Self Determination - Boer Republics, Volkstaat, Secession

Introduction

“There are three classes of people: Those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not want to see.” - Leonardo Da Vinci

Self determination has been on the cards for many years and the belief that the old Boer Republics should be re-established and returned to the Boers has been with us for decades. The question is whether any of these are achievable, given our situation, differences and history.

There are mainly five ways of handling problems and obstacles: Fight, Flight, Ignore, Circumvent, or Join.

Fight

One could face it head on and confront it with brute force and determination.

This approach always comes at a price. Wars are good examples.

Wars always cost money and lives. Even the victor will be left with many scars.

This is the one-track minded bulldozer approach. It focuses exclusively on the goal without considering the costs and consequences. The Afrikaans term for this is "dom astrant" headstrong foolhardiness (stubbornly and often recklessly wilful). War should always be the last and final resort, when all other options have been exhausted. As it stands, our history shows that the Boers, the whites of this country have never been the aggressor, but always the defender.

Ignore

One could wait for the problems to pass.

This is the fatalistic approach and the one which is most often followed.

It is based on faith, on the belief that if one waits long enough things would sort themselves out and come right by themselves. From a religious perspective we find people saying that we should just pray and have faith that things would come right.

This is the insecure approach that would rather avoid than confront. It is this fatalistic approach that leads to acceptance of the circumstances in the belief that everything happens for a reason and it should be allowed to run its own course. Everything would turn out for the best.

Join

This approach speaks for itself. "If you cannot beat them, join them". This is the typical liberal approach, not to be confused with the circumventing approach. Circumventing the problem still aims to win, while joiners become part of the problem. Joiners support it by denying its faults, mistakes, dangers and consequences. Joiners even justify its consequences by finding excuses for it. They blame apartheid for the murders, rapes, crime, corruption and incompetence. This means they are justifying it, as a kind of "you deserve it, because you caused it and now it is only fair for you to pay the price". Joiners are appeasers and as Winston Churchill puts it, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Both Ignoring and joining are acts of capitulation, giving over, throwing in the towel.

Circumvent

This approach confronts the problem by finding ways and means around it. It demands creative, innovative, lateral and strategic thinking, often extremely difficult to sell to followers. One tends to lose followers and only a core group usually supports it. This is the Sun Tzu approach, "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." It would endeavour to find the weaknesses in the problem (opponent) and use it against itself. This would be my personal choice, but not up for discussion at this stage.

Flight

The fourth approach is to flee, to rather pack up and leave, or to withdraw. This is the approach we'll be discussing.

Many people reading this would be thinking "but this is cowardice!", but is it really? Were the Voortrekkers cowards for leaving the Cape?

Whether you are emigrating to Canada, emigrating to Botswana or emigrating to a volkstaat, you are still leaving the country.

"It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, be able to divide them; if equal, engage them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them." - Sun Tzu

Here is the crux of the matter, "if fewer, be able to evade them;" This is where we have been failing, because of ignorance, naivety and denial, and failure to acknowledge the dangers. In most instances it is due to sheer negligence, not being prepared, resulting from denial and thus ignoring the seriousness of the situation, thinking it would never happen to us. Security systems, perimeter warning systems, alertness just do not exist. It is like ignoring an approaching tornado, thinking it would not strike us, rather than evading it by moving into an underground storm shelter until it had passed. "One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation." - Author unknown

"If weaker, be able to avoid them." - leave, either by starting a volkstaat, secession or emigrating to another country.

Secession, the Boer Republics and regaining control

Getting back the Cape (through secession) that we had left behind, the Boer Republics that had been signed away or the RSA that was sold to Communists will not likely be achieved without some miracle.

Our land (property) was signed away three times.

First, the Dutch sold the Cape to the British. The Boers did not take kindly to this and, besides the border wars on the eastern front and a few other issues, one of the primary motivations for the Great Trek was that the Boers felt they had been sold to the British as livestock together with the land. They found this unacceptable and chose to leave.

