AFRIKANERLAKMOESTOETS

Afrikaner: Ploegbreker en Jannie Martelgat

GUSTAV VENTER 26 Mei 2013

Ontmoet Retina Zeyheri, veldplant. Nie 'n asemrowende blom nie – so 'n dieporanje kloktrossie wat ondertoe hang soos die lelle onder 'n kaalnekhoenderhen se kinnebak. Die stam is bros en besaai met wit dons. Die blare is groot, tabakplantagtig. Alles inaggenome lyk dit nie na 'n baie intimiderende plant nie. En tog, hier waar ek in die Oos-Vrystaat bly, benader 'n saaiboer hierdie stuk flora met die grootste ontsag. Hulle noem hom die ploegbreker.

Onder die grond het hy so 'n digte weefsel wortels dat 'n ploeglem maklik daarin vasslaan en afgeruk word. Die protea is Suid-Afrika se nasionale blom, maar laat Retina Zeyheri die embleem van die Afrikaner wees. As ons weens 'n wringslag van die geskiedenis teruggestort word in 'n elektrisiteitslose wêreld en ridders maak weer hulle verskyning, laat die Afrikaner-kavalier 'n ploegbreker op sy skild aanbring.

Gehardheid is ons een enkele onderskeidende volkseienskap. Vandat 'n spul weerbarstige Hollanders aan die voetenent van die kontinent uitgeplant is, en later kruisbestuif is met die beste Franse bloed en die onuitwisbare, geharde gene van Duitse huursoldate, het hierdie plant die ploeë van wêreldryke, 'n onstuimige vasteland en 'n afgunstige horde geweldenaars gebreek. Hulle het ons verwerp, verwilder, verjaag, verdruk, oorval, vasgekeer, verdelg, beledig, verraai, vertrap, verkrag, verlei... en hier is ons steeds, gereed om nog êe en disse van rame af te ruk

.

Al hierdie mense het dit vergeet, en dit is 'n liederlike flater.

Die feit dat die Andere die Afrikaner se ploegbrekerwortelstelsel verontagsaam en hom sien as 'n eenvoudige veldblom wat met gemak uit die vlak aardkors geskoffel kan word, is erg en dis irriterend, erg irriterend, maar wat baie erger is, en onhoudbaar meer irriterend, is dat hierdie miskenning nou dreig om die hoofstroom-Afrikaner-denke te deurtrek.

Dis 'n sonbesiekoor in die samelewing van ons tyd: Hulle het ons land gevat, hulle het ons werke gevat, hulle het ons universiteite gevat, hulle vermoor ons in die stede, hulle vermoor ons op die platteland, hulle verander ons dorpsname, hulle vat ons skole...

En sekerlik het ons die volle reg en omvattende redes om te kla, en my oog is nie weggedraai van die ellende en my oor is nie toegestop vir die klagtes nie. Maar om Vadersnaam, hierdie krisisse is Afrikaner-krisisse en moet in die huis van die volk en nie in die straat van die Andere behandel word nie. Daar is niks so stoer soos 'n stoere Afrikaner nie, en blykbaar niks so pateties soos 'n patetiese Afrikaner nie.

Ek verstaan nou hoe Basjan gevoel het. Basjan Basson was 'n skoolvriend, bietjie ouer as ek, en "Bombastiese" sou 'n nommerpas alliterasie gewees het om saam met die Basjan en die Basson te gaan: Bombastiese Basjan Basson. Maar weet dít van Basjan, hy was 'n hartstogtelike patriot. Op 'n dag gaan draf hy – ter voorbereiding van 'n voetbalseisoen op vaskopstut – deur 'n vervalle mynnedersetting aan die buitewyke van Brakpan, en kom hier op 'n afgryslike toneel af: 'n Alkoholdeurdrenkte, wit ou man, sit in die venster van 'n huisbouval, maer boude na buite, en ontlas. Wat die jong Basson die diepste gekrenk het, was die kringetjie van swartmense wat in die onmiddellike omgewing gestaan en die oukêrel uitgejou, gekoggel en met die grootste ironie aangemoedig het. In sy walging en verontwaardiging was daar net een ding waaraan Basjan kon dink – hy het klippe opgetel, nie om die kring van die spotters te verjaag nie, maar om die ouman in sy daad van selfvernedering te stuit.

Want wanneer het die Afrikaner so pateties geword dat hy voor die oë van die Andere deur 'n gebreekte venster skyt?

Die gekwetter in die kanariehok het hierdie week grotendeels oor 'n BBC-dokumentêr en gepaardgaande internetartikel gegaan. "Het witmense 'n toekoms in Suid-Afrika?" vra die titel, en die stuk se slotsom is: Errr... nie eintlik nie. Eintlik, lees 'n mens, is die witmens dubbel-en-dwars in sy ghwar in – net plakkerskampe en witkruise waar jy kyk. Die swartman is die indoena van alles wat hy beskou – en daarby alles ingesluit wat eens die Afrikaner s'n was. Moet net nie te jammer voel vir die witman, nie, maan die artikel, want hy is nog heeltemal te ryk, besit heeltemal te veel effektebeursaandele en beklee heeltemal te veel posisies. Buitendien – en dis 'n groot buitendien – hoe vrot dit ook al met hom gaan, hy verdien veel erger as gevolg van die drie eeue se sistematiese onreg wat hy teenoor swartes gepleeg het.

