Tuesday, 22 November 2011

What is a Boer?

Why am I keeping myself busy with something as impossible as this? Simply because it causes so much division, friction, dissension and confusion among white South Africans.

While the term Boer should possess all the makings of national pride, it is a term used and abused, thrown around and lightly uttered as if for no reason other than to identify with a particular group due to peer pressure rather than by honest sincere conviction. On the other hand it also creates a discriminatory better-than-thou class differentiation where those supremacists who call themselves Boers look down upon anyone else as if they the Boers are a special superior race and the rest are of an inferior, lesser breed.

Then there is also a stigma attached to the term Boer, one of being Afrikaans speaking right-wing, discriminatory racists, an insult to say the least. This stigma was created by none other than the so-called “Boers” themselves due to common disrespectful behaviour.

I shall attempt to show how this supremacist nature of the modern Boer is actually a product of the Afrikaner-Broederbond and that it never was the nature of the original Boers.

The problem is that while we as SA whites are currently hanging by our necks with out feet dangling in the air due to the ruthless oppression of our people by a terrorist Marxist-Leninist Regime, that should have united us, trivial supremacist, elitist, religious and language distinctions are keeping us divided.

As background I wish to quote a few examples that, in my view, highlights the seriousness and gravity of the Boer identity problem.

The Confusion about the Boer Identity

The Difference Between A Boer and An Afrikaner according to Piet 'Skiet' Rudolph:
"The difference between a Boer and an Afrikaner is the strive for freedom. The Afrikaner groups want self rule and a piece of ground or Volkstaat that they can call their own. The Boer people want the old Boer Republic that their forefathers had and fought and suffered for. Not more or less. Those who don't know the Afrikaner history won't understand this struggle or quest, therefore the Boer and the Afrikaner can never be the same."
(Original text can be found here)

While this is Piet Rudolph's definition of a Boer, there are many Boer movements striving for an independent homeland / volkstaat. See Boer.co.za where the following important revelation is also made:
'Until the 27th April, 1994, we could still sing : "Do you know the land where the Boer nation lives....?"
On that date, however, the Boer-Afrikaner nation took the fatal step to give up its country, to give it away, to sell it in order to gain the goodwill of the Black man in South Africa and of the rest of the world. The sophistry of power sharing, broadening of democracy and all the clich├ęs used by politicians to take the Boer-Afrikaner nation in tow, reached a climax on that day. Since then the Boers as a nation do not have their own land anymore.' 
For more on this read my article "Survival of the White South African Part 2"

Observe the use of the term Boer-Afrikaner in the above.

From the website of the Volksraad Verkiesing Kommissie (VVK) that recently held a Boer / Afrikaner Election comes the following:

VVK, what is your nation?
Friday, 12 August 2011 09:00

The members of the nation, know which is their nation. They know its name, its flag, and its boundaries, in particular biological and spiritual.
Southern Africa, 2011. The Volksraad Verkiesing Kommissie (VVK), the Electoral Commission of white Afrikaners, who supports the so-called “white Afrikaner nationalism” (promoted by the Union of South Africa – the British dominion forged by international capitalism - in order to consolidate itself against the Boer nationalism), asked a simple question to its own candidates: to announce the name of “nation” to which they belong. Contradictory and conflicting responses of the same candidates, of what should be the future “Parliament” of the “white Afrikaner nation”, are the best testimony that doesn’t exist (and never has existed) an Afrikaner nation. Such responses (summarized below, in blue), often grotesque, testify - unfortunately - even the deep identity crisis of many biological descendants of the Boers. A crisis of identity promoted by international capitalism, through people, organizations and States that have taken place in southern Africa. Citing some of them: the Union of South Africa; the Republic of South Africa (RSA); the Afrikaner Broederbond; the Nasionale Party (NP); the Vryheidsfront (VF); and today the VVK.

The VVK is basically a creature of Verkenners. And Verkenners appear as a new form of Afrikaner Broederbond (the “Afrikaner Brotherhood”), a kind of white Afrikaner Freemasonry, which works to confuse the true nationalism (Boer) with a false (white Afrikaner). Just as the Freemasons, usually, work to confuse Evil with Good.

Among the candidates of the VVK there are also good people, probably in good faith, as are surely in good faith so many of its supporters, but this doesn’t change the truth of the things. Identity crisis is the DNA of the VVK, and his diabolical project is a new attack to Boer identity. A new chapter of the Boer genocide, written by non-Boer white Afrikaners.

Who knows his nation, has no doubts about his identity. That is: who is Boer declares himself Boer, and stay on the side of the Boers. Nothing else.