Second, following the Anglo Boer wars, the Boers signed over the Boer Republics to Great Britain.

Third, the National Party sold the entire RSA from right underneath us.

Once you have sold your farm, small-holding, house or apartment / flat or business, you can do what you like, go to court or take up arms, or even run to another country for help, but if the new owner refuses to give it back or sell it back to you, you will not get it back.

Becoming a republic, we were lucky enough to get back the Boer Republics plus even more than what the Voortrekkers had originally walked away from and what the Boers had signed away. The third time however, things were very different, because at CODESA we sold our land unconditionally. We signed away our participation and even our Life Right (Lewensreg). We virtually signed away our citizenship. In 1994 we made a new beginning, founded a brand new country as if nothing had ever existed before.

We can throw tantrums, stamp our feet, toyi-toyi and riot all we like, but the fact remains we did it ourselves. The majority of whites supported it and we have to accept responsibility for it.

In 1994 we had a "window of opportunity" to get back the Boer Republics, but once again we failed at it. The Boer Republics should not even have been part of the negotiations and should have been non-negotiable property at CODESA. We could perhaps even have had support for it from other countries, perhaps even the United Nations. The NP should have put their foot down and refused to even discuss the Boer Republics, but there is much more to this than meets the eye.

Firstly the National Party is often blamed for this failure, but not all of it was their fault. Headstrong foolhardiness on the part of our conservatives was also to blame. The NP actually would have considered the Boer republics proposal, but conservatives' stubborn refusal to sit down and debate it, compromise certain aspects, and their stupid gate crashing antics destroyed it. Unfortunately this uncompromising, thoughtless, headstrong, foolhardiness persists among many of our conservatives to this day.

The only way to get back or buy back property that one had sold is if that property or business is put up for sale, goes bankrupt and is put on auction.

While some believe that they could run overseas crying for other countries to help force this internationally recognised sovereign state to hand over part of this country to a tiny highly divided minority, it is really just a waste of time and money. South Africa will not go up for sale ever again. There will not be another CODESA. This means that the only other way to get it back is for it to collapse and go bankrupt. The consequences of such collapse would almost certainly lead to anarchy, civil war, tribal conflict, horrendous xenophobia, revolution and possibly even an attempted coup d'état from yet another useless corrupt revolutionary group of terrorist idiots.

Waiting for any of this to happen could take decades, but time is a luxury we cannot afford.

The battle for a United South Africa

Before we continue, we need to address the following. (There is no need for a lesson in history, but relevant information is posted as an addendum below.)

The Dutch officially ceded the Cape Colony to Britain in 1814. The British settlers landed in the Eastern Cape in 1820, but only after the discovery of gold near Francis Town and later near Pilgrim's Rest, the site of the first gold rush in South Africa (1873), did Britain actively focus their attention on the ZAR.

So important was Britain's drive for gold that by the end of 1902 Britain employed 500,000 soldiers against a fighting force of an estimated 64,000 Boers. Britain established the first concentration camps in the world, all for the sake of forcing the Boers into submission. Boer women and children were incarcerated in concentration camps and about 26,000 died of malnutrition, poor hygiene and disease. The British blockade and scorched earth strategy, burning down farms, farm houses and slaughtering livestock, was enforced through the entire Transvaal, which forced the Boer military commanders into submission. A defeated Transvaal was incorporated into the British Empire in 1902.

The Union of South Africa was established on 31 May 1910

All of South Africa's minerals were now contained in one area called the Union of South Africa.

The National Party then went ahead and eventually won the elections in 1948 and later, on 31 May 1961, the Union became an internationally recognised sovereign state, the Republic of South Africa.

The problem was not racism, but separate development. For the first time in history did a sovereign state decide to split up its own country into smaller sovereign states. This posed a huge problem for Britain, the world and the mining industry in particular.

After all the wars and battles, South Africa was going to be split up and mining companies would be forced to renegotiate all their mining rights with a multitude of smaller independent states. This was unthinkable and unacceptable and it had to be fought tooth and nail.