So, dit gaan ellendig met hom, maar nie so ellendig as wat dit in die toekoms sal gaan nie en dit is sy verdiende loon. As daar nou een soort artikel is waarin die Andere hulle verlustig, is dit in hierdie styl. Vir hulle is geen idee aantrekliker, tintelender of meer genotverskaffend as dié van 'n Afrikaner wat so afgetakel is dat hy deur die stukkende venster van 'n bouvallige huis skyt nie.

Die spotters versamel in 'n halfmaankring om die petalje te geniet en 'n spotter is niks indien nie meewarig nie. Voeg een uit Zimbabwe 'n Sjona-spreuk as kommentaar tot die storie by: "Die byl wat die boom sny vergeet dit maklik, maar die boom wat gesny is, vergeet nooit," bedoelende natuurlik dat die Afrikaner se huidige ellende toe te skryf is aan die onreg wat hy teen die swartmens gepleeg het.

Dankie daarvoor, maar dit lyk vir my of die makker tog vergeet het wie en wat die byl is en hy het geen idee, géén idee, van hoe diep en seer die byl kan byt as dit nodig sou wees nie. Dis erg genoeg dat die bome nie die byl behoorlik kan onthou nie, maar dit is tragies dat die byl self vergeet het wat hy is.

Ek praat seker dan net namens myself, maar ek is ter dae sat van Afrikaners wat buite die laer neul oor hoe sleg dit met ons gaan. Hier word nie eers van die Max du Preez- Tim du Plessis-soort liberale Afrikaner gepraat nie. Hulle het net geen reg om inhuisig of buitemuurs te kerm oor die huidige regering nie. Dit was die noodwendige gevolg van wat hulle bepleit en waarvoor hulle hulle bewyer het. Hulle moet maar grinnik en kopknik en ja-baas, nee-baas.

Maar daar is nou soveel goeie, volksvaste Afrikaners wat by die bure en die res van die wêreldgemeenskap wil gaan neul. Sowaar? Is dit ons beste oorlewingstrategie? Om in die openbaar te kerm? Van wanneer af het die Afrikaner so pateties geword dat hy deur 'n oop venster skyt? Van wanneer af het die Afrikaner 'n Jannie Martelgat geword?

Miskien dink hulle die strategie is 'n wenner omdat dit vir die swartman gewerk het. Ja, dit is so, as die swartman se onderlip bewe, gaan die Westerling se beursie oop. Maar dan betaal hy wel vir iets wat vir hom waarde het – die selfverheffende gevoel dat hy 'n ondergeskikte, hulpelose ellendeling gehelp het. Maar in Afrika is dit nét die swarte wat hom so laat voel. Die Westerling weet instinktief dat die Afrikaner skrander, hardwerkend, gedug genoeg is om na homself om te sien. Hy het geen moeite om sy beursie in sy sakke te hou nie al huil die Afrikaner riviere van snot en trane.

Dis tyd dat die ploegbreker onthou wie hy is. Daarom is geskiedenis belangrik. Ek het tans die uitsonderlike voorreg om 'n boek oor die geskiedenis van die Brandwaterkom te redigeer en uit te lê. Hier darem, sien jy die ploegbreker op sy beste.

Hierdie mense het in 'n ongerepte vallei opgedaag. Daar was geen tuiste nie. Maar hulle het nie gekla nie. Hulle het plase uitgelê en begin werk. Daar was nie bome in die Oos-Vrystaat nie, so hulle het huise van sooie gebou.

Dit was bergwêreld en die velde was bestrooi met klippe. Maar die mense het nie gekla nie. Hulle het die klippe opgetel en uit die veld gedra.

Die grond was moeilik. Maar hulle het nie gekla nie. Met die mees primitiewe implemente het hulle landerye geploeg en boorde aangeplant.

Daar was baie ongediertes, afgunstige inboorlinge en wilde diere. Maar die mense het nie gekla nie. Hulle het klippe teen oorhangkranse gestapel en veekrale so gemaak.

Dit het dekades geduur vir die eerste tekens van voorspoed om te verskyn, toe verdryf die Engelse boere tydens die Oorlog en brand die huise en plase af. Maar die mense het nie gekla nie. Hulle het voortgeveg.

Die mans het bittereinders geword of is gevang en gedeporteer. Hulle het nie gekla nie. Op kommando het hulle die Kakies op hulle herrie gegee. In Ceylon het hulle die gevange seuns leer skryf, hulle het viole uit hout gekerf, skaakstelle gemaak, kerk gehou.

Die Engelse het die vrouens gejag. Maar die ma's het nie gekla nie. Hulle het in die snerpende koue wegkruipertjie met die Engelse in die berge gespeel en deur die winter met hulle kindertjies in grotte geslaap.

Na die oorlog was daar niks om na terug te keer nie. Maar die mense het nie gekla nie. Hulle het voor begin. Die eerste dae het hulle balke skuins teen afgebrande huise se mure gepak en dit met sooie bedek vir skuiling teen die nagkoue.

Dit het bloed en sweet en trane gekos, maar 'n anderhalfdekade later het hulle weer begin voorkom. Toe breek die rebellie uit en hulle aspirasies word verpletter en hulle leiers gevang. Maar die mense het nie gekla nie. Hulle het die Helpmekaarfonds begin en Generaal de Wet en die ander se boetes betaal en hulle bevry.

