Tuesday, April 17, 2018

DOLLARS TO DONUTS

that 'our' government will turn a 'Nelson's eye' to the racist decision of the South African government to amend Section 45 of their constitution to allow the expropriation, without compensation, of land belonging to an estimated 12,000 white farmers for  redistribution to their mates in what will almost certainly be a re-run of what happened in Zimbabwe which saw that country turn from being the 'breadbasket of Africa' into a net importer of food.

The South African government is determined to make these people into economic refugees in their own land.    They are being made scapegoats in order to turn attention away from the economic failures and endemic corruption that is the hallmark of the ANC governing Party.  

Will there be worldwide condemnation of this decision? ... give me a break.    South Africa is a 'black' country and these are' whites' ... who is going to stick their head up over the parapets and advocate for them and risk being labelled racist.    Nah, better that those being dispossessed of their land are to be seen as authors of their own misfortune by accident of birth.   They must pay for the sins of their fathers and and sins of their father's fathers.   

South Africa faces a bleak future.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now you are being provocative Veteran...that is the most disturbing inaccurate summation on the events I have read yet. This is second vote on the subject, it was thrown out the first time but due to the rise in popularity of the EFF and Zuma ripping the heart out of the ANC it passed, an exact comparison would be a small insignificant party like UKIP being the authors of the shock Brexit result.

SA is different than Zim. If you throw an apple core out of car window in Zim the next time you drive by you will see a tree. The farmland of SA in the main is quite poor and 80% of the food is grown on 20% of the land...big farms work, small farms fail and dividing land is easy but dividing central water resources is impossible. Cyril Ramphosa is a skilled politician and has made several statements that seem to missing from your post. All them aimed at making the transference of farm land difficult. Food security will take priority, no individual will benefit and no Government minister or employee will gain land.
The land issue is not only about farmland there are 1000s of hectares that were bought by local authorities in the old days to act as a buffer between races and tribal homelands that have lain there unused by the now black local authorities that need to sorted. In the apartheid era large tracts of land were given to black farmers who were not of that area (tribal, think Maori). The locals want that land back so your black/white statement is not true and is borderline racist. The whole thing will be put in the too hard basket and be fudged just like Brexit is bogged and will be watered down to nothing. There will be lip service to the vote through land being taken from a few high profile farms by the state and then 500 year leases at a dollar a year rented back to the original owners.
SA still operates under the rule of law, the Democratic Alliance and a free press see to that. How many western nations do you see the ex president by a matter of weeks, dragged into court to face corruption charges. I hope your post isn't linked because it is borderline fake news.

Lord Egbut

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Good Lord Legbut.

Were you ever employed in the PR industry?

This time you've excelled yourself.

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... me provocative? Nah, just telling it as I see it and doing that is not racist (but I can understand how those who might want to defend the indefensible might want to label it as such).

Your UKIP analogy is strange. This was a Government Bill endorsed by Ramaphosa. It was passed 241 votes to 83. Why would 'they' pass a Bill if the intention was to do nothing (watered down to nothing ... your words).

You say SA operates under the rule of law ... funny law indeed that allows land to be seized from its owners without compensation.

I note too that RSA is ranked 71st on the World Corruption Index. Ok, not as bad as Zimbabwe at 157 but doing its best to catch up.

The South African economy is a basket case. Two out of the three major ratings agencies have consigned the countries currency to junk status; last year there was a shortfall of 51 billion rand in tax receipts while the budget deficit rose to 4.3% of GDP. And you think passing this Bill will help restore a shattered business confidence?

Anonymous said...

Don't care where it's ranked on whatever scale. The UKIPY analogy is correct, a small populist party that would have become a damaging political force if they continued to be thwarted by the main parties. Cameron endorsed the referundum to rid the country of the vile far right UKIP thinking that once they had lost they would disappear ....er no they won but the good news is they have disappeared anyway.