The battle against Apartheid never was against racism or racial discrimination. Never before in history had any country willingly and without pressure given away chunks of its own land. Never before in history had any country ever attempted such a fair and admirable system of allowing individual groups their own freedom to rule themselves in their own countries. While the world has been supporting Palestine and other nations to achieve this very thing, they opposed it in South Africa with everything they had. The fight against racism and racial discrimination under Apartheid was an eye-blind to protect mining interests.

It is much easier negotiating mineral rights with a single government than having to renegotiate with numerous smaller states, not knowing what the outcome would be. Mining rights were to be transferred to these independent homelands (Bantustans) and who knew what would have happened? Looking back at South Africa since 1994, with its BEE and cadre enrichment, shows what would have happened in each of these independent homelands and the world knew it. Mining in Zimbabwe and other independent African states provided even more evidence of the consequences of giving the black homelands their independence.

The truth is that apartheid / racism / racial discrimination was used as an eye-blind to prevent the country from being split up. Even the Zulus who later wanted KwaZulu-Natal to secede, opposed it when they were given the opportunity. To this day, blacks do not realise they were being used against themselves and to their own detriment.

The world needs South Africa to be a single unit and they would prefer having even more countries incorporated into a much larger South Africa. The drive towards a United Nations of Southern Africa overshadows any attempts for independence of smaller groups and countries. The world, and politics in particular, revolves not around morals and human rights, but around money.

South Africa, the ANC, the mining houses, Britain, the world, and now also China, would require a lot of convincing to allow South Africa being split into a multitude of smaller independent states.

As long as this fact is not understood, there is no sense in even trying to discuss self-determination by way of a "volkstaat", returning the Boer Republics or secession.

Self-Determination / Volkstaat

Exclusivity and supremacy are among our greatest enemies, followed by language, religion, self-righteousness, snobbishness, greed, party-political stagnation, out-dated ideology, clinging to the past and so many other dividing issues.

If one wants to win a battle one needs to use the past as experience, but fight the present-day enemy. One cannot enter into battle against the past. Times change, the political parties of today are not the political parties of pre-1994 and we can no longer be split between the "Yes"-voters vs the "No"-voters, the NP vs the CP, the PFP/DP vs the NRP, English vs Afrikaans and allow those to determine our affiliations and loyalties.

The Third World War will not again be fought between Britain, France and the USA against Germany and the West cannot enter into WW3 in terms of WW2 enemy lines. The enemy is completely different and, this time around, we'll be fighting a completely different enemy, using completely different tactics and equipment.

Voting and the Constitution

We've been finding more and more organisations and movements telling their followers not to vote. The excuses are many, but mainly focussed around the idea that voting legitimises the system and that whites form such a tiny minority that their vote has no meaning in the grand scheme of things.

In the meantime, these very same organisations have been promising their followers a "volkstaat", self-determination or secession based on the Constitution, actually stating that the Constitution guarantees them the right to demand self-determination for their people.

In so doing they have been legitimising the Constitution. Voting takes place in terms of the legitimised Constitution, but according to their reasoning voting is legitimising a failed, unfair constitutional system?

If you want to buy a house and get finance from a bank you have to be part of the financial banking system. This means that you need to have a credit record and collateral.

What these organisations have been telling their followers is that they would be using the financial banking system to get them a house, registered in their name, but their followers should do everything possible to avoid building a credit record, that they should only buy cash and abstain from buying anything on credit, because buying on credit / getting finance from a bank, would be legitimising the financial banking system.

If you want to use the system, you have to be part of that system. If you want to use the Constitution, you have to be part of the Constitutional system. If you want to use the Constitution, you need a voice inside Parliament to fight your case, based on the Constitution. You cannot stand outside the Constitutional system and then make demands based on the Constitution.