Die depressie het hulle inkomste uitgewis. Maar die mense het nie gekla nie. Hulle het deurgedruk.

Die Engelse wou nie vir die Afrikaner hulle eie skole, universiteite en koerante gun nie. Maar die mense het nie gekla nie. Hulle het hulle pennies opeengehoop en hulle eie skole, universiteite en koerante begin.

Die Afrikaner is as tweedeklasburger behandel. Maar hulle het nie gekla nie. Hulle het net harder gewerk, kanse aangegryp, maatskappye gestig en ander oorgeneem, geleer, nog harder gewerk en uiteindelik die regering oorgeneem.

Vandag se Afrikaner is onmeetbaar ryker as die pioniers van die Brandwaterkom. Hulle het kennis, geleenthede, vaardighede, opvoeding. En die mense kla.

Hou dan tog net op neul. As dit net sou werk – maar dit gaan nie. Jy is nie swart nie. En ons as volk het geen rede om te kla nie, want daar is nie een probleem wat ons nie kan oplos nie.

Hou op om in die wêreld se ore te neul. Wit plakkerskampe is nie die Britte se probleem nie – dit is die Afrikaner s'n. Die aanslag op Afrikaans is nie die Hollanders se krisis nie – dis die Afrikaner s'n. Die Suid-Afrikaanse moordvlaag is nie Swede se ellende nie – dis die Afrikaner s'n.

Moenie met 'n witbrood onder die arm kla nie, het die oumense gemaan. Eweneens, as jy oor jou I-Phone 5 vanuit die plaaslike BMW-vertoonlokaal, terwyl jy wag vir die koopdokumente van jou nuwe 7-reeks om gefinaliseer te word, by my probeer kla oor, sê maar die armblankeprobleem, luister, ek wil niks van jou hoor nie.

As jy te lui is om jou patrolliebeurt by die buurtwag te doen, stel ek nie belang as diewe jou huis stroop nie.

As jy te verhewe is om 'n pistool saam met jou te dra, wil ek nie hoor hoe jy kla oor ons bokshelde wat by 'n partytjie doodgeskiet is nie.

As jy nie by jou skoolbeheerraad inval nie, wil ek nie hoor hoe jy sanik oor die verengelsing van ons skole nie.

As jy te bliksems lui is om behoorlike Afrikaans te praat en die taal besmeer met goedkoop Engelse woorde en frases, het jy geen rede om te snik oor die taalbeleid by Maties nie.

Wanneer het die Ploegbreker 'n Jannie Martelgat geword?

Wat my betref, ek wil aan geen ander volk op enige ander plek in enige ander tyd wees as nou nie. Dié wat dink hulle is die landbouers versamel weer teen ons. Laat hulle kom. Ons sal húlle ploeë ook breek.

Ek ken die Afrikaner. Ek ken die Ploegbreker.

Maar jy, Jannie Martelgat, gaan van my af weg. Ek ken jou nie.

MANDELA = CC-H/S KK*

*Cuddly Curly-head/Skattige Krulkoppie

Was the London Killing of a British

Soldier 'Terrorism'?
What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

By Glenn Greenwald
May 23, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"The Guardian" - -  Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".

That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do.

But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism? Amazingly, the US has even imprisoned people at Guantanamo and elsewhere on accusations of "terrorism" who are accused of nothing more than engaging in violence against US soldiers who invaded their country.

It's true that the soldier who was killed yesterday was out of uniform and not engaged in combat at the time he was attacked. But the same is true for the vast bulk of killings carried out by the US and its allies over the last decade, where people are killed in their homes, in their cars, at work, while asleep (in fact, the US has re-defined "militant" to mean "any military-aged male in a strike zone"). Indeed, at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on drone killings, Gen. James Cartwright and Sen. Lindsey Graham both agreed that the US has the right to kill its enemies even while they are "asleep", that you don't "have to wake them up before you shoot them" and "make it a fair fight". Once you declare that the "entire globe is a battlefield" (which includes London) and that any "combatant" (defined as broadly as possible) is fair game to be killed - as the US has done- then how can the killing of a solider of a nation engaged in that war, horrific though it is, possibly be "terrorism"?

When I asked on Twitter this morning what specific attributes of this attack make it "terrorism" given that it was a soldier who was killed, the most frequent answer I received was that "terrorism" means any act of violence designed to achieve political change, or more specifically, to induce a civilian population to change their government or its policies out of fear of violence. Because, this line of reasoning went, one of the attackers here said that "the only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily" and warned that "you people will never be safe. Remove your government", the intent of the violence was to induce political change, thus making it "terrorism".

That is at least a coherent definition. But doesn't that then encompass the vast majority of violent acts undertaken by the US and its allies over the last decade? What was the US/UK "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad if not a campaign to intimidate the population with a massive show of violence into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam's regime? That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent. That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II. It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s, the Bangledeshi death squads trained and funded by the UK, and countless other groups supported by the west that used violence against civilians to achieve political ends.

The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one could reasonably argue the intent, of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments' policies and even the government itself. How can one create a definition of "terrorism" that includes Wednesday's London attack on this British soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done?