What is the name of our nation?

Alwyn de Klerk, Secretary of the Verkenners, says that all names: “Boer”; “Afrikaner” or “Boer-Afrikaner”; are good.
Andries Breytenbach, leader of the Herstigte Nasionale Party (HNP), says that “Afrikaner” and “Boer” are synonymous. According to this outlandish claim (a fundamental of the so-called white Afrikaner “nationalism”) all Afrikaans-speaking whites would be a nation, that it would be like claiming that all Anglophone whites are a nation.
Ben Geldenhuys, President of the Verkenners, says that “Afrikaner” and “Boer” are synonymous, and that disputes about them are made to divide their nation (but which nation?!). To support his argument he cited Christiaan de Wet. A typical behaviour of those who work to confuse Evil with Good. Indeed Christiaan de Wet may be remembered especially as a Boer general who fought for the Boers, even against non-Boer white Afrikaners (mainly “Cape Dutch”) and against the Union of South Africa.
Pieter Aucamp, of the Verkenners, says that “Boer” and “Afrikaner” are not synonymous, that all Boers are Afrikaners, but not all Afrikaners are Boers.
Ferdie Devenier, of the Evangeliese Gereformeerde Kerk (EGK, in English: Evangelical Reformed Church) prefers the term “Boer-Afrikaner”, and with it he seems to mean all white people.
Flip Bruwer, of the Verkenners, prefers the term “Boer”, but also “Afrikaner” and “Boer-Afrikaner” are good for him.
Frans Pieterse, of the HNP, thinks the term “Boer” refers to the period of the Boer republics, whereas today all (Boers and other non-Boer Afrikaans-speaking whites) would be “Afrikaners”.
Franz Jooste, leader of the Kommandokorps (KK), thinks that term “Boer-Afrikaner” is better, now that many people confuse the term “Boer” with “farmer” (in Afrikaans, boer = farmer; Boer = Boer) and “Afrikaner” with “African” (the meaning of “Afrikaner”, in Afrikaans, is just “African” in a geographical sense).
Jaco Steyn, of the HNP, thinks that term “Boer” and “Afrikaner” are good, as were synonymous, so term “Boer” refers to the past (the Boer republics) and “Afrikaner” to the present.
Kleintjie Rabie thinks that is possible to use any name, to not create divisions; but then, why don’t use the name “South Africans”, to not exclude no-one?
Peet Joubert, of the HNP, declares himself Afrikaner, but also says it is good “Boer-Afrikaner” or “Boer”.
Philip Nieman, of the Verkenners, declares himself “Boer-Afrikaner”.
Steyn van Ronge, new leader of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB), says that all terms: “Afrikaner”; “Boer”; and “Boer-Afrikaner”; are good, to not to exclude anyone. The times (1995) in which the AWB was part of the Boere Republikeinse Verkiesingskommissie (BVK, the Boer Republican Electoral Commission, which at the UN declared that Afrikaners were not part of the Boer nation), now seem very distant.
Tiaan Theron, of the Verkenners and Orania Beweging, declares himself “Boer-Afrikaner”, where the term “Boer” seems to be understood as “farmer”.
Abel Malan, Vice-President of the Verkenners, has a lot of “identities”; he prefer declares himself “Boer” or “Afrikaner patriot”; but also “Boer-Afrikaner”; “member of the Covenant People / Covenant-Afrikaners”; “Burger”; and even “Bitterender” (term for Boer fighters who fought till to the end during the Second Boer War of Liberation, and for those who rebelled against the Union of South Africa). He says that isn’t very important the name used (and maybe not even identity, at least for him).
Sakkie van der Merwe declares himself Boer, and remark that there have never been “Afrikaner” wars of liberation nor “Afrikaner” concentration camps. Also Etienne Le Roux declares himself Boer, a member of the Boer nation. But if they are really Boers, what are they doing among these people?
(The original text can be found here)

From the above it should be quite clear how deeply embedded this problem is. Very few so-called Afrikaners understand the term Boer and very of them can identity with it. On the other hand very few SA whites can identity with the term Afrikaner or Boer for that matter. The two paragraphs above about Freemasonry and the attack on Boer identity must be the two most confusing paragraphs I have read in a very long time. They clearly have no clue what they're trying to convey or they're deliberately playing politicians.

From Boerevryheid.co.za comes the following, which I translated into English (Original Afrikaans text can be found here):

From a international customary law perspective, what is a Boer?
"international customary law" (I chose this term based on the following discussion)

Can an Afrikaner become a Boer?
Can a Brit become a Boer?