The way this works is simple:

If you want to use the Constitution, you have to vote to make your representative party in parliament as strong as possible, to give that party a strong mandate to fight your case. That party would then need to negotiate with other parties inside parliament, to support them in their endeavours and to vote with them for their cause.

Self-determination groups have been screaming and shouting that their beloved Constitution affords them the right to self-determination, yet they've been running abroad to get support for it? If the Constitution affords the right to self-determination, why then should it be necessary for anyone to go outside this country for support to pressure this government into doing what the wonderful constitution supposedly guarantees?

Either you use the Constitutional system of this country or you approach other countries. One cannot claim the right under this constitution, while at the same time begging other countries to help you get self-determination. If you want another country's help for self-determination, then negotiate with that country for a piece of their land in which to do so.

Headstrong foolhardiness has cost us in the past and it will cost us again. The Constitution demands that the parliamentary system be used as the route to such dreams.

No other country can dictate to this country

South Africa is an independent, sovereign state with its own Constitution and NO country, not the UN or the World court, can force this country to give away a piece of its land by telling this country how it should interpret and apply its own Constitution.

If you are not part of the financial banking system and have no credit record or collateral no court could force any bank to give you credit if you do not comply with the requirements of the financial banking system. The same goes for South Africa's Constitutional system.

This means that either you go the Constitutional route by voting, building a strong political party, with a strong mandate to represent your case in parliament, or you get out of the system completely. If you do not vote, then do not use the word "Constitution". If you do use the word "Constitution" then better you get in line and start voting.

One of the problems in this country is that most people are still living in pre-1994 RSA under the National Party. That is why they still do not understand the proportional voting system and as such do not realise that not voting favours the majority party, being the ANC. This means that all people refusing to vote should be labelled and treated as ANC supporters.

What Stands in the Way of Self-Determination?

Now let us turn this applecart on its head.

In a Constitution driven system, every Law has to be tested against the Constitution. This means that a Law, such as the new Employment Equity Bill, should be measured to determine whether it honours and respects the Constitution. What happens in South Africa is that the Constitution is measured to determine if it actually does respect the needs of blacks. The current regime, with the help of liberals and supported by large corporations, use creative interpretation to show that the Constitution actually does support inequality and racial discrimination in order to favour blacks against all other race groups.

The fact is that this country's Constitution does not protect its citizens and it does not make provision for self-determination that so many tend to claim. If that was the case, why have self-determination groups been running abroad for help?

If South Africa truly was a democracy and its Constitution really was as good as everyone claims, no one would have needed to go outside the country for help, now would they?

It is disappointing how many South Africans are still depending on their "Constitution" as the "protector" of their so-called "rights".

A Constitution does not protect people. It is up to the people to protect their Constitution so as to ensure that their rights under the Constitution are retained. This has never happened in this country. Here everyone uses the Constitution as a punching ball, testing whether the Constitution actually really does offer them the protection they seek. A Constitution does not need to be tested. A Constitution needs to be protected, period.

No one has yet stood up to protect this Constitution. 70% of this country supports this regime that has been raping this Constitution at each and every opportunity. Big corporations have been using the Constitution to their own advantage just as much as the regime has been doing. Never once has anyone demanded the Constitution be respected in terms of its provisions for equality. BEE and Affirmative Action have been openly and publicly raping the Constitution.

This regime views the Constitution as a pest hindering them in their path to destruction and plundering of this country. They have been using "creative interpretation" to implement racist legislation like land redistribution, Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment with the support of the appeasing large corporations.

Large corporations would much rather appease a corrupt regime than go up against it by demanding respect for the Constitution. There is much more money to be made, in the long term, from appeasing and bribing a corrupt regime than supporting a Constitution for the sake of the country. In the US the public have been fighting to protect their Constitution, while in SA people have been fighting for their rights by raping the constitution.