I know this vital caveat will fall on deaf ears for some, but nothing about this discussion has anything to do with justifiability. An act can be vile, evil, and devoid of justification without being "terrorism": indeed, most of the worst atrocities of the 20th Century, from the Holocaust to the wanton slaughter of Stalin and Pol Pot and the massive destruction of human life in Vietnam, are not typically described as "terrorism". To question whether something qualifies as "terrorism" is not remotely to justify or even mitigate it. That should go without saying, though I know it doesn't.

The reason it's so crucial to ask this question is that there are few terms - if there are any - that pack the political, cultural and emotional punch that "terrorism" provides. When it comes to the actions of western governments, it is a conversation-stopper, justifying virtually anything those governments want to do. It's a term that is used to start wars, engage in sustained military action, send people to prison for decades or life, to target suspects for due-process-free execution, shield government actions behind a wall of secrecy, and instantly shape public perceptions around the world. It matters what the definition of the term is, or whether there is a consistent and coherent definition. It matters a great deal.

There is ample scholarship proving that the term has no such clear or consistently applied meaning (see the penultimate section here, and my interview with Remi Brulin here). It is very hard to escape the conclusion that, operationally, the term has no real definition at this point beyond "violence engaged in by Muslims in retaliation against western violence toward Muslims". When media reports yesterday began saying that "there are indications that this may be act of terror", it seems clear that what was really meant was: "there are indications that the perpetrators were Muslims driven by political grievances against the west" (earlier this month, an elderly British Muslim was stabbed to death in an apparent anti-Muslim hate crime and nobody called that "terrorism"). Put another way, the term at this point seems to have no function other than propagandistically and legally legitimizing the violence of western states against Muslims while delegitimizing any and all violence done in return to those states.

One last point: in the wake of the Boston Marathon attacks, I documented that the perpetrators of virtually every recent attempted and successful "terrorist" attack against the west cited as their motive the continuous violence by western states against Muslim civilians. It's certainly true that Islam plays an important role in making these individuals willing to fight and die for this perceived just cause (just as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, andnationalism lead some people to be willing to fight and die for their cause). But the proximate cause of these attacks are plainly political grievances: namely, the belief that engaging in violence against aggressive western nations is the only way to deter and/or avenge western violence that kills Muslim civilians.

Add the London knife attack on this soldier to that growing list. One of the perpetrators said on camera that "the only reason we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily" and "we apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." As I've endlessly pointed out, highlighting this causation doesn't remotely justify the acts. But it should make it anything other than surprising. On Twitter last night, Michael Moore sardonically summarized western reaction to the London killing this way:

I am outraged that we can't kill people in other counties without them trying to kill us!"

Basic human nature simply does not allow you to cheer on your government as it carries out massive violence in multiple countries around the world and then have you be completely immune from having that violence returned.

Drone admissions

In not unrelated news, the US government yesterday admitted for the first time what everyone has long known: that it killed four Muslim American citizens with drones during the Obama presidency, including a US-born teenager whom everyone acknowledges was guilty of nothing. As Jeremy Scahill - whose soon-to-be-released film "Dirty Wars" examines US covert killings aimed at Muslims - noted yesterday about this admission, it "leaves totally unexplained why the United States has killed so many innocent non-American citizens in its strikes in Pakistan and Yemen". Related to all of these issues, please watch this two-minute trailer for "Dirty Wars", which I reviewed a few weeks ago here:

Glenn Greenwald is a columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian. A former constitutional lawyer, he was until 2012 a contributing writer at Salon.

© 2013 Guardian News and Media

SKATTIGE KRULKOPPIES

Cameron The Breathtaking Hypocrite In Wake Of Woolwich Attack

Thursday, 23 May 2013 11:27

This may have been an horrific attack but to hear the holier-than-thou condemnations from Cameron about a 'sickening attack' and 'appalling crime' is both sickening and appalling.

This is the man who ordered and campaigned for the mass slaughter in Libya where horrific murders of this kind became the daily norm and he is supporting the 'rebels' in Syria where beheadings and chopping people to pieces are an almost daily occurrence. He argues for these insane people to be supplied with weapons by the West (more than they already are) so they can be even more deadly.

Cameron said after the Woolwich attack that 'we will never buckle' in the face of terrorism. Well, that's just as well when he has to look at a terrorist in the mirror every morning.

Cameron, Obama, Bush and Blair - terrorists the lot of them and all with the blood of the innocent on their hands on a fantastic scale.

[ID]

JY PRAAT MÝ TAAL...

woorde wat nie werk nie

aankondig

inlig

meedeel

redeneer

redekawel

palawer

praat

sê

skinder

vertel

verhaal

babbel

kekkel

klets

gesels ––

kommunikeer?

wat práát jy?

19-05-2013

[tinkeljander]

BITTER, BITTERDER, BITTERSTE

Verslag oor die samesprekings tussen die Boere-Afrikanervolksraad en die SA Menseregtekommissie op 13 Mei 2013

 

Die Volksraad het gister 'n gesprek gevoer met die SA Menseregtekommissie na aanleiding van die klag wat die Volksraad op 3 Desember by die Kommissie teen die SA Regering gelê het weens laasgenoemde se versuim om uitvoering te gee aan sy konstitusionele en volkeregtelike verpligtinge met betrekking tot selfbeskikking van volkere, en spesifiek die Boere-Afrikanervolk.