I guess that I qualify as a Boer. All my grand-fathers were either on the front-line, or in the concentration camps.

But would I be disqualified as a Boer if I for instance became a member of the SACP?

Can "being Boer" be viewed the same as for instance "being Zulu"?

I would like to hear what everyone's opinion is...

I found the answer given by “Mike” the most logical, objective and meaningful:

The Boer Volk originated from the "Emigranten Boeren" or "Emigrant Farmers" that left the Cape Colony during the Great Trek. (See post #2 in original text here http://www.boerevryheid.co.za/forums/showthread.php?4697-Wat-is-n-Boer)
The Boer Volk is composed from different European nations. It has never been a requirement to be born a Boer to be part of the Boer Volk, or that your home language should be Afrikaans, or that your should belong to this or that church. In fact, during the Great Trek the "church" excommunicated the Trekkers (Boer Volk) and placed them under censure, and they had to do without actual ministers.
Requirements for acceptance were that you should be assimilable (pure white) and that you should be willing to use the Boer Language as means of communication with other Boers. Even today there are very good Boers that speak English, German, Serbian or Hungarian at home, but are as much Boer as you and I. It is also expected that a Boer should believe in the Bible.
Chinese or Koreans are not European whites and do not share our broader European culture.
On the other hand during the Anglo-Boer War Bible Believers fought on the side of the Boers from countries like Ireland (Catholics), Turkey (probably Armenian, Armenian Orthodox Church), Russians (Russian Orthodox), etc.
Of the Johannesburg foreigners that fought on the Boer side there were also whites from various countries.
There obviously were various languages, but communication was mainly in Afrikaans and often in English.
Siener speaks of Boer Hearts. Boership is a conviction in your heart.

The genetic make-up of the Boer

A Boer is generally described as::any descendant of the Dutch-speaking settlers of the eastern Cape frontier in Southern Africa during the 18th century;any descendant of those who left the Cape Colony during the 19th century to settle in the Orange Free State, Transvaal (known as the Boer Republics), and to a lesser extent Natal;who is Christian preferably belonging to one of the original Dutch Churches; andwho speaks Dutch

Unfortunately the above definition of a Boer is ill-conceived and pure fallacy.

The Trekboere, as they were originally known, were mainly of Dutch origin and included Calvinists, Flemish and Frisian Calvinists, BUT they also included French Huguenot and German and British protestants who first arrived in the Cape of Good Hope during the period of its administration (1652 – 1795) by the Dutch East India Company. Besides these the Boers also included lesser migrations of Scandinavians, Portuguese, Greeks, Italians, Spanish, Scots, English and Irish immigrants, which also contributed to this ethnic mix called Boers.

It should also be remembered that not all Boers joined the side of the Boers, many defected and joined the British. Genetically though they were also true Boers. Very few Boers actually went to battle. The vast majority of Boers stayed behind on their farms and never partook in any Boer war or Boer battles of any kind.  Genetically and historically though they were also true Boers. 

The Religion of the Boer

The Boer nation has revealed a distinct Calvinist culture and the majority of Boers today are still members of a Reformed Church. A small number of Boers may also be members of Baptist, Pentecostal or Lutheran Churches.

As is the case with the Dutch element so too with the religion of the Boer, while the majority of Boers may have been Dutch they were not exclusively Dutch. While the majority of Boers may have been Dutch Reformed Christians, they were not exclusively Christian. 

Do not fool yourself, not all Boers, not even Boers of direct Dutch descent were Christians. There is strong evidence pointing to even Piet Retief not having been a Christian and he was not the only one.

Having had Russians and so many others among them certainly points to not all having been Christians.

The Russians and the Anglo-Boer War. by Apollon Davidson and Irina Filatova:

Several hundred Russians came out to fight for the Boers and to be their nurses and doctors. Many fought for the Boers and probably accounted for the majority of the entire Russian contingent. The often anti-Semitic Russian nationalists who flocked to the Boer cause formed a separate Russian Commando unit in the Boer Army and refused to allow Russian Jews to join it.

Not much is known about the Russian Jews who fought on the Boer side, though several rose to significant rank; we find a Commandant Kaplan and a Commandant Isaac Herman, while two others, Josef Segal ('Jackals') and Wolf Jacobson ('Wolf'), who acted as scouts, were legendary figures in their time; Segal became a special adviser and secret agent for the Boer general, Christiaan de Wet. Benzion Aaron, by now a very wealthy man and a personal friend of Kruger, set up a Jewish Ambulance Corps and bankrolled whole depots for the Boers.

