ANC planning Zimbabwe style land invasions after World Cup

ANC planning Zimbabwe style land invasions after World Cup

www.thezimbabwemail.com

Controversial African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) President, Julius Malema, is set to visit Zimbabwe for a series of meetings with Zanu PF counterparts. The crucial meeting will go a long way in exchanging ideas and preparatory stages for both logistics and mobilisation for sporadic land invasions across the country, amid reports Zimbabwe’s Zanu PF and War Veterans Association will provide crucial support for the programme, sources in Zimbabwe said on Monday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The South African government has in the past said it will not go it the Zimbabwe way and often move quickly to crush land related protests and attempts at invading farms owned by white farmers though it has largely been unable to stop farm murders but this time it appears it is starting to feel the people power.

It doesn't surprise me that they seek support in Zimbabwe. After all that junta is experienced in dealing with land invasions. For anyone with common sense, Zimbabwe would be a good example of how not to do things, but the communists that ''govern'' South Africa now, obviously share that ideology.

Zimbabwe failed, the Soviet Union failed and now ANC will start to destroy everything that Afrikaners have worked so hard for to achieve in the past three ages. Mark my words: if this happens, South Africa will go down the drain and extreme poverty will be the end result. I'll keep my fingers crossed for the destiny of the minority that the Afrikaners form.

www.thezimbabwemail.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 4-4-2010 by Mdv2]

I've found a good video that shows how such farms end up:

Oh well... If South Africa want to drift back into the dark ages, let them. And I'd expect the world to boycott them just as they did during the apartheid era.

IRM

If this is true then it is a tragedy for the ordinary people of South Africa.

Looking at what happened and is happening in Zimbabwe, Africa's self hatred, self mutilation and suicide continues unabated.

Very sad.

reply to post by Mdv2

I've gone through some other threads on the brutal slaughter of Eugene Terr'Blanche, and I cannot believe the historical inacuracies I read. They assume SA whites are racists who made slaves of the blacks! Where do they get this misinformation?
The Afrikaners are descendants of the first "Dutch" settlers who landed at the Cape in 1652 and mixed with the indigenous Khoisan people to a degree. They have just as much right to the land as the Nguni tribes who moved down the coast from the Congo in the 17th century. And yes, these black agriculturalists were also settlers, who oppressed the Khoisan peoples. There was a disputed border with the Nguni Xhosas, but they retained their core lands. The Nguni custom was for any disagreement to be settled by one party moving away, and founding a new homestead with his numerous wives and family. This is how the Nguni tribes rapidly spread along the coast and clashed with the whites at the Fish River. Unlike the migratory Khoi grazing, the Nguni soon ruined the land, and caused erosion. In any case they retained their traditional land, that was still farmed until recently.

The Zulu king Shaka caused the Mfecane or "crushing wars", which re-organized a plethora of small tribes to gather under main leaders like Mosheshwe to found the Basotho, who were given their own independant country of Lesotho by the British. The Zulu chief Mzilikazi fled Shaka and his cruelty in the early 1820s, and his "Matabele" refugees decimated the tribes around Pretoria, until they settled in Zimbabawe to rule over the local Shona. Otherwise the trekkers moved into a virtually empty land that was only populated by starving remnants, often reduced to canniblaism by the Mfecane. The blacks were a few hundred thousand pitiful people at the time, destroyed by their own inter-tribal wars. That is fact, and not revisionism. They only increased under British colonialism and apartheid, until they were 40 million by the 1980s. Yet today whites are accused of "genocide" and a "holocaust". Well it must have been the most spectacularly unsuccessful "holocaust" in history. What other "holocaust" increases its victims in numbers, builds the biggest hospitals in Africa, decreases childhood mortality, creates food security, and even had blacks from other African states eager to work in SA as migrants?
So, apart from the Khoisan people (who are often still feel threatened by the blacks) there was NO 300-year colonialism in SA. This is a COMPLETE LIE! The whites only tried to peacefully settle in Natal and the vast interior since the mid-1800s.
Slavery was only in the Cape colony and was abolished by the British around 1829. The slave elemant came mostly from Angola and Madagascar, as well as the Dutch colonies in Indonesia.