Die gesprek was teleurstellend. Die Hoof Bedryfsbeampte (Chief Operations Officer) met wie die gesprek aangevra is, het nie opgedaag nie en ook geen verskoning is vir haar gemaak nie (nie dat haar teenwoordigheid enige verskil sou gemaak het nie). Van  haar mindere beamptes en die deeltydse kommissaris wat die klag beoordeel, dr. Danny Titus*, het die Kommissie verteenwoordig. Die Voorsitster was me. Chantal Kisoon, die Provinsiale Bestuurder vir Gauteng.
Ter aanvang het die Voorsitter van die Volksraad die vergadering meegedeel dat dit óns mense se gebruik is om vergaderings met gebed te open, en het hy ons Ondervoorsitter, Abel Malan gevra om die gebed te doen. Die Kommissielede het dit oënskynlik vreemd gevind, dog die nodige respek getoon, terwyl die Kommissaris sigbaar geïrriteer voorgekom het.

Daarna het die Voorsitter van die Volksraad die redes verstrek vir die versoek tot gesprek en daartoe oorgegaan om 'n kort beskrywing te gee oor die ontstaan en doel van die Volksraad, pogings om met die Regering te skakel, die redes vir die klag en die uitkoms wat die Volksraad verlang.

Vervolgens het hy aan die hand van die kommunikasie wat met die Kommissie gevoer is sedert die klag aanhangig gemaak is, aangetoon hoe navrae met onwaarhede oor die stand van die ondersoek beantwoord is. Hy wou voorts weet hoekom dit die Kommissie 5 maande neem om te bepaal of hulle jurisdiksie het om die klag te hanteer, terwyl die betrokke verdrae deur die VN as menseregteverdrae geklassifiseer is en die S.A. Regering by ondertekening daarvan die Internasionale Menseregtekomitee aanvaar het as beslegter van klagtes oor die uitvoering daarvan.
Kisoon het ontken dat daar voete gesleep word met die klag, en haar Kommissie se proses om klagtes te hanteer, verduidelik. Die ongewone aard van die klag en die implikasies wat dit vir die land kan inhou, dra glo by tot die tydsduur wat vereis word om 'n besluit oor hul jurisdiksie te neem. Die wanvoorstellings oor die vordering is eenvoudig afgemaak en weggepraat.

Daarna het die Kommissaris wat die ondersoek uitvoer, Danny Titus, die woord geneem. Ofskoon hy toegegee het dat volke se reg op selfbeskikking in die Volkereg erken word, en dat die regime gebind is tot onderhouding van die internasionale ooreenkomste wat hy onderteken het, het Titus se  vooroordeel en vyandigheid uit die staanspoor geblyk toe hy, soos ons verwag het, die hele aangeleentheid oor die boeg van rassisme en 'n terugkeer na "apartheid" probeer gooi het — 'n tema wat hy herhaaldelik gedurende die gesprek na vore gehaal het. Die Voorsitter van die Volksraad het daarop aan hom 'n omvattende navorsingstuk oor die erkenning van volke se reg op selfbeskikking in die Volkereg, oorhandig, wat deur 'n medewerkende prokureur nagevors en opgestel is.

Voorts het hy die Volksraad se aanspraak op verteenwoordiging betwis weens die feit dat daar nie méér geregistreerde kiesers op die VVK se kieserslys geregistreer is nie. Hy wou weet hoeveel Swartes en Kleurlinge aan die verkiesing deelgeneem het, waarop die Volksraad hom daarop gewys het dat dit 'n volksverkiesing was vir lede van óns volk wat die verklaring op die registrasievorm kon en wou onderskryf. Hy het trouens beweer dat die aantal vryheidsgesinde Afrikaners daal en 'n stelling wat in The Economist gemaak word, as bron vir die bewering aangehaal. Die Voorsitter van die Volksraad het voorgestel dat as 'n billike bepaling van die aantal volksgenote wat vryheid begeer, verlang word, die Kommissie by die Regering moet aanbeveel dat 'n landwye meningsopname in die vorm van 'n referendum, wat uit die Staatskas (d.w.s met ons belasting)  befonds word, onder Afrikaners gehou moet word. 
Die ander vraag (wat ook te wagte was), was wáár die Volksraad 'n eie gebied vir selfbeskikking in die oog het. Die Kommissie is daarop gewys dat die Volksraad in sy skrywes en vryheidseis vermy het om grense te trek, aangesien dit nou om die erkenning van die beginsel gaan. Daarna moet oorgegaan word tot die bepaling van die praktiese aspekte. Sou die selfbeskikkingsbeginsel aanvaar word, kan aan bestaande volksnedersettings soos Orania en Kleinfontein reeds 'n hoë mate van selfbeskikking toegeken word, en voorsiening gemaak word vir die geografiese uitbreiding daarvan, terwyl volwaardige eie departemente vir terreine soos byvoorbeeld onderwys daargestel kan word. Sodoende kan selfbeskikking 'n evolusionêre proses wees wat kan uitbrei totdat die eindideaal, te wete geografiese onafhanklikheid, bereik word. 