At the same time so many of the Boer Leaders and Generals were Freemasons. They were not members of the Afrikaner Broederbond, the Afrikaner Broederbond did not exist by then and the aim of the Afrikaner Broederbond was to establish an Afrikaner nationalism and an Afrikaner pride. While the Broederbond was exclusively Dutch Reformed and required their members to be member of a Dutch Reformed church, being a Boer had no such requirement, which is proven by the history of the Boers. While the Broederbond was founded by so-called Afrikaners for so-called Afrikaners, the oldest and largest geographical Freemason Lodge in the World is the Transvaal Lodge, the Lodge of the Boers. Afrikaners were not allowed to be members of the freemasonry as they had to belong to the Afrikaner Broederbond. Only in 1940 did the Afrikaner-Broederbond decide to warn youth against membership of the Freemasonry. Until then it was perfectly acceptable.There is ample evidence that the Broederbond deliberately implemented a smear campaign against the Freemasonry in order to build the Broederbond as its primary opposition. It was an anti-British move more than anything else.

Boer versus Afrikaner

In South Africa the Boer / SA white of today is a unique breed of people. We the whites of South Africa truly are a cosmopolitan rainbow nation made up of Dutch, English, Irish, Scottish, French, Germans, Italians, Portuguese, Greeks, Spanish, Serbians, Polish, Turkish, Hungarians, Russians, Russian Jews, etc.

Over the past few hundred years we have interbred and even the Boers themselves were not exclusively Dutch, because they had a number of non-Dutch fighting alongside them, who were also Boers, wearing the insignia of the Boers. Ever hear of English speaking Boers? Well its a fact that cannot be denied.

A Boer was also someone who fought with the Boers on the side of the Boers against the British Empire. It is a known fact that many British soldiers defected to the Boers and thus became Boers, because they were fighting for the same cause. The Irish came here by their hundreds to fight with the Boers against Britain. They became instant Boers. They felt like the Boers, they felt for the Boers, they had the hearts of Boers. They were English speaking Boers. The same as with the Russians who came here to help the Boers and never left, they were Russians yet they were Boers. The foreigners that joined the ranks for the Boers were fully integrated and accepted among the Boers.

The Boers did not reject the foreigners, they did not shun them away, they accepted and appreciated and respected them as fellow Boers.

As can be seen the Boers were not exclusive, in fact they were very open and inclusive, because they themselves had been foreigners that came here from a variety of European countries and they appreciated any help they could get.

The Afrikaners on the other hand were not inclusive in the least and were rather elitist exclusive to the extreme. The so-called Afrikaners are purists.

"To tell the truth, there was not a man amongst us who would have asked better than to make prisoners of the Cape Mounted Rifle's and of Brabant's Horse. they were Afrikaners, and as Afrikaners, although neither Free Staters nor Transvalers, they ought, in our opinion to have been ashamed to fight against us." - Genl C.R. de Wet in the English translation of his book “Die stryd tussen Boer en Brit” (The Battle between Boer and Brit)

The Afrikaners were defenders of the status quo, while the Boers rebelled against the status quo. Genl. de Wet was one of the signatories to the Treaty of Vereniging, which was the signing away of the Boer Republics, but he also  joined Genl. Maritz in the rebellion against the decision to take up arms against Germany during WW1.

Much of what we observe in the attitudes and thinking of the modern-day Boers of today has little or nothing in common with the original Boers. The exclusivity and elitist supremacist behaviour of the modern-day Boer is nothing other than Afrikaner-Broederbond traits adopted by the modern so-called Boers.

The Afrikaner Broederbond wanted to breed Afrikaner Pride and create a highly exclusive click. The Afrikaner is the elitist snob who refuses to speak English and demands an impeccable Afrikaans be spoken to him. Afrikaner nationalism and Afrikaner snobbishness originated after Dr. Malharbe had returned from Nazi Germany. Read “Die Afrikaner-Broederbond Eerste 50 Jaar” by A.N.Pelzer (Tafelberg 1979) to understand where and how this Afrikanerdom originated and how they purposefully set out to instill snobbishness in the Afrikaner and create an image of supremacist elitism, how they deliberately set out to make the Afrikaner an exclusive click.

While most of what we today understand as Boer achievements should be attributed to the achievements of the Afrikaner-Broederbond without whom the Afrikaner / Boer would have amounted to nothing really. The Afrikaner-Broederbond made us what we are today.

So confused are the modern Boers that they actually refer to Dr. Verwoerd as a Boer? One of the key role-players in the Afrikaner-Broederbond and someone who never used the term Boer. This while the very modern-day Boers do not regard one of the most successful people during the second Boer War, Genl. Jan Smuts, who served under Genl. Koos de le Rey as a Boer? 

