1 2 3c

Totale besoekerstal

Artikels vertoon Trefslae
4448205

Besoekers aanlyn

Ons het 76 gaste en geen lede aanlyn

 

  Videos en Toesprake

 

jacob zuma sing shoot the boer

 

Teken aan

Afrikaner

‘n POLITIEKE KORTSLUITING

Politieke kortsluitingLast Boer general fears for the future

As jy uit die nasionale politieke denkstroom uitgeprop is, is ‘n politieke kortsluiting jou voorland! Daar is tenminste twee, nee drie dinge wat Nasionalisme nié is nie. Dit is nie ‘n ideologie nie! Dit is nié ‘n middelpuntvliedende krag, (Volgens Johann Wingard) en dus vernietigend nie. Dit is nié ‘n sonde(Volgens Denise Woods van “Oes die Stormwind”) nie! Terwyl die Liberalisme, Kommunisme en Humanisme by al drie die bo-vermelde dinge ingepas kan word!

Nasionalisme is volgens die Afrikaanse Vertalende Woordeboek in wese ‘n liefde vir die eie. “ ‘n Voorliefde vir die eie nasie ‘n strewe om alles wat as nasionaal beskou word, te bevorder en te aksentueer, gepaard met ‘n sekere afkeer van die vreemde. Vaderlandsliefde”.

Elke element van Nasionalisme word egter nou aangeval en verdag gemaak sodat die gemeensaamheid, die gemeenskaplikheid wat volkwees en nasieskap verseker, wat kultuur en identiteit bevestig en bewaar, as misdaad teen die mensheid verdoem word. Selfs Angela Merkel van Duitsland het Europa gewaarsku dat hulle besig is om terug te val na nasionalisme toe, na aanleiding van die strome vlugtelinge en asielsoekers wat die Europiëers probeer beheer en selfs stop.

Die kenmerk van Nasionalisme is dat van al die –ismes dit die enigste lewensordening is wat die geskape werklikheid, soos ras, kleur, geslag, godsdiens, geskiedenis, tradisie, kultuur, taal, deur die voorsienigheid van God daargestel, erken en ondersteun, terwyl ideologië soos liberalisme, kommunisme, humanisme, imperialisme, diè werklikhede wil verander en omvorm om hulle materieelgebasseerde doel te bereik en dit dan uiteindelik met allerhande onheilige en grootliks geheime maatreels, en selfs geweld, afdwing!

Die versuikerde gifpil, die Humanisme wat saam met die liberalisme die voorlopers van die kommunisme is en deur die imperialiste gebruik word in en deur die kerk en kultuurorganisasies en helaas deur van ons eie bekende predikante, kultuur, militêre en volksleiers gedryf word om gelykstelling, verandering, hervorming, godsdiensgelykheid, sekularisme ens. Gevestig te kry, is die hefboom en ook die politieke kortsluiting!

Die ywerigste bondgenote van diègene wat ons wil vernietig, is van ons eie mense! Dit bring my by die stelling wat ek vroeer gemaak het oor die liberalis!! Die Liberalis is te onderskei van die Nasionalis in sy uitspraak en optrede omdat hy altyd vanuit omstandighede 'n saak beredeneer in teenstelling met die Nasionalis wat 'n saak vanuit beginsel benader! Na gelang omstandighede verander verander ook die liberalis sy standpunt sodat gister, vandag en more elk 'n veranderde standpunt verteenwoordig!

Dr. Tobie Muller ‘n briljante NG teoloog het in 1913 van nasionalisme geskryf: Kultuur, wat uit ‘n volk uit ontstaan moet begrens word om te bly voortbestaan. Nasionalisme is ‘n intensiewe en geen ekstensiewe saak nie.Lengte en breedte tel ewe min in ‘n volk se lewe….diepte is die hele saak! Nie wat oor 200 of 300 jaar van ons sou geword het nie maar wat ons nou is en moet wees! Sy Volk is tewens vir elke persoon die aangewese kring waarin hy in die eerste plek sy roeping moet vervul. Om ons volkslewe diep te maak is ons eerste taak. Nasionalisme is deur en deur ‘n morele saak waarvoor niemand die oog mag sluit nie. Die keuse om dus nasionalis te wees is dus ‘n morele keuse van die diepste betekenis. Godsdiens sê Ds. Muller sluit moraliteit in. daarom is dit ‘n godsdienstige plig om nasionalis te wees. Papheid op nasionale gebied se hy is dus ‘n religieuse oortreding dws. ‘n sonde!

Gister, vandag en more bly vir die Nasionalis altyd dieselfde omdat sonde nooit iets goed kan word nie! Lees nou die Mail & Guardian se berig en kyk wat liberalisme se gevolg is!

Die AVP wil ernstig waarsku dat ’n Afrikanermagsblok in enige vorm sonder Nasionalisme as binding, géén duursaamheid sal hê nie en weer bloot ’n leë verwagting moet skep om verset in die wiele te ry. Sonder moraliteit waar geheime ooreenkomste ons volk se lot bepaal het, moet die vakbonde hulle aandag op die arbeidsterrein, die burgerregorganisasie op burgerreg en die afgetrede generaals liewer hulle aandag op hulle aftrede vestig. Hulle politieke insig stink en het die Afrikanervolk reeds in ’n rioolput van ellende in onderhandel! Bly asseblief weg van die politiek af! As jy nie eers kan onderskei tussen vriend en vyand nie, hoe op die aarde sal jy kan onderskei tussen reg en verkeerd? As verkeerd dan gerealiseer het en dit lyk nóg vir jou reg, dan het jy voorwaar hulp nodig!