Titus het beweer dat die beginsel van selfbeskikking reeds in artikel 235 van die Grondwet erken word. Die Volksraad se antwoord was dat dit sonder praktiese uitvoering 'n dooie letter is. Ons dring aan op praktiese uitvoering daarvan. 

Die vraag is gevra waarom 'n regime wat die Afrikaner sigbaar haat, ons volk steeds onder sy gesag wil hou en nie bereid is om uitvoering te gee aan ons aanspraak op selfbeskikking nie. Ons afleiding is dat hulle ons slegs beskou as 'n belastingbron wat getap kan word.

Vele ander vrae is gevra en argumente gevoer, waaruit die Kommissaris se kwade gesindheid, onbegrip en selfs moedswilligheid duidelik geblyk het. Daaraan geoordeel, is die Kommissie se bevinding en finale antwoord voorspelbaar. Hy erken enersyds dat die bevolking van Suid-Afrika uit verskillende volke (peoples) bestaan, nogtans gaan dit vir hulle om slegs één ding, naamlik die gelykskakeling en eendersheid van alle mense in Suid-Afrika kragtens die Grondwet. Voor die oppergesag van die mensgemaakte Grondwet — waaraan ons geen deel gehad het nie — moet die harde feite van ons eie volkskap, geskiedenis en identiteit wyk. Volgens Titus sal die Kommissie dieselfde standpunte voor die Internasionale Menseregtekomitee stel, sou die Volksraad hom tot dié liggaam wend.
Die gesprek en die benadering van die Kommissaris het opnuut die onbeskryflike yslikheid van De Klerk en sy meelopers se verraad teen ons volk onderstreep, waardeur ons in 'n posisie geplaas is dat mense wat self geen volksidentiteit, volksgeskiedenis en volkstrewe het en daarom niks daarvan verstaan nie, oor die Boere-Afrikanervolk en ons nasionale aspirasies uitspraak kan lewer. Dit oortref die gekombineerde verraad van al die  joiners in die Tweede Vryheidsoorlog omdat die gevolge daarvan vir ons volksbestaan soveel groter is.
Die Volksraad sal voortgaan om die opdrag wat hy met sy verkiesing gekry het, onverbiddelik uit te voer en roep volksgenote op om laer te trek ter beskerming van ons volkskap en om ons strydvaardig te maak teen die aanslae wat daarteen gerig word.

Andries Breytenbach
Voorsitter

14 Mei 2013

* Danny Titus is ook die Uitvoerende Direkteur: Kultuur van die ATKV!  Behoede ons kultuur!

ALIAS: DEMOKRASIE

[Dankie Hennie]

LUKAS 11:24-26*

*24	Wanneer die onreine gees uit die mens uitgegaan het, gaan hy deur waterlose plekke en soek rus; en as hy dit nie vind nie, sê hy: Ek sal teruggaan na my huis waar ek uitgegaan het.
25	En hy kom en vind dit uitgevee en versierd.
26	Dan gaan hy en neem sewe ander geeste, slegter as hy self, en hulle kom in en woon daar; en die laaste van daardie mens word erger as die eerste.

READ HOW THIS POOR INDIAN IMMIGRANT (IMMIGRATES FROM INDIA TO SOUTH AFRICA IN 1994) BECAME A MULTI MILLIONARE WITH GOVERNMENT TENDERS AND THE ANC IN HIS POCKET....

It took a statement from a rather cross Gwede Mantashe on Tuesday night to bring the whole Gupta house of cards tumbling down. From Wednesday, the political and diplomatic fallout from the illegal use of the Waterkloof Air Force Base by the Gupta family has been spectacular. Up to now, the Gupta overlords have been untouchable (in the non-Indian-caste sense) and nobody in the ANC or government would dare cross them. But this time, their bullying, waywardness, conceit and arrogance reached the point of no return. Their abuse of political connections has been exposed and the backlash in the entire country is unprecedented.  

 By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.

Because this is such a special occasion, let’s go back to that great reference point in President Jacob Zuma’s life: the Schabir Shaik trial. The reason why Shaik and Zuma were both charged with corruption was because of the way they each abused their relationship for material gain. Shaik would flaunt his self-styled position as Zuma’s financial advisor to get ahead in the business world; Zuma would allow him to do so, as well as nod on cue in the presence of business people, in exchange for the privilege of having a sponsor on call. It was a mutually beneficial relationship and they both coasted along happily until the National Prosecuting Authority disrupted the party.

Their relationship, particularly according to the amended Corruption Act, was deemed to be corrupt and Shaik was sentenced to 15 years in prison as a result. (Of that he served less than 6months and that in hospital for so called health reasons. After his release he is fit enough to play golf and drive his car, although being terminally ill.)

Into the breach stepped the Gupta brothers, up to then a relatively unknown family who left India to set up base in Johannesburg some 20 years ago. And the Guptas made Shaik look like an amateur. They are highly ambitious, crusading businessmen who do everything on a grand scale. They commandeered Zuma’s family, his Cabinet, government departments and parastatals – and had no qualms about doing so.

From the start of the Zuma presidency, rumours have circulated about ANC leaders learning of their Cabinet appointments via the Gupta brothers and directors-general being summoned to the Guptas’ Saxonwold compound to receive instructions on how to direct major government contracts their way.