When Genl. Smuts and Genl. Louis Botha wanted to import more skilled white Europeans into the country to build the numbers of the whites in South Africa the Afrikaner-Broedenbond halted the move in its tracks, because as they said, it would threaten the Afrikaner’s existence, yet most of those that Smuts and Botha imported became Afrikaans speaking white South Africans, typical Boers. Had the Afrikaners listened the balance between black and white in South Africa would (could) have been very  different today.

While Genl Jan Smuts, who commanded one of the most successful Boer forces ever, opposed the Afrikaner-Broederbond, Henderik Verwoerd was a strong member of the Afrikaner-Broederbond. Yet the modern-day Boers reject the Boer and idolise the Afrikaner? 

There was not a single grain of anything pointing towards Verwoerd having been anything remotely resembling a Boer, yet the modern-day Boers idolise him as their messiah. His lecture notes and memoranda at Stellenbosch stressed that there were no biological differences between the large racial groups, and concluded that "this was not really a factor in the development of a higher social civilisation by the Caucasians.”

The establishment of the independent sovereign Republic of South Africa was not the work of the Boers, but rather the work of Afrikaners under the guidance of the Afrikaner-Broederbond. The Boers never wanted a United Independent Sovereign Republic of South Africa, all they ever wanted were the old Boer Republics that their, primarily Freestate Boer Generals,  had signed away. Yet they idolise one of the architects of the Afrikaner Republic of South Africa. Hendrik Verwoerd continued the work of Adv. J.G. Strijdom and ensured that we obtained our greatest achievement, the independent sovereign Republic of South Africa (RSA). He realised J.G. Strijdom’s Afrikaner dream, that is Verwoerd's legacy.

Confusion

All of this seems quite irrational and confusing and it is. Why do we have this confusion among white South Africans? Only due to a lack of knowledge and insight into the history of this country. The friction between Afrikaner and English was created by the Afrikaner-Broederbond. The confusion in the Boer / Afrikaner identity is the result of many years, the Afrikaner-Broederbond’s role in the Afrikaner Nationalism and the development of the Afrikaner identity. We had joiners among the ranks of the old Voortrekker Boers and those that stayed behind in the Cape Colony were happy about having been sold to Britain like sheep.

The late Robert van Tonder actually in a sense created the Boer identity that exists today. Before van Tonder there was no real mention of Boer anywhere by anyone as most had settled into the Afrikaner identity. Since van Tonder all of that changed and we now have this new animal called a modern-day Boer. Suddenly everyone that used to be proud Afrikaners are now proud Boers. Proud Boers following the ideologies laid down by the Afrikaner-Broederbond. Strange, but true.

What the modern-day Boers stand for and wish to fight for are mostly Afrikaner-Broederbond ideologies.

The arrogant Afrikaner is the one who demands that he be addressed in Afrikaans, he is the one who speaks the impeccable Afrikaans and attends elocution classes to speak it perfectly. It is one of the telltale signs of an Afrikaner-Broederbonder, their impecable Afrikaans. They have this air about themselves, a total give-away of their nauseating snobbishness.

The Boer is humble, the Boer communicates with his workers in their language to make himself clearly understood. He is the one who has no problem communicating with the English in English. He also has no problem communicating in Afrikaans while the Englishman speaks to him in English. The Boer is not an elitist, because he is humble. 

The so-called Boer that demands to be addressed in Afrikaans is not a Boer he is a product of the Afrikaner-Broederbond demonstrated by his supremacist snobbish elitism. The Afrikaner-Broederbond replaced the humble Boer with the supremacist elitist snobbish Afrikaner.

The modern-day Boers and Afrikaners have intermixed the two concepts and today we find the Boers also wanting to establish themselves as an exclusive elitist group just like the Afrikaner of the Afrikaner-Broederbond. These modern-day Boers that demand Afrikaans as the only language, are NOT Boers, they are confused Afrikaners pretending to be Boers.

The Boer is not attached to the Netherlands like the Afrikaner. The Afrikaner-Broederbond made it their business to retain and strengthen the ties with the Netherlands. When the Boers came here they became Africans, because South Africa had not even a dream yet. They accepted this country as their motherland and they left their countries of origin in their past. The Afrikaners' Misguided Attachment to the Netherlands is based on the Afrikaner-Broerbond’s desire to be exclusive and elitist. Clinging on to the Netherlands lends some kind of prestige to them, while the Boer’s prestige lies in his many legacies throughout our country’s history. 

What are we?

