes there are only invited as workers. Why did the Boer government not do this as long as it was still in time? Of course, such a solution would have spelled the abandoning of the whole complete eastern half of the RSA, including such 'precious' lands as Transvaal, and Oranje, which were so so dear to the hearts of the Boers.

    But it is take and give. You can't have it all, and to keep the half, you must let the half.

    Such a solution, at around 1960, also would have entailed, among other things, that the 'race discrimination' would not have been necessary, so that 'world opinion' of the 'international community' could hardly have raised any objections. And at that time, it also would have been easy to prove that there were no 'native' negroes in western RSA.

    It would have been possible, then, in that split off western half of the RSA to build up an economy based on mechanized agriculture, as in the USA.

    But the Boer government did exactly the opposite. They held with claws and nails on the lands bulging with negroes. Instead of making a clear smart cut between whites and negroes, they on the total contrary tried to force negroes to learn the Afrikaans language, which was certainly the most stupid move any government on earth ever made. Everybody knows it was this stupid decision which triggered the agony of the RSA.

    The reason was of course, that the Boers did not want let go their slaves, on whose labor they were relying so badly. It was the same as in the American South, they did never contemplate in earnest how to dispense with negroes, they always and only rolled the question in their minds how to better exploit more of them. They were even breeding the negroes, to enhance their numbers and thus their labor force, the same as in the American South.

    Well, this can not work, in the long run. In the 'long run' may mean some centuries, as in the Roman Empire, but it also can mean, as we see in southern Africa, just a few decades.

    Slavery, also known as 'apartheid' (there was no legal slavery in the RSA, yet for all practical purposes, there was no great difference), in the final ultimate long run, eventually ALWAYS leads to slave liberation.

    And slave liberation, in the final ultimate long run, eventually ALWAYS leads to full equal rights for the former slaves.

    And full equal rights for the former slaves, in the final ultimate long run, eventually ALWAYS leads to reign of terror by the former slaves.The male former slave owners get chopped to death, the female former slave owners get fucked to death.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir View Post
    The only reason they are the majority across the SA is because they. The funny thing is, they did this after the whites moved into SA, so they have even less of a moral claim to the land than the whites have.
    The ANC was founded and indoctrinated by joos. Of one of these 'white' joos I saw the face in a German TV docu about the overseas activities of East Germany. In the 1980s, a group of ANC leaders was trained in a secret camp of the East German army on Rügen island. The joo (who himself personally took part in that military training program) with a greasy grin, told into the camera that the ANC negroes were so delighted that East German white ladies were cooking and serving meals to them, and did clean their rooms and wash their rags. The joo joyfully grinning said: "Imagine, these were blacks from South Africa! They had never seen this before!"
    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir View Post
    Of course, you will never ever (ever ever ever) see a Zulu cry tears about his genocidal past, or talk about how he doesn't deserve to be there, or how he should try to pay reparations to the descendants of the people he displaced, etc.
    Why should a negroe do all this? Just give me one reason!

    But what I even would like to know more: supposed, the RSA negroes really would whine about their wrongdoings, what would that help? What would that change? Do the Boers really believe that if the negroes were more rueful, then they would them, the Boers, treat softer? Did the Boers really sink to that level?

  3. #3
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,275
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    575
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    527
    Thanked in
    232 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork View Post
    To a great part, it is also the fault of the Boers. Between 1948 and 1990, the Boers held all power they might have even wished for. During these 4 decades, or at least since 1960, it would have been possible and easy for them, to devide the territory of the RSA along the internal borders of settlement areas. The western half of the RSA is practically free of (autochthonous) negroes, the negroes there are only invited as workers. Why did the Boer government not do this as long as it was still in time? Of course, such a solution would have spelled the abandoning of the whole complete eastern half of the RSA, including such 'precious' lands as Transvaal, and Oranje, which were so so dear to the hearts of the Boers.

    But it is take and give. You can't have it all, and to keep the half, you must let the half.

    Such a solution, at around 1960, also would have entailed, among other things, that the 'race discrimination' would not have been necessary, so that 'world opinion' of the 'international community' could hardly have raised any objections. And at that time, it also would have been easy to prove that there were no 'native' negroes in western RSA.