Despite media revelations about millions of rands from parastatals being channelled into the Gupta-owned The New Age newspaper through their business breakfasts, the arrangement has continued regardless, with Cabinet ministers on constant parade to keep the funds rolling in.The Guptas seemed unfazed by bad publicity and allegations of illicit dealings. They conduct their business with an air of invincibility and are very forthright in the way they use their political connections.

They do not name drop, they instruct those whose names others drop what to do. They do so with the confidence of people who own the most powerful in the land.
While several high-ranking people in the state and the ANC have spoken off the record on the inordinate power wielded by the Gupta brothers, nobody has dared to openly break the sacred covenant of the goings on behind the high walls in Saxonwold. Those who have been exposed to their bullying and arrogance fear being victimised or losing their jobs due to the family’s proximity to the president and the ability to continuously use that relationship for their benefit.

And then the wedding came, and with it a moment in the time-space continuum when over-the-top becomes just too much.
It was designed to be an ostentatious spectacle, something which would get tongues wagging in South Africa and India. Weddings in India are normally grand and protracted affairs but the wedding of Vega Gupta and Aakash Jahajgarhia was meant to flaunt the family’s substantial riches and status as pseudo-royalty in a four-day extravaganza at Sun City, designed by the Gavin Rajah Concept. Apart from the lavish arrangements, dance and pageantry to rival a Bollywood production, it was to be a gathering of the Guptas’ elite political and business connections in South Africa and India.

About 200 guests, apparently including Indian ministers of state, were being flown to South Africa from New Delhi. Nothing wrong with booking flights for your wedding guests, nothing wrong with chartering a jet to fly them over either, nothing wrong with any of it, if you can afford it, of course. But with the Guptas, it couldn’t stop there – not with all their political connections in the South African state open to them.

They pulled strings, leaned on a few people, snapped their fingers and voila! They managed to wangle clearance to land the Jet Airways A330-203 passenger jet at the Waterkloof Air Force Base in Pretoria. When they were first denied permission to land at the national key point by the Department of Defence, they asked the Indian High Commissioner Virendra Gupta to get authorisation from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco). Speaking on SABC television on Thursday night the high commissioner said the arrangements were made to use Waterkloof for the arrival of the wedding guests for “security” and “convenience”.

When news broke of the jet landing at a national key point on Tuesday, there was no official response from government to explain the protocol and security anomaly. Although the media were asking questions, which opposition parties were bound to chase up on, the issue could probably have been kept shrouded under the legislation governing national key points, as has been the case with the president’s Nkandla residence.

But then, around 21:00 on Tuesday, ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe issued a media statement which opened the sluice gates. Most ANC statements are issued in the name of the ANC national spokesman Jackson Mthembu. Only under special circumstances are they issued by the secretary general. The language in the terse three-paragraph statement was also vintage Mantashe – brash, minus any attempt at niceties. It was either written directly by him or dictated to someone by him.
“The African National Congress has learnt that guests of a family hosting some wedding at Sun City landed at the Waterkloof Airforce Base today,” the statement began, going on to explain that significance of a national key point.
“The African National Congress waited patiently for the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), the body delegated with authority over the Waterkloof Airforce Base, to explain to the nation how these private individuals managed to land aircraft at Waterkloof. Up until now, no explanation has been forthcoming. The African National Congress, driven by the concern for the safety and sovereignty of South Africa, shall never allow a situation where our ports of entry and National Key Points are penetrated with impunity.”

“We demand that those who are responsible for granting access to land aircraft in our country also explain the basis upon which such permission was granted, particularly to land at Waterkloof Airforce Base. Those who cannot account must be brought to book,” Mantashe said.

He went on to say that the ANC “will never rest where there is any indication that all and sundry may be permitted to undermine the Republic, its citizens and its borders.”

The ANC statement on the Gupta jet late on Tuesday was unprecedented. The ANC has never before been as forthright in demanding answers from the Zuma administration. It could be that Mantashe had simply had enough of the Guptas running the state and ruining his organisation and decided to stamp his authority on the situation.

There have also been rumours of a widening schism between the Zuma camp and Mantashe. This could have resulted in the ANC secretary general being less cautious about upsetting the president’s friends. It is also possible that Mantashe could have called Zuma to interrogate how this happened, as he is prone to do with ANC leaders when trouble is on the horizon. Zuma, obviously, would have denied knowledge or responsibility, prompting Mantashe to rattle cages in the state.

But Zuma is also an enigma in his relations with those close to him. He could have called the hit. He could have become angered that the Guptas used their proximity to him to muscle their way onto a military air base and decided to teach them a lesson.

Whatever the motivation, Mantashe cranked open the vault which houses the secret workings of the Gupta dynasty. Cosatu, the SACP and the ANC Youth League interim task team issued statements condemning the use of the airforce base and demanding answers as to how the violation of a national key point was allowed to happen.

In the state too, all sorts of investigations began, admissions were forthcoming and dramatic action taken in record time – never before witnessed in the Zuma administration.

By Thursday morning it became clear that five government departments were involved and needed to provide answers – Dirco, Home Affairs, Defence, the South African Revenue Service and the SAPS. While the first four would be involved in the landing and entry of the Indian nationals into the country, the SAPS was on the spot to explain why they were involved in escorting the guests to Sun City in blue-light convoys.
Dirco promptly suspended the chief of state protocol, Ambassador Bruce Koloane, who is alleged to have facilitated landing rights for the jet at Waterkloof. Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula ordered that the jet be removed from the airforce base and on Thursday afternoon it was pictured taking off.