To return to modernity: yes apartheid was unfair and cruel in many respects. The British laid the foundation with the 1913 Land Act, which did turn many black farmers off land pockets. But SA has never had starvation.
So today I read in our Sunday Times newspaper that the ANC youth leader - Julius Malema - is snugly in Zimbabwe, and has praised their illegal land theft of 4000 mostly (but not exclusively) white farms. Nevermind that Zimbabweans are begging at our traffic lights and basically starving. Malema said that the same will happen here. The ANC speaks with a forked tongue, just this week our land minister warned white farmers that if they didn't give up their land on demand, the invasions here will make Zim look like a kindergarten. The context is one where whites and blacks made peace at Codesa, and the whites chose to do this, and were never conquered. Nobody can judge Terr'Blanche or anyone who committed atrocities in the early 1990s. The blacks had APLA who attacked churches (eg. the King James church massacre) and other civilians (eg. the Heidelberg Tavern attack). After Terr'Blance was released from prison he repented as a reborn Christian, and people understood that white Afrikaner self-defense is not the same as racism.
Hardly a white (or other) family in SA has been unaffected by violent crime. It is a documented and much reported fact that "muti" (African witchcraft ingredients) is often taken from live victims, the lips, the breasts, the hands or genitals. So the horrible mutilation in the over 3000 farm murders is chilling.
Will Zim-style farm takeovers happen? The feeling is that the murders are already tacit ANC policy. Well, should we take Malema at his word?
I hope it will all blow over and work out.

To see more on ANC land distribution so far, see:

www.africancrisis.org...

[edit on 4-4-2010 by halfoldman]

[edit on 4-4-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


You have to forgive our ignorance to your country. All i know is that england played a massive part in what south africa is today.

The problem also comes is from the fact that blacks have this impression too and they use it against whites not knowing what they are talking about either with regard to who that white person is.

Blacks that target whites have no idea of the heritage of that white person. Do blacks not think countries and races of white people have not been a victim of all these things. No, like some other groups they just assume all whites have lived on earth never having any troubles, or having never suffered what they have.

Typical stuff they used to put up in britain

"No blacks, No irish, No dogs".

Do you understand that irish people went through hell in england too, not just blacks. English have commited crimes against all nations, indians irish blacks.

But i assume its like that in south africa too, where whites that have nothing to do with what went on pay for something they have nothing to do with. Plus the blacks assume that the whites just for being white must of lived a privalged life or something there.

All sides are just too ignorant, but south africa is a country in real trouble, and i doubt any good world cup hosting will help that.

reply to post by InfaRedMan

Good point generally.
But, who boycotted SA during apartheid? Since the mid-1970s the CIA manipulated SA into fighting the anti-Marxist cold War in Angola (SA's "Vietnam"). Thatcher and Reagan supported PW Botha for his anti-communist effort, and so did the US religious right. There were also huge black anti-sanction factions within SA, who supported the homeland system, noteably the Zulu IFP. Not all black people were radically anti-apartheid, since many benefitted! Conscripted white kids were fighting shoulder to shoulder with UNITA's black forces in Angola.
If SA whites must pay and be murdered as "karma" (as some suggest on SA threads), then all the Americans who voted Reagan must suffer the same fate. Just see the list of multi-national companies now being sued by the Khulumani support group for apartheid reperations. You were all guilty, not just SA whites!
We did your anti-Marxist, Cold War dirty work, and it's no co-incidence that apartheid fell just after the fall of the USSR.

Apartheid SA was the only state to believe in such unconditional peace, that it handed over its nuclear bombs to be dismantled.