"She is not a whore if she sleeps with thee, he and me, she is a whore if she has the heart of a whore" George C. Scott in ‘The Last Run’ (1971)

Similarly, you are not a Christian if you flash it around, attend Church every Sunday and pay your 10th, you’re a Christian if you have the Heart of a Christian.

And, you are not a Boer if you have a bloodline of Dutch Descent, speak an impeccable Afrikaans, and are a Christian... you are a Boer if you have the heart of a Boer.

“To me you’re a King, to you you’re King and to your friends you’re a king, but to a King you’re no damn King.” Anthony Quinn in ‘Zorba the Greek’ (1964)

So to me you’re a Boer, to you you’re a Boer and to your friends you’re a Boer, but to a real Boer you’re no damn Boer.

My  family arrived in the Cape in 1681, not too long after Jan van Riebeeck himself. The Great Trek started on the farm of one of my forefathers. The Boarder wars against the Xhosa was fought from that very farm. My great grand-father on my grand-mother’s side was one of the Boers that guarded the body of Major-General Sir George Pomeroy Colley after he was killed in battle. We feature prominently during the entire history of this country. Does that make me a Boer in modern-day terms?

One should think so, but my father married a direct descendant of a 1820 British Settler, which strictly speaking disqualifies me from being classified as a Boer in terms of the modern-day definition of a Boer. That is notwithstanding the fact that my English speaking mother is more of a Boer than most modern-day Afrikaans speaking, Christian, wannabe Dutch Boers. She is more proud of being married to a direct Boer descendant than she could ever have been of her own blue blood-line, which she despises rather.

A Boer has no Physical Identity

A Boer could be anyone. It could even be someone born and still living in the USA, or the UK for that matter. As can be seen from the past history of the Boers, anyone who feels akin to the Boers, who supports the cause of the Boer, anyone of any language, of any religious view, from any country could be a Boer, as was the case way back then.

A Boer is not someone of Dutch descent, it is not someone that speaks Afrikaans and belongs to a Christian Church, let alone a Dutch Reformed Christian Church. Anyone even if he is a Freemason could be a Boer like so many of the old Boers themselves. Anyone that aligns himself with the ideals and objectives of a Boer is a Boer.

An Afrikaner is something completely different and the two should never be confused. Afrikaners do not associate with anyone outside their elitist group. The Afrikaners lost their pride when they gave the country away and became appeasers. The Afrikaners have become a nation of appeasers. 

The Boers of today have adopted what the Afrikaners had lost and given away. Boers have taken over many of the ideals of the Afrikaner and aim to preserve it and Boers associate freely with anyone that wishes to join their ranks. Boers fight for what is being lost at the particular time in history.

The usual definitions of a Boer are a self-limiting definitions that has to has to imply the ultimate disappearance of the Boer. The Boer is not stagnant it is dynamic, constantly being replenished by adding new fresh strong blood to the pool. It has been the case throughout our history, first the Dutch came, then later they were joined by the French and Italians, etc. to culminate in that strong robust group of people that lost the Cape Colony and the Boer Republics, just to come back and take over the Union of South Africa and eventually taking it all by declaring independence as the Republic of South Africa. 

While even the Broederbond fought the Boers and the Afrikaners dissociated themselves from the Boers, there were Boers among them, it was the Boer blood inside them that caused them to ultimately declare the triumph by taking it all as an independent sovereign RSA. The Afrikaners lost it all due to their elitist supremacist ideologies that caused them to lose their focus and betray their roots.

A Boer is a Rebel and a Rebel is a Boer

Boers are rebels within the larger group. The Boers were those that rebelled against the VOC for having sold the Cape Colony to the British Empire, inhabitants and all. The Boers were those that rebelled against the mighty British Empire for wanting to take their Boer Republics. The Boers were those that rebelled against the Boers when they wanted to take up arms against Germany during WW1. The Boers were the members of the Ossewa Brandwag. The Boers were those that rebelled against the UK by demanding their independence to establish their own sovereign Republic of SA. The Boers were those who rebelled against the establishment of the New SA. The Boers of today are those who rebel against what is happening in this country today.

Being a Boer is siding with the Boers, being a Boer is fighting alongside the Boers, being a Boer is wanting to be a Boer, being a Boer is supporting the cause of the Boer. The Boers are not a nation, the Boers are a people with unity of thought, unity of purpose, unity of destiny, that is a Boer.