Under a real Constitution one declares and demands one's rights in terms of the Constitution. In the US, where they actually do have a real Constitution, no one would dare refuse someone anything specifically provided for under their Constitution. They demand their rights in terms of the relevant amendments under their Constitution. In South Africa you would have to go to court, so a bunch of liberal communists could decide whether you actually do have that right in terms of this so-called "Constitution”. This is not a Constitution, this is rubbish. You have no rights under this constitution unless a court says you do.

The AA, BEE, Employment Equity Laws, Land Redistribution and so many other laws and regulations, have proven that this constitution is not worth the paper it is printed on. Yet we are promised self-determination under this same Constitution that has not been able to protect any white person from being fired to make room for a black? The Constitution is not for South African citizens, but for blacks, period. No one is equal under this constitution, because blacks outclass and overrule all other races in terms of the way this constitution is being raped without opposition from anyone. No one can demand a job interview based on this Constitution. No one can demand their legal ownership of their own bought-and-paid-for land under this piece of toilet paper called a "Constitution". Do not even use the word, because there is no such thing as a Constitution in this country, let alone "guaranteed rights" promised by naive "leaders".

The NP promised a wonderful, safe, peaceful new South Africa with a rainbow nation and whites believed their empty promises of "checks and balances". Blacks keep voting ANC because the ANC keeps making empty promises and whites keep following self-determination groups, because those groups keep making empty promises based on "rights", supposedly "guaranteed under the Constitutional". And, we think we are "different"?

Before we can achieve anything in this country we would first need to learn what a Constitution really is. We would first need to decide whether this is a Constitution for us, and a Constitution that we could respect to such an extent that we would be willing to fight for it, just like the Americans are willing to fight for their Constitution. We need to make this Constitution our own if we feel it deserves it. We would first need to learn to fight for our Constitution. We would first need to learn to defend and protect our Constitution. Only once we have achieved that can we demand our rights afforded by the Constitution.

The problem is that this is not a Constitution of the people, because this Constitution was never approved by the people. It was drawn up and approved by politicians. It was never put to the test in a referendum to determine whether the citizens actually accept it as their Constitution. The citizens have never taken ownership of it, because it belongs to politicians, drawn up by politicians for use by politicians. This is NOT our Constitution. This Constitution does not belong to the citizens of this country, which is why the citizens cannot defend it. It is just another piece of legislation used against you, period.

Leaders

In order for us to achieve self-determination we shall need a STRONG LEADER.

A leader is not elected by way of a popularity contest. An election is nothing other than a popularity contest, voting for the most popular among the contestants. Both Barack Obama and Jacob Zuma were winners of popularity contests. They are not leaders; they were merely the most popular among the fools partaking in the circus.

Leaders appear, they do not get chosen from among a group of clowns. A leader cannot be created by way of some or other training programme. A leader is born that way. A leader appears when you least expect it, often being the person one would least have expected of being a leader. Leaders tend to be suppressed, because they have strong threatening personalities. People chosen by way of popularity contests do not like leaders, because they feel threatened by them. Leaders work for a cause, while winners of popularity contests work for praise, acclaim and applause. Leaders work towards achieving goals, while those elected dream of creating a legacy for themselves to going down in history and be remembered for their "achievements".

A leader is someone who shows himself and who takes lead, not someone identified and promoted as "a leader". A leader does not have a title, does not use fancy titles, and does not necessarily need academic qualifications. There is a Chinese proverb that states: "When the student is ready the master will appear." Wise words, indeed.

The same with a country or a people, when a country or a people is ready the leader will appear. This country, this "volk" / people is not yet ready for a leader to appear. No leader in his right mind would even consider, let alone attempt, to stand up and make himself yet another target of this nation. This nation does not deserve a leader yet. Any nation that repeatedly insults and attacks its leaders does not deserve a leader. Too many leaders have been destroyed by this nation. If they're not accused of being linked to some sinister ghostly movement like the most feared "Free Masons", they're linked to the anti-Christ or the Illuminati, the NWO, Jews or the Zionists. If he does not attend a church, a particular church, or goes to church on the wrong day of the week, he should be crucified. There is not a leader or activist that has not experienced any of these attacks on their person from within this nation.