[edit on 4-4-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by andy1033

I appreciate the oppresion of the Irish people, and many SA whites have Irish ancestry. I'm of German ancestry, and that country was bombed into nothingness. OK, some would argue they deserved it, even the children and civilians. But Ireland and Germany are now great countries, so much so that they must stave off mass immigration.
In SA the ANC theft and corruption is legendary. Zim and SA were handed as modern, surplus food producing countries to Marxist black liberationists. They were the bread-baskets and "jewels" of all Africa. Zim is all but ruined, and now SA wants to embrace that path.
I think we should rather look at the Irish and post-War West Germany (yes they had the Marshall Plan, but much more cash is pumped into Africa).
The Irish also settled their differences, and where ever they went they created growth and prosperity, especially in the US. So I think a disjointed victim status is not enough, but that's the entitlement the ANC expects.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by halfoldman

 

You have to forgive our ignorance to your country. All i know is that england played a massive part in what south africa is today.

The problem also comes is from the fact that blacks have this impression too and they use it against whites not knowing what they are talking about either with regard to who that white person is.

Blacks that target whites have no idea of the heritage of that white person. Do blacks not think countries and races of white people have not been a victim of all these things. No, like some other groups they just assume all whites have lived on earth never having any troubles, or having never suffered what they have.

Typical stuff they used to put up in britain

"No blacks, No irish, No dogs".

Do you understand that irish people went through hell in england too, not just blacks. English have commited crimes against all nations, indians irish blacks.

But i assume its like that in south africa too, where whites that have nothing to do with what went on pay for something they have nothing to do with. Plus the blacks assume that the whites just for being white must of lived a privalged life or something there.

All sides are just too ignorant, but south africa is a country in real trouble, and i doubt any good world cup hosting will help that.

the irish where bombing britian and using guest houses as there bases.... no wonder people didnt want strangers from ireland turning up on there door steps looking for a room for a few days and then blowing people to bits from the bombs they made in there.... rooms...

reply to post by fatdad

The victims of terrorism have much reason to be disgruntled.
But are all the Irish responsible, or just a small faction?
To say the Irish are responsible is a bit of a generalization.
And then, the Irish also suffered much violence at the hands of colonialism.
That's not really my area of knowledge, but unfortunately with such acts people go into in-group thinking (as in: the Muslims caused 9/11) and that's how we are easily manipulated for the larger aims of power.

What I really find silly is that South Africans like Bishop Tutu or Judge Goldstone are flown about the world as experts on reconciliation and justice, when their own house is burning.

reply to post by halfoldman


Good post. A lot of information there to clue people up on the history of SA. Especially the U.S's involvement in the border wars. Very few people seem to realise that Southern Africa was one of the very few real live theaters during the cold war, and I think a lot of the people who served in the SADF felt more than a little betrayed by America. When it all came down.

I just hope this all comes to a crying end for Malema when he takes on the mines. Who knows maybe I am just saying it reasure myself after all, but I feel that the gold, platinum and diamond fields are just too valuable to the big internationals to let the ANC nationalise them.

reply to post by da_ruse

Thanks for that - I'd be the first to say that my history is not comprehensive, and it's mainly against other thread-posts on SA and how an incorrect, simplictic history is forced on us. Black peoples and culture have a noble history of resilience and perseverance, and they don't need liberal academic lies.
The problem comes with outside theories. Everything Malema says about "nationalisation" and his whole discourse is imposed by Western liberal theories. It's like taking the rubbish and unworkable aspects of Europe and having it regurgitated as Africanist polemic.

TAU: Get ready to fight farm invasions

JOHANNESBURG - Agricultural union TAU (the Transvaal Agricultural Union) has called on white farmers to take up arms in preparation for so-called Zimbabwe-style farm invasions in South Africa.

“We urge our members to improve their self-defence abilities, including firearm skills, in order to defend themselves effectively.

“It is therefore necessary to activate shooting clubs and to implement contingency plans,” said TAU SA president Ben Marais yesterday.

Marais went as far as claiming the government had probably been behind the murder of AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche. “TAU is convinced, based on evidence, the murder of Mr Terre’Blanche was no ordinary crime, but a political murder, probably involving government.

“TAU SA is demanding a discussion with government within the next 14 days ...” he said.

Government spokesman Themba Maseko dismissed Marais’s allegation as “absolute rubbish”.

Marais also denied that farmers mistreated their employees. “Workers have the option of leaving the farms where they perceive to be ill- treated, to seek better treatment, accommodation, salary and fringe benefits.

“Maybe this could be found on the approximately 45% of agricultural land that the government has direct control over,” he added.