In South Africa today we have English, Afrikaans, Portuguese, Greek, Italian, Polish, Dutch and many other kinds of Boers. We have atheist Boers, we have Protestant and Catholic Christian Boers, we have Freemason and Broederbond Boers. There are people in other countries who would, if they could, land at our airports tomorrow to fight for the cause of the Boers and they too are Boers just like the Irish and the Russians so many years ago, because they are rebels.

Boers are people who share Unity, Duty and Destiny in their opposition to the unacceptable  status quo... 
That is what makes them Boers, the rebel inside us, the strength of our conviction to stand up for what is right and the determination to succeed.

The Bottom Line 

Bottom line is this, none of us were born as Boers. We were all born either under the Union of SA or under the RSA or under the New SA. Being a descendant of a Boer does not make you a Boer. The Boers were people that lived a hundred years ago and longer. The term Boer is a new thing that does not belong to any exclusive group. ANYONE can use the term Boer if he she wishes to do so, provided he/she is opposed to the status quo.

The terms Afrikaner and Boer cause nothing but division. Even those that call themselves Boers and Afrikaners are all wrong, for they are simply Afrikaans or English speaking white South Africans.

What Boers are proud of today was not of their making, EVERYTHING the Boers fought for was lost in 1902 and never regained. Most of what we are proud of today was the making of the Afrikaner-Broederbond. We have much to be proud of, we have achieved so much in this country since 1652 and no single group can lay claim to all those achievements. We're a mixed breed of people, we have nothing to do with the Netherlands or the UK, we're a nation on our own in our own right. Both the UK and the Netherlands have screwed us so hard that we lost everything we had achieved so stop clinging to those two countries, because they feel NOTHING for you.

We should focus on our achievements, be proud of all our achievements and strive towards getting it back, period. Language and religion are what is causing our division more than anything else.

No one will ask you if you're a Boer, an Afrikaner or English, if you're white you're the enemy. Those whites that realise it and try preparing themselves for it, are awake and alert stand a chance, those that are deaf and blind will forever remain in the dark.

Stop living in the past, trying to be something you can never be.

You could call yourself a Boer if you like, an Afrikaner if you like, but you will remain just another white South African like the rest of us. 

Those of like mind will stand together anyway, doesn't matter what they call themselves. 

In conclusion I would like to state the following:

There is another word for a Boer, an English word..... "Patriot", because the following describes both perfectly and applies equally to a Boer / Patriot.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey


The rest will remain appeasers, liberal brain-washed white South Africans.

4 comments:

  1. O good grief man. There is just too much deliberate confusion and misrepresentation here and no mention of the Cape Dutch. For example: Jan Smuts was not a Boer! He was from the Cape Dutch. So was JBM Hertzog. A lot of folks from around the world fought with the Boers but that did not make them biological Boers. The Trekboers coined the term Cape Dutch to describe the Western Cape Afrikaans speakers back in the late 17th cent when they started to move inland into Africa to get away from the VOC rule. A Boer is not concept as you outrageously asserted here, but rather a people / nation that was derived from the Trekboers of the 1700s and has virtually nothing to do with the Cape Dutch population.

    Robert van Tonder did not "invent" a modern Boer. The term Boer was used massively when the Boers were calling for the restoration of the Boer Republics during the 1940s!!!!! Later Prime Minister Hans Strijdom [ one of the fewer ethnic Boers who governed South Africa ] called for the restoration of the Boer Republics and was killed just a few months later. All this LONG before Robert van Tonder left the National Party in 1961 to advocate for the restoration of the Boer Republics.

    The Afrikaner Broederbond was started by Henning Klopper who was influenced by JBM Hertzog in the adoption of the dispossessing Afrikaner designation. The Broederbond was an enemy of the Boer people as it sought to conflate them with the Cape Dutch under a false political dialectic. The Cape Dutch were historically pro-British and were the ones who coined the term Afrikaner to describe themselves after the language they named. The Cape Dutch control the Afrikaner designation.

    It is an embarrassing shame that any Boer could be pro Verwoerd considering that Verwoerd was not a friend of the Boer Nation. Google the preceding phrase to listen to Theuns Cloete [ of Boervolk Radio & the renown Transvaal Separatists think tank ] himself note in detail how Verwoerd was a dire threat to the Boer Nation and did great damage to them. Robert van Tonder was a public opponent of Verwoerd as he sold out the Boer Nation.