The Freedom Front Plus contracts a company to remake their corporate profile. The company contracts a graphic artist to redesign the party's logo, who does this in line with current trends in logo designs and what happens? The very next morning the FV-Plus is attacked by these fanatical lunatics accusing them of being "Free Masons", because according to these fear driven fanatics the new logo is a clear sign of Free Masonry and that was the end of the Freedom Front Plus. The blacks have their tokoloshe and we have ours. Apparently the Free Masons got into the heads of the Freedom Front Plus, hypnotised them and took over their minds and souls like Pinky and the Brain. That is what happens each and every time with every leader, every party, every activist and every movement. So why bother with such a nation?

While it is admirable for a nation to honour its past heroes, a foolish nation refuses to acknowledge, and tramples upon, its current heroes. A dead and dying nation is one that does not produce new heroes.

If we wish to achieve anything we need to identify our present heroes, acknowledge and support them rather than destroy them by labelling them with nonsense and we should create new heroes.

Language as dividing factor

Contrary to popular belief, South Africa has never been an Afrikaans country and Dr Hendrik Verwoerd kept it a bilingual country.

Dutch and English were the first official languages of the Union of South Africa from 1910 to 1925. Afrikaans was added as a part of Dutch in 1925. The Official Languages of the Union Act, 1925, says Dutch includes Afrikaans.  Article 119 of the constitution of 1961 stipulated that Afrikaans included Dutch. Dutch was replaced by Afrikaans when South Africa became a republic in 1961, and Dutch was dropped in 1984. Therefore, for the ten years between 1984 and 1994, South Africa had two official languages: English and Afrikaans.

In 1961 South Africa should have been made an Afrikaans country, but it was not. Verwoerd and company, when they had the chance in 1961 to make Afrikaans the official language of the country, decided to rather keep it a bilingual country, one of the very few bilingual countries in the world. The Union of South Africa was an English country with Dutch as second language and in 1961 Verwoerd merely exchanged Dutch for Afrikaans. In so doing he wiped out the whole idea that the language of white South Africa was Afrikaans and that South Africa was an Afrikaans country. Strange how the public never realises how politicians toy with their minds and lead them into directions they never wake up to.

The notion that South Africa should be divided along language lines just makes no sense, because it never really existed in the first place. The onslaught is not against whites speaking any particular language. The onslaught is against whites the world over. The drive for self-determination is not determined by language ether. There are probably more Afrikaans speaking liberals in this country today than English speaking liberals. There are probably as many English speaking as Afrikaans speaking people supporting self-determination, so how come we have this notion that a "volkstaat" should be for Afrikaans speaking white South Africans only?

Why are we now suddenly wanting to separate what had never been separated before?

Unity of Thought and Goal

We shall achieve nothing unless we unite in thought and goal, and unless we are willing and able to do it ourselves.

Leaders are not dreamers. Leaders do not talk, they do. Leaders do not tell you about their dreams and do not ask you to pray for them and keep hoping, or that you should just believe that they would make it happen. That is nonsense! Leaders go out and do it. They make it happen and then invite you to join in. A leader needs no one's support, a leader takes the lead and everyone else follows, but that can only happen once we have unity of thought, direction and goal.

We are not even sure that this is what we want, where we want it and what it is that we want from it. We are still crying about boogie men coming to catch us in the dark, setting stupid childish, immature criteria, like language and church. To join any of these current "volkstaat" movements you are required to first submit a CV detailing your bloodline and whether you voted “No” or “Yes” in the 1992 referendum. Then, of course, you also need to pay your way to become a member of some money-making racket. It is the same as you having to pay to send an SMS so a company or a business could fight for Pretoria's name, while you're being promised a volkstaat elsewhere. Or like Orania, where the town belongs to a few with money. A volkstaat is not a company It is not a business. It is not a farm belonging to someone and in which you could buy shares.