Young Communist League national secretary Buti Manamela accused Marais of blowing things out of proportion and of fuelling racial tensions.

“The ‘swaart-gevaar’ mentality instigated by TAU SA will do nothing but give irresponsible white farmers (the go-ahead) to illegally dismiss farm workers and evict them from ‘their property’ en- masse in order to create farms into war zones between evicted and dismissed farm workers and farmers.

“If TAU SA is allowed to call for the arming of farmers, this is equal to a declaration of war and therefore, failure by police to intervene in this regard should inevitably lead to farm workers’ unions and political formations to arm workers in their own defence,” he said.

source

Ultimately the tragic decision to embark on Apartheid in the post war period rather then accept the ship load of migrants that would have made South Africa a first world country has led the country down its current path to a dictatorship . IMO South Africa is basically a one party state already in the sense that the ANC faces no viable opposition that could take office . Give it ten years and sadly South Africa will be another Zimbabwe .

Here is a related thread .


[edit on 9-4-2010 by xpert11]

reply to post by Mdv2

The European Union and the American government have imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe? What is the main aim of these sanctions? They are meant to . . . weaken and remove the regime of president Robert Mugabe. Like other actions taken by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, they seek to pressure and impose a government on the people of Zimbabwe in the name of 'democratic elections.' (AfricanPerspective.com, Issue #51, Saturday February 3, 2002, "No Sanctions on Zimbabwe")

www.nathanielturner.com...

reply to post by andy1033


Zzzzzzzzzzzz!

Unlike you Andy trotting out your anti-UK rhetoric at every given opportunity.
But apparently it is perfectly ok to continually repeat your unsubstantiated claims and bitter vitriol against the English without recrimination from ATS staff but heaven forbid if any English man / woman were to level such accusations against anyone else.

Still, they are but words and, to be perfectly honest, not that well articulated and they have become oh so predictable that I have now come to treat your missives as pure comic postings with absolutely no substance whatsoever and just based on ill concieved racism and bigotry.

reply to post by Mdv2


Again another good thread from you my friend!

What is the role for Africom in South Africa? I think we ha should learn something from past invasions of black peoples, and united forces should take decisive role before its too late. When reading this thread, there comes comparison to my mind with Israel, where soon everyone is claiming their historical right to land...

Ending apartheid should not end to departation of white peoples.

... Video was great - I just wonder what think those peoples who start to crash places, their highly needed production lines - and sell metal from these as scrap... What idiots!

White farmers aren't the problem, Malema is

James Myburgh says it's time Western opinion made a 'question' of African nationalism

JOHANNESBURG - In many ways Julius Malema should not pose much of a threat to South Africa. He loudly articulates the basest desires of racial nationalism. The track record of the project he advocates is so horrendous that no reasonable person can be in any doubt about what the consequences would be if it were to be fully realised here. His faction's agenda is transparently aimed at looting and self-enrichment.

Faced with the combination of bad men that Malema represents, enough good South Africans should be able to associate to safely see off this threat. Or, at least, this would be the case if Western intellectual opinion also pushed back against the noxious racial nationalism that threatens to destroy our future. One reason this country is edging ever nearer to the abyss is that it has not, and still does not.

There has been a very disturbing subtext to much of the Western commentary on the events of the past week. This is that while Malema might be a nasty little thug, who says odious things, the real problem facing South Africa is the continued prosperity of the white minority.

In a facetious piece in The Times (London) Hugo Rifkind commented that Malema "has a fondness for singing a song called Kill the Boer. With more than 3,000 white farmers having been murdered since the end of apartheid, this obviously makes him pretty evil. And yet, in this vast and disproportionately white-owned country, there is a clear moral case for land reform. In a very, very tiny way, despite being chubby bum-faced scum, he sort of has a point."

What point is that? Seventy seven years ago members of the Hitler Youth went around singing Jude Verrecke in their vast and disproportionately Jewish-owned country. Does Rifkind think that there was a clear moral case for Aryanisation, and "in a very tiny way, despite being chubby bum-faced scum," they also sort of had a point? At the time many sanctimonious Western intellectuals thought they did.