Last Boer general fears for the future

25 Apr 2014 00:00 Phillip De Wet

General Constand Viljoen says Afrikaners need to establish a political bloc to survive ANC majoritarianism.

Laaste Boere Generaal

General Constand Viljoen could have sabotaged the birth of the new South Africa but he was swayed by Nelson ­Mandela and formed the Afrikaner Freedom Front party instead. (Walter Dhladhla, STF)

The last of the Boer generals blames Nelson Mandela. Constand Viljoen says Mandela was the "bedevilling factor" in the negotiations in the run-up to the 1994 transition, a man who by sheer force of personality shaped the nature of the country.(Sowaar??? AVP.)

And that is why, in his view, South Africa does not have (or perhaps does not yet have) an Afrikaner homeland – though that is not why the country is in poor shape.

"If what Mr Mandela began had been continued in the years after 1994 then we would have been in a good position," Viljoen says, with about as much respect as one human can muster for another.

Then his tone changes as his thoughts shift from 1994 to 2014. "I don't think we've ever gone into an election in such a political tangle as what is coming."

Coming from Viljoen, blame is, in many cases, praise; in the way that Mandela's influence prevented the formation of a Boer homeland, it also prevented the bloodshed that would almost inevitably have accompanied its birth.

History now unequivocally records that Viljoen, a former chief of the army and later of the defence force, the soldier's soldier who led from the front in Angola, could have fielded a force of about 50 000 men ready, even eager, to fight for Afrikaner self-determination.

They would have fought for a homeland, or simply to delay the transition and so force concessions from the black leader­­s-to-be, and the number of those who would have flocked to the banner would have varied accordingly. But this much is sure: Viljoen had his finger on the trigger but chose not to pull it.

Constand en Mandela

As a result, Afrikaners have no territory to call their own and Viljoen will watch the fortunes of the Freedom Front Plus – the direct descendant of the party he formed to contest the 1994 elections – from the farm to which he retired. There he works, still sprightly at 80, with few regrets about the choices made 20 years ago – but deeply worried about what the future holds.

In 1994, Viljoen says, there was hope, direction, ambition and, above all, leadership. Twenty years later, he sees little of any of them – especially leadership.(Soos Flip Buys, ‘n uiterste boel onsin. Die opstel van strooipoppe wat dan in dieselfde asem afgeskiet word. ‘n Ondubbelsinnige erkenning van die versaking van beginsel en bewese en getoetste beleid met die gepaardgaande gedetailleerde waarskuwings van die gevolge indien die teenhang daarvan implimenteer sou word. AVP)    

"We're sitting with a leadership drought. We don't have outstanding black leaders coming to the fore, nor white leaders or coloured leaders."

The country Viljoen sees is mired more deeply in race politics than ever, the polar opposite to the hopes of 1994. The ideals of Mandela "went to the grave with him", and democracy has become oppression by the majority, leaving no consensus on where the nation should head. Inefficient government machinery, affirmative action, labour running amok, a focus on higher pay rather than greater production and the lack of a work ethic has kneecapped the economy. The situation is, in a word, dire.

All of that could be fixed, perhaps, Viljoen concedes. Parliament, a body of which he was a member but found "disappointing", could find renewed purpose, maybe by a change to a constituency-based system of elections – but not in the absence of leadership with vision and high ethical standards.

Likewise, racial quotas in government, sport and the military could be replaced by a meritocracy, the expensive policy of peacekeeping on the African continent could be abandoned, and discussions such as the Convention for a Democratic South Africa could reignite both reconciliation and provide a socioeconomic road map – but not without willing and able leaders.

It is against that backdrop that Viljoen can imagine a new drive for Afrikaner self-determination, if there was greater cohesion among Afrikaners and high-calibre young leaders at the forefront – neither of which are apparent. Unless things get better fast, though, those preconditions could be met, and a shadow of what was contemplated in 1994 could come into being, though cultural rather than geographic.

"The problem with a volkstaat is the spread of Afrikaners within South Africa. You can't easily cordon off an area where there are only Afrikaners and, to tell you the truth, I don't think Afrikaners would move for that."

There are, however, ways and means to soften the effects of one person, one vote: control over schools and institutions of higher learning, for starters, and strong cultural organisations. These could stem the rapid waning of cohesion that Viljoen fears will soon become terminal; they could regroup Afrikaners into a political bloc rather than, in effect, a political nonentity.

Does he believe such a turnaround, a reversal of the impact Mandela had in convincing Afrikaners that self-determination was not necessary, is likely? Not really. But he fears the alternative.

He recently read a book by a Mozambican freedom fighter, Vil­joen says. The book itself is, at best, average but an idea in the foreword grabbed his attention. What if, the author argues, Southern Africa had decided in the 1960s not to fight the Cold War as proxies for the contesting superpowers? What if white South Africa had spent money on infrastructure rather than warding off communism, and what if African nationalism in bordering countries had not been hitched to the wagon of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? What might have been?

"Today we are suffering the results of a lack of vision in 1960," Viljoen says. "We need to make sure we aren't suffering 20 years from now because of a lack of vision today."


Phillip de Wet is an associate editor at the Mail & Guardian.

 s1

 d1

 sw1

 v1

Haat Spraak  

 

Volkstem Vorige Uitgawes Advertensie