Government has been unusually talkative on the matter. Departmental spokesmen have made themselves available for interviews and even Cabinet ministers who are difficult to pin down in times of crisis were speaking to the media.

During the post-Cabinet media briefing, Minister in the Presidency Collins Chabane said the incident was “very serious” and high-level investigations were underway to get answers. Later Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa announced that he had instructed the national police commissioner, Riah Phiyega. to investigate the matter and admitted possible transgressions by police officials in the deployment of resources to the Gupta wedding.

“[There was also] possible abuse of SA Police Service (SAPS) blue lights… [There were] unconfirmed reports indicating that some of the vehicles used in transporting guests were not SAPS vehicles but private vehicles which were fitted with police blue lights,” Mthethwa said in a statement.
The Guptas, it would seem, just pushed too far this time. While they have been making a mockery of the South Africa state for a while by trading on their relationship with Zuma, they were caught out this time compromising a national security installation. It also seems that too many people in the alliance and in government were fed up with the special treatment for, and being pushed around by, the swaggering family.

Now that Mantashe has gone where no ANC man has gone before, there is a stampede behind him to lay bare the den of unsavoury dealings. After such a crass abuse of political connections to show off for a wedding, the Guptas will have a hard time scrambling back to the position of privilege. Once the guests have left, they will have to do some hard lobbying to crawl back into favour.

But all this will be dependent on the one man who hasn’t yet spoken on the issue, the man who gave the Guptas their free reign and quite possibly decided to trip them. Even the Guptas will never know if it was Zuma who rained on their parade.

He is not called Gedleyihlekisa (one who smiles while grinding his enemies) for nothing. DM

UNIVERSELE LEWENSLES

HERFSBOODSKAP

Ballade van die Bose

Ken jy my nou?
Het jy die spieël gesien
en ken jy jou?

Wanneer jy wil vlug
uit die stad wat brand,
dan vlug ek saam
soos 'n vrou aan jou hand.

Die veles meen
hulle ken my gesig,
maar ek skuil te glansryk,
te na aan die lig,
en as hul wil waarsku
en wysheid gee,
dan praat ek reeds
in die woordklank mee;

en die snelles vlug,
waarheen? vir wie?
ek is nie skoon
of aaklig nie,
en waar hulle vlug,
daar dra hul my mee
in die grys-wit groewe
van die senuwee.

Ek is ín jou
gevleg, gerank
soos 'n wortel in
in die donker bank,
en van voor die daeraad
se blank begin
straal ek by albei
jou oë in.

Weet jy genoeg:
wat God vereen het,
hoort saamgevoeg?

*

Ek is jou wese
se ondergrond
en ek trap in jou spoor
soos 'n goeie hond.

Toe God die aarde,
die silwer bal,
in vreugde en spel
uit sy hand laat val,
was ek die baaierd
waarin dit weeg,
die vormlose,
en woes en leeg.

Toe 'n stil vroeë water
- voor vis of net -
tot die eerste wit kiem
geëtter het,
was ek die donker
wat onder skuil:
die koue grond en
swart klip van die kuil.

Ek was die skaduwee
van Gods gang:
ál wat Hy verlaat het,
het ek gevang;
en nou dat jy groei
om die baasskap te hê,
is ek die rooi naelstring
waaraan jy lê.

Ek is jou wese
se ondergrond
en ek trap jou spoor
soos 'n goeie hond.

Wil die kennis nou kom:
ek is die grond
al is jy die blom?

*

Al is julle helder
en slank en vry
moenie dink dat julle
my dood sal kry,
of my strenge gang
op my baan sal stoor:
al is ek die hond,
ek hou die spoor,
ek blaf teen elke
horison
en as Gods Gees
voor die suiwer son
tot skoner gestalte
as julle is, skry,
sal ek weer helder wees,
slank en vry.

O waar sal jy gaan
en met watter skip?
die aarde is branding
en oral is klip,
of as jy wil vlug
uit die stad wat brand,
dan vlug ek saam
soos 'n vrou aan jou hand.

Ken jy my nou?
Het jy die spieël gesien,
en ken jy jou?

[NP van Wyk Louw, 1940]


...of dalk verkies jy:

En as ek dood is ... 

En as ek dood is, sal alles nog so mooi wees.....? 
die ylrooi bloeisels smôrens blink aan die perskeboom, 
wit wolke torings bou daar bo die verste berge, 
die kalwers langs die kraalmuur smiddags lê en droom? 
Sal daar nog warm son wees tussen donker bome, 
en goggatjies nog teen die grassies klim, 
as ek so ver is en daarvan nie weet nie, 
en maar geen liggie voor my oog wil glim? 
Sal voor my venster nog die rose somers rank, 
die berge ver, so ver en blou wees, 
die swaweltjies in waterklare lug draai, 
en sal die gras nog hier so warm net soos nou wees? 
Ek wil geen mooier wêreld hê as hierdie, 
ek wil nie blind wees, blind en doof en koud. 
O sterf met my, o sterwe, skone wêreld, 
hier in ons liefde eer jy dof word en so oud.

[NP van Wyk LOUW, 1928 - 1930]