The Financial Times editorial (April 7) was even more sinister. The newspaper had two pieces of advice for Jacob Zuma. The first was to make Malema shut his mouth. The second was to accelerate racial land transfers from the white minority (what it also euphemistically termed ‘land reform.') The editorial stated:

"Mr Zuma should address one of the substantive issues that Mr Malema has exploited: the glacial pace of land reform. In 1994, nearly nine-tenths of arable land was in the hand of white farmers. Despite 16 years in power, the ANC has largely failed to redistribute it. This is a running sore and stirs up the rural violence. The longer meaningful reform is delayed, the greater the risk that unscrupulous politicians may turn to Zimbabwean solutions to cover up their own failures. Mr Zuma has to his credit sought to revive land reform. He must follow through. Having raised expectations, he cannot afford to dash them."

The editorial confuses the 87/13 apartheid-era political divide between 'white' and 'black' South Africa with the allocation of arable land (i.e. land on which it is possible to grow crops). Since the homeland areas were generally located in the high rainfall areas to the east of the country, and much white farmland in the arid West, the black/white division of arable land was actually far more even.

Source

[edit on 9-4-2010 by da_ruse]

Setting this aside, there is a curious moral logic to the editorial. It accepts that the property and lives of white farmers are under threat. But what is its solution? The ANC government must move quickly to take away more and more of their property. To avoid a Zimbabwe solution South Africa must adopt a Zimbabwe solution. The fact that these farmers acquired their property completely legitimately and their enterprises feed the entire subcontinent is irrelevant. Their continued success and productivity is a provocation to Western intellectuals and racial nationalists alike, and they should be dispossessed.

It is striking how in its editorial on April 8 the racist Zanu-PF mouthpiece The Herald expressed much the same view as the FT had done the day before. It stated:

"Wisdom should have convinced the white community in South Africa that they need to co-operate with the South African government to address the inequalities prevalent in that country. In the same way that Zimbabweans got frustrated with the willing buyer-willing seller approach, the South Africans will also begin to take what is rightfully theirs by force if they see no progress in land redistribution. Their patience is wearing thin with each passing year."

In a sense, what is truly frightening is that a significant body of Western opinion instinctively sides with our racial nationalists; and backs the application to our country of the same principles that have brought such ruin to the rest of Africa.

Although the bulk of ordinary opinion in Britain and America is humane and decent, and sympathetic to the plight of minorities in Africa, the interpretation of events in South Africa is dominated by a stratum of intellectuals with a very different attitude. This group regards it as intolerable for a racial minority, in a nationalist democracy, to own a share of the economy too much greater than its percentage of the population. In their analysis one can see the same emotional impulses (and mental short-circuiting) at work that underpinned earlier debates around the ‘Jewish question' in the 1930s and the ‘Asian problem of East Africa' in the 1960s.

In 1940 the German journalist Sebastien Haffner wrote of how after the Nazis took power in 1933 ordinary decent liberal minded Germans looked westwards for rescue and liberation from the barbarous regime that had taken control of their country. Over the following five years their hopes - that the Western powers would act to protect the basic values of European culture (and them) - were repeatedly betrayed. Haffner observed:

"In all the years up to 1939 there was no active opposition to Nazism from Western Europe. But spiritual resistance was also lacking... The world's problems and topics of discussion were dictated, without opposition, by Hitler. He decreed anti-Semitism, and the docile world discovered the ‘Jewish Question'. He attacked Austria, and there was an ‘Austrian question'...To make a ‘question' of Hitler, the Nazis, the German Reich, occurred to no one...In those years European-minded Germans experienced a physical and spiritual sense of being utterly forsaken and lost, such as no one can realize who has not felt it."

It is a 'spiritual sense' familiar enough to those liberal-minded southern Africans who have resisted the ANC's racialist agenda. If Western intellectuals are going to perform any kind of constructive role in South Africa at this critical moment in its history they need to recognise and get over their prejudices and start making a 'question' not just of Malema but also the racial nationalism that he so bluntly articulates.

Source


[edit on 9-4-2010 by da_ruse]