One of the most important aspects of goal setting is that you have to be able to achieve it yourself, by yourself, on your own, without having to depend on someone or something else to make it happen. As long as we depend on outside help and support, on some event or change that needs to first take place to make it possible for us to achieve our goal, we shall not reach our goal.

If the Voortrekkers had to wait for some overseas country, or some United Nations-like organisation, to approve their plans, to back them up and support them, they would have never left the Cape. Sadly too few whites have ever accepted this country as their own, few have ever made it their home. As long as the English are still clinging to England as "home" and the Afrikaans speaking whites are still clinging to Holland as "home" there is nothing to strive for. Americans do not view themselves as Europeans, as Irish or Germans They view themselves as Americans and the same goes for the Australians. In South Africa we are still "British" and "Dutch"  - after 360 years? Could we not in all this time have become South Africans and started acting like proud South Africans?

Experience should have taught us by now that any negotiations for an area would lead to nowhere. The world over, Africa is known for not respecting agreements. Would anyone enter into such negotiations with Robert Mugabe, expecting him to honour any successful outcome? Yet the current SA regime is trusted and viewed as being different from the rest of this continent? They would drag it out and stall the process for years by shifting the goal posts to frustrate us. This stalling process would then afford this regime enough time to bus in hundreds of thousands of blacks from the Eastern Cape into the area under negotiation. By the time they are ready to sit down, they would have flooded the place and be the majority. That is the way they operate. Negotiation is a waste of time.

To negotiate for land requires collateral. What is the collateral that we are putting up in return for what we want? What is it that we are bringing to the table that could make it worth their while to give us a piece of land for our own self-determination?

Independence is not negotiated. Independence is not asked or begged for. Independence is declared! In order for us to declare our independence we would first need to ensure that we are the overwhelming majority in the area that we wish to declare independent, that everyone in that area agrees that we should declare independence and then do it.

Other considerations

China is busy colonising Africa and South Africa is being set up as the new Chinese capital of Africa. China is buying up everything in this country from land, to businesses, to mines, to Transnet and everything else. They have bought their way into the ANC and the ANC will do anything to appease them.

South Africa has become an Eastern country. We produce arms and ammunition for the Eastern and Arab countries to be used against the West. We are fast becoming an enemy of the West.

The mining industry controls this country and the coal industry is leading the pack. South Africa does not have an energy crisis. The energy crisis was created for the sake of the coal industry. Every dam and water channel in this country came supplied with hydro-electric generators, most of which Eskom has always refused to connect to the national power grid. Those generators have rotten away and today nuclear power is the next big money-making scheme for the ANC. May we never see nuclear power under the control of this useless regime. Africa as a whole should be prohibited from installing any form of nuclear power generation, because they would destroy the world.

As long as conservative politics and direction are determined by religious fanaticism there is only extinction. The two most intolerant religions on earth are radical Islam and Christianity. Their own denominations do not even tolerate one another. They cause destruction and division wherever they go. Someone walking around with a Bible under his arm can and should never be trusted. We need to remember that conservatives are gullible. 250,000 mostly Afrikaans men followed a pro-ANC Scottish cowboy just like the children of Hamelin blindly followed the Pied Piper, not because he could play the flute, but because he waved a Bible around in the air and shouted like there was no microphone available.

People should get rid of the little voices in their heads scaring them about boogie men lurking inside anyone who dares stand up for this nation. Destroying potential leaders by labelling them as NWO, Jew, Free Mason and Illuminati agents while the Chinese are buying up your country from right underneath your feet will only ensure extinction. In short, stop making up nonsense!

There cannot be peace as long as there are liberals, because liberals would sell you out, would always stab you in the back and would always assist in your downfall.

We need conviction driven by determination. A leader does not start something he cannot finish. Enthusiasm breeds motivation, but determination gets you there. Enthusiasm gives you the Kilowatts, the power and speed, but determination gives you the momentum and strength, the Newton-meters to drive it.....

Further reading:
SA whites voting for the DA to break the ANC's majority in Parliament?