    It would have been possible, then, in that split off western half of the RSA to build up an economy based on mechanized agriculture, as in the USA.

    But the Boer government did exactly the opposite. They held with claws and nails on the lands bulging with negroes. Instead of making a clear smart cut between whites and negroes, they on the total contrary tried to force negroes to learn the Afrikaans language, which was certainly the most stupid move any government on earth ever made. Everybody knows it was this stupid decision which triggered the agony of the RSA.
    The Boers did offer the Bantus (Negroes) their own countries, carved out of South Africa;


    The International Community refused to recognize the Bantustans as independent and the ANC wanted all of South Africa. And South African commerce was addicted to "cheap labor". Most South African Whites seem to think they needed cheap domestics. The independent Bantustans were reincorporated into South Africa in 1994.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  4. #4
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Stormraaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Posts
    961
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    52
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir
    Of course, you will never ever (ever ever ever) see a Zulu cry tears about his genocidal past, or talk about how he doesn't deserve to be there, or how he should try to pay reparations to the descendants of the people he displaced, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork View Post
    But what I even would like to know more: supposed, the RSA negroes really would whine about their wrongdoings, what would that help? What would that change? Do the Boers really believe that if the negroes were more rueful, then they would them, the Boers, treat softer?
    No, nobody believes or expects that. What Hersir described is what white virtue signalers do and what blacks demand we all do. Pointing at the double standard and highlighting their ignorance of the facts is how we tell them we'll have none of their guilt-tripping, and how we warn regular impressionable whites against falling for their nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Æmeric View Post
    The Boers did offer the Bantus (Negroes) their own countries, carved out of South Africa;
    Right, except "carved out" makes me think of an entirely engineered process. The Mfecane Hersir linked to (basically a very bloody and chaotic war between black tribes) deposited the remainders of the Bantu tribes in those locations. In effect, they selected it. And contrary to the myths, those are good locations in terms of resources and farmland.

    Quote Originally Posted by Æmeric View Post
    And South African commerce was addicted to "cheap labor". Most South African Whites seem to think they needed cheap domestics.
    Even today that remains true. "A white South African is someone who would rather be murdered in their bed than make it," as the saying goes. It's very frustrating. Using black domestics means information about your home and comings and goings are floating out there, and it's common for a home invader to have had "inside info" in a direct or indirect way.

  5. #5
    Senior Member RoyBatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017 @ 08:34 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Paleface
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Occupation
    Arbeit Macht Frei
    Politics
    Rightwing / Socialist
    Posts
    2,415
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    On a side-note, many people who call themselves "Boers" are the local equivalent of rednecks. Usually not particularly intelligent, extremely stubborn, prone to be confrontational and to engage in endless bickering amongst themselves, judgemental and so on. Many of them are hopeless from a White Nationalist perspective.

    (Yes I know, not everybody is a White Nationalist... but even so, it is more beneficial for our various groups to cooperate than to argue. Boers - all they tend to do is argue or drag a situation down into an argument. For more light on this topic just go visit Stormfront's SA section and see for yourselves.)

    That aside, Aemeric is sadly correct with the (White South Africans) "addicted to cheap labour" quip. It goes further than that. They're not only addicted to cheap labour, they're also addicted to their pickup trucks, swimming pools and ball-games (rugby usually) for idiots. Most of them would rather have those things than to live free.

    The local media is (predicably) Jew or shabbos goy controlled. It is quite literally a carbon copy of the usual Western MSM #FakeNews. The local "Afrikaans journalists" carve their careers out of translating MSM articles from English. There's hardly an original (or contrarian) thought amongst any of them. Let's face it, if there were they'd be out of a job anyway because there is no independent media.

    The situation in SA is like watching a slow motion trainwreck and unfortunately many of the Whites there are acting as their own worst enemies.
    ~ **** Democracy! It's 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: Friday, September 7th, 2018, 07:48 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, July 8th, 2017, 12:14 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 15th, 2017, 04:49 PM
  4. Will Zuma Bring Tribalism to South Africa?
    By Nachtengel in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, June 26th, 2009, 10:38 PM
  5. Impoverished White Afrikaners Pin Their Hopes on Jacob Zuma
    By Verðandi in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, May 9th, 2009, 12:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •