1 2 3c

Totale besoekerstal

Artikels vertoon Trefslae

Besoekers aanlyn

Ons het 30 gaste en geen lede aanlyn


  Videos en Toesprake

St Helena projek 200

Teken aan



Die VolkstaatDie AVP plaas hierdie artikel op ons webblad met ‘n antwoord van die AVP leier oor die kwessie van wat is ‘n Afrikaner, vanweë die lengte wat nie op Mike se webjoernaal pas nie.

Mike Smith's Political Commentary Where the truth hurts

Is Afrikaner self determination still a viable option? (By Mike Smith 10th of March 2016)

I recently received several comments and suggestions about an independent Afrikaner homeland.

I addressed this problem several times before and will now try to condense my findings.

The constitution is written in such a way that Afrikaners or whites in SA will forever be chasing their tails about a Volkstaat.


For the ANC to grant us independence we need to share a common cultural and language heritage (not race). Further, one part of the constitution cannot be used to contradict another part. So, even if self-determination is guaranteed in the constitution, we need to be able to satisfy all the criteria of non-racialism, non-sexism, etc before we can even think along the lines of self-determination for Afrikaners, So what is the Afrikaner culture?

Are all Afrikaners Christians? No. They belong to different churches, some are even atheists, etc. Do they listen to the same music? No, Some like Rock. Some like opera. Some like Steve and Juanita. Do they all speak the same Afrikaans? No, you have different dialects. Do they have the same history, heritage? No, West Coast, Namibia, Transvaal, Freestate, Natal, all have different histories. Do they all play (or like) Rugby, No. Do they all eat braaivleis or biltong? No, many are vegetarian. Do they all live in the same area? No, spread out from Namibia down to the Cape and north again to Beitbridge. From the West Coast to the east coast. On and on I can go.

So please tell me, WHAT IS AN AFRIKANER?

Now Eugene Terreblanche once said that when you ask that question, you are not one, but that is simplistic and probably the reason why he never managed to get a Volkstaat for the Afrikaners.

On 24 March1999, Thabo Mbeki released his “Report on the question of the Afrikaners”. In that speech, Mbeki defined the Afrikaners out of existence, quoting amongst other Afrikaner race traitors, political analyst, Harold Pakendorf as saying: ” To have a debate about Afrikaners seems almost absurd. Which Afrikaners? Who is an Afrikaner? Who will speak on their behalf? Hopefully, there will never be a debate about Afrikaners again. They are not separate enough from the rest of South Africa to be discussed as such.”

” The surest sign that all is well with Afrikaners is the existence of the Afrikaner Eenheidsbeweging - the Afrikaner unity movement that unites almost no Afrikaners and represents even fewer. And that is how it ought to be - there simply is no organisation or political party that can be said to represent what Afrikaners want. They are divided, spread out over a whole range of organisations, churches and political parties.”

And so dear people died the dream of the Afrikaners to have their own homeland. Basically Mbeki said there are no Afrikaners and even if there were, they have no leaders and no representative body speaking on their behalf. Sadly Mbeki was right.

There are more than fifty so called Afrikaner organisations, and some of them like the Afrikanerbond and Solidarity, are made up of heavyweight intelligentsia, yet none of these organisations claim to speak for, or on behalf of the Afrikaners and none of them support a homeland for the Afrikaners. They all believe that Afrikaners should find their niche in the New (improved) South Africa. The truth is that Afrikaners and other Whites are finding their niches in Australia, England and Europe.

But on Thursday, 02 April 2009, President Jacob Zuma said: “Of all the white groups that are in South Africa, it is only the Afrikaners that are truly South Africans in the true sense of the word.” Ironically, opposition parties condemned Zuma’s statement, with the DA saying that Zuma revealed an ethnically and racially “blinkered” world view in conflict with the Constitution.

If you look at what Zuma said, you will notice that he firstly acknowledged that the Afrikaners exist as a group and then proceeded to define Afrikaners as White Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. The significance of what Zuma said is huge for the independence of the Afrikaner people. With that one sentence Zuma showed Mbeki’s 1999 Report the finger and defined the Afrikaners as a specific group of people in South Africa.

I for one have in the meantime abandoned the idea of an Afrikaner homeland in SA. To me THE WHOLE OF SOUTH AFRICA is our homeland. The homeland of all the whites who were born here and whose forefathers built this country. Problem is that SA is occupied, infested by those who claim to be indigenous, but are not.

We can talk and debate. We can protest peacefully, but will that ever get us independence from the ANC regime or the approval of the world? Debating and peaceful protesting should not be abandoned. These are highly effective and powerful tools, but knowing the lessons from African history, the African’s inability to deal with complex scenarios inevitably leads him to the only solution he knows: Violence.

Ultimately the violence will be inevitable. We will have to be prepared for it. People will die. We cannot escape that. The more I look at it the more I am convinced that simply knocking on the ANC door is not going to get them to listen. You will have to kick the goddamn door down. You will have to climb onto their chests with a baseball bat and MAKE them listen and at the same time be able to role with a few blows yourself.

Inevitably, the whites of South Africa (and maybe other minorities) must be willing to do what the Israelis did in 1948 and draw the borders as they advance forward. They must do what the Israelis did at Deir Yassin, Shatila and Sabra to rid their country of the Marxists ANC scum and its supporters.


Mike Smith11:26 AM

Michael the one who stated it was Harold Pakendorf, the liberal journalist. Thabo Mbeki quoted him. The point is that nobody can define an Afrikaner. What criteria do you use? How many of these criteria does one have to fullfil to be classed as an Afrikaner? These things like, music, heritage, etc are all parts of a shared culture. I mean, look at the blacks like the Zulu's, Xhosas, Ndebele, Sotho...they even have cultural dress and architecture (if you can call their huts "architecture"). Do the Afrikaners share the same dress? The same architecture? What is Afrikaans culture?

If you can answer me that I will be glad, because this is the argument of liberals and Mbeki. They say Afrikaners are too diverse to have a common culture. What do Afrikaaners have in common? Rugby and Braaivleis? What? Till this day I have never heard a proper definition of an Afrikaner. If you say they are white and from West European descent and speak Afrikaans then we have a start. Problem is all these Intelligentsia people shy away from race, because the moment you mention race, you are back to square one. You cannot get a homeland based on race. Round and round in the conundrum.

It is like Franz Kafka wrote about in “The Castle”. If you acknowledge the authority of the castle you will fight yourself silly against its bullshit bureaucracy. It is a futile pursuit of an unobtainable goal, like a dog chasing his tail. The secret is to not acknowledge the authority of the Castle in the first place even when others are doing so.

Goeiedag Mike,

Ek reageer graag op ‘n paar standpunte geopper in hierdie debat.” Is Afrikaner self determination still a viable option?”, was die tema vir bespreking wat jy ingelui het. Die debat begin egter met ‘n paar beginselfoute.

Ongeag al die argumente is die woord Afrikaner aanduidend van ‘n bepaalde identiteit. Zuma verstaan dit, vandaar sy korrekte hoewel waarskynlik onbedoelde onderskrywing van die werklikheid.

Tweedens kom die argument oor selfbeskikking uit die dampkring van die “Volkstaters” wat van meet af die bedoeling om te verdeel as grondslag gehad het. By implikasie word enersyds die soewereine onafhanklikheid van die Afrikanervolk in die Republiek van Suid Afrika daarmee in gedrang gebring en andersyds ‘n wetmatigheid verleen aan die ANC en die swart rasse, as sou hulle ‘n reg hê wat gelyk is aan die blanke s’n op Suid Afrika.

“The secret is to not acknowledge the authority of the Castle in the first place even when others are doing so.” Die beginsel is: Hierdie land is óns land tw. Die Afrikanervolk se land! As hierdie beginsel prysgegee word, kom al hierdie ander onsinnige argumente van volkstate, selfbeskikking, onderhandeling en samewerking op die tafel. Die ganse wêreld het ons as ‘n volk met Suid Afrika as ons grondgebied erken tot en met die sluipmoord op dr. Verwoerd!

Wat die Afrikaner betref is die eerste onderskeiding, ras! Dit is sigbaar, onveranderlik en eers deur bloedvermenging, onomkeerbaar. Die tweede onderskeiding is ons afkoms en die derde ons geskiedenis. Ander wat dieselfde taal praat het nie dieselfde afkoms of geskiedenis as onsigbare band wat hulle moet aantrek tot die kern van Afrikanerwees nie! Saam met ‘n eie taal en godsdiens vorm dié drie elemente in ‘n volk ‘n bepaalde kultuur wat hom onderskei van alle ander volke en wat regdeur die geskiedenis die kenmerke van elke volk gevorm het waardeur hy van ander onderskei kon word.

Deur bloot taal of kleur as onderskeiding te gebruik is onwetenskaplik en lei net tot verwarring. Wat egter bygesê moet word is dat ‘n volk in al die tyd van sy bestaan mense het wat meer intens en ander minder intens bewus en aangetrokke is tot die volk se ras, geskiedenis, sy afkoms, sy taal en sy godsdiens.

By die kern van ‘n volk sal jy nooit die soort van twis en verdeeldheid kry wat sy vryheid en voortbestaan bedreig nie. Die kern van ‘n volk is egter altyd, hoewel die hardste en suiwerste, ook die kleinste gedeelte van die volk. ‘n Gangbare vergelyking is soos met die samestelling van ‘n boom se stam. In die middel is die harde pit waaromheen omhulsels wat in graad al sagter word uitkring tot by die bas wat die sagste is.

So is dit ook met ‘n volk. Die buitenste rand stel hulleself bloot aan invloede van buite en met versterking van buite en groot finansiële ondersteuning, soos tans in ons volk, kan die buiterand sterk invloed uitoefen en selfs die indruk skep dat hulle die volk verteenwoordig, maar ten koste van sy kernwaardes. ‘n Volk sterf wanneer sy kern uitgestoot word en sy beginselwaardes vervang word met die twis en verdeeldheid wat deur die randeiers veroorsaak word. Dit is hulle wat as die kern standhou, in die latere geskiedenis as verraaiers beskou word.

Vriendelike groete,

Danie Varkevisser

Leier: Afrikaner Volksparty.





Haat Spraak  


Volkstem Vorige Uitgawes Advertensie