    The notion that no one can be a Boer simply because their republics were conquered is a lot of dispossessing nonsense! Did Scots stop existing just because Scotland was conquered for hundreds of years?! What nonsense! The Boers might live in the same South Africa as the Xhosas / Zulus & Griquas but... those groups STILL exist! They are not all now JUST South Africans as you disingenuously implied. The Boers will continue to exist so long as they continue to reproduce. The Boers emerged from the Trekboers of the late 17th cent. [ just a few decades after the arrival of Van Riebeeck ] and have existed throughout the era of the Boer Republics [ named after the Boers! ] and throughout the 20th cent despite Broederbond attempts at stamping out Boer identity! Read up on how the Broederbond attempted to stop Robert van Tonder from reporting the Boers' own POST Anglo-Boer War hist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another horrendous lie perpetrated here is the erroneous notion that the Boer folk got started during the Great Trek. The Boers got started from the Trekboers of the late 1600 & 1700s. The Boers existed for 150 years BEFORE the Great Trek. I think this erroneous notion must have been promoted by the Afrikaner Nationalists [ Afrikaans Collectivists who were directed by the Afrikaner Broederbond ] in order to deny the anthropological distinction of the Boer Nation.

    Then there is the misnomer that they were all originally Dutch speakers when in fact the ancestors of the Boers spoke many different languages & Dutch was at the bottom of the list as very few ancestors were outright of Dutch origin. Once the ancestors began to reproduce & mix with other groups on African soil: they began to adopt the patois spoken at the Cape which was a blend of
    Dutch / Malay / German / Portuguese & Nama: a Khoi dialect. The Boer people emerged from the Trekboers of the 1700s & speak their own Afrikaans dialect that historians have classified as Eastern Border Afrikaans. The term Afrikaans was coined by the Cape Dutch when they started a nominal language rights movement for which they began calling themselves Afrikaners for the first time ever in their nebulous history of which virtually nothing was heard from them prior.

    I am flabbergasted that you could write such an offensive anti-Boer hit piece because you are openly implying that the Broederbond created the Boers [ wtf? ] when they were in fact specifically trying to eradicate the Boers! The Afrikaners suppressed Boer identity and oppressed the Boers in the process. Theuns Cloete rightly noted that the Boers were "also under Apartheid" as they were prevented from obtaining any form of self determination.

    I would highly suggest that if you really want to know who the Boers were and are that you visit the highly informative Republican Trekker Volk blog as it dispenses with all this divisive claptrap and goes straight to the heart of who the Boer people are. The Boers were lumped in with the Cape Dutch under the dispossessing Afrikaner designation which was a designation promoted by the politicians and the British in particular for the express purpose of destroying the identity of the Boers so that there could never be a rerun of the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 which almost restored the Boer Republics. The Afrikaner establishment does not want the Boer Republics to come back as it would threaten their control over the region and their access to its resources. The notion that the Boers "do not exist" or are a concept is dispossessing and damaging anti-Boer nonsense designed to destroy the Boer Nation.


    ReplyDelete
  3. One more thing: the use of the term Boer is not about "division" at all as it is simply the correct term which has been historically used to describe the Caucasian Afrikaans speakers of Trekboer descent who developed on the Cape frontier. The notion that it "divides" White South Africans is specious & spurious nonsense because the Boers existed LONG before any such thing as a White South African & even long before the spurious notion of an Afrikaner. Which was just the Cape Dutch way of Colonizing the Boers. Neither does the term Boer divide White Afrikaans speakers because the Boers developed AWAY from the Cape Dutch & thus were NEVER part of them. The modern day descendents of the Cape Dutch are not offended in the least by the Boers' assertion of distinct identity as the Cape Dutch do not see Boer history as having anything to do with them. Granted I do notice some regrettable & totally unnecessary division among Boer descendents as too many cling to the term Afrikaner [ some even have a blind spot to the numerically larger Cape Dutch population ] without realizing that it was based upon British propaganda put in place in order to destroy the identity of the Boers so that they would not be a treat to the "territorial integrity" of South Africa & so that the Afrikaner Broederbond could lay claim to the inheritance & history of the Boer Nation. The not so little secret is that if all of the Boers exerted themselves as Boers: they would be on the fast track to independence simply because the vast majority of Boers / Boer descendents want independence & their assertion of Boer identity would prevent the Cape Dutch Afrikaners & its leadership in particular from continuously standing in the way of their goal. The Afrikaans money & media power is the BIGGEST obstacle to Boer self determination because even the Zulus of the Northern Natal recognize Boer claims to the old Vryheid Republic which was established there in the 19th cent. while the Afrikaner establishment does not. The only division we face is that of submitting to the notion of an Afrikaner as it is designed to divide & conquer because it lumps two distinct nationalities under one umbrella thus creating instant friction & coming to the great detriment if the smaller Boer Nation.


    ReplyDelete
  4. The people that are Boers do not suffer this apparent confusion.

    ReplyDelete