The EEF party under Malemba is a using race in their campaign which is worrying a lot of the educated black population. Ramphosa and the ANC gave them what they wanted, "land reform" which will stop the flood of recruits to that party but for some of the reasons I have outlined it will be fudged and drag on for years. Ramphosa is a billionaire businessman who made his dosh outside of politics and has the ear of the business community....he is rebuilding after the Zuma years, give him time. How long did it take for Maori lands to be sorted? Don;t know 'cos it,s still on going. Your post is sheer speculation. Oh, and if it is the constitution it becomes law. (rule of)

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... then you accept the EEF (far left Marxist) with just 25 members in the National Assembly (compared with 249 for the ANC) is the tail that wags the ANC dog.
And you're not worried about that? Most people would be.

Passing a law to amend the Constitution to provide for the seizure of property without compensation is hardly the hallmark of a functioning democracy ... quite the reverse.

So, if say your government were to pass such a law you would stand quietly by and say 'thems the breaks' ... I think not.

Anonymous said...

I'll stick my head up.
Stay and get attacked and have the powers that be take your farm, or clear out - somehow,somewhere - and try and start again.
In a 2017 debate in South Africa’s parliament, the attacks were described as “not normal criminality”, “crimes fueled by hatred” and “extremely violent and often accompanied by brutal torturing in the most barbaric way”.

Their police stats show in the last 8 years to 2017 3825 attacks and 514 murders on farms.

Relate that to your Viet Nam service boys.8 years and 3890 kiwis served, 187 wounded 37 kia.

It sounds like it was safer in the jungle then than on the veld now.

I don't expect advocacy for SA farmers from the likes of our press or politicians, they've got the guts of a rabbit.

Mick

Anonymous said...

Mick....I quite agree but the difference between your post and Veterans is that 99% of farmers deaths were the result of robberies not politics. Six policemen were gunned down the other day. The crime rate is appalling and whites are armed to the teeth so it really a case of who shoots first. Unlike Zim Farm invasions are not sanctioned and when caught the perps are given long prison sentences..... don't confuse Zimbabwe with Sth Africa. Under the aparthied regime the police force was paramilitary and crap at policing, under the ANC the police force is paramilitary and just as crap at policing....it all needs an overhaul.

Lord Egbut

Noel said...

Been a little preemptive Veteran.
I would wait until we know the nuts and bolts after the report back in August.

The Veteran said...

Again Noel ... telling it how I see it. Nothing more, nothing less. But you will note the Ramaphosa has come out strongly in support of the legislation. IMHO that is significant.

Gerald said...

https://www.news24.com/Analysis/land-debate-is-clouded-by-misrepresentation-and-lack-of-data-20180309

Anonymous said...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2018/03/16/what-you-need-to-know-about-attacks-on-white-south-african-farmers_a_23388077/

The Veteran said...

Gerald ... thank you. Interesting article.

David said...

Veteran, you have a soldier's view of democracy - It's OK until I don't like and then its time for a coup.

Passing a law to amend the Constitution to provide for the seizure of property without compensation is hardly the hallmark of a functioning democracy ... quite the reverse.

Since 1994 South Africa has a free election system with universal adult suffrage, something denied to the majority of the population prior. Since 1994 South Africa has operated under the gold standard for a democracy.

Recent elections were, by all reports, fairly conducted, thus making its government democratically elected and able to legislate as it sees fit. That you don't like a proposed law is neither here nor there, that is a matter for the people of South Africa and they will show their approval at the next election, you know, in the way democracies function.

Nah, better that those being dispossessed of their land are to be seen as authors of their own misfortune by accident of birth.

That is the typical white racist view. You give no thought to those who were dispossessed of their land when the colonists arrived, after all, it was their fault that they hadn't developed the land in the approved fashion, wasn't it? You'd better pull your overcoat tight, your white sheet is showing.

The Veteran said...

David ... your 'soldiers view of democracy' is crap and you know it as is most of the other drivel you inflict us with.

Clearly you subscribe to the view that two wrongs make a right. A more mature and democratic approach might see the establishment of a South African equivalent of the Waitangi Tribunal to adjudicate on land wrongly taken ... but that won't happen because those being targeted are 'white' and the white has no place in a black South Africa.

Nelson Mandela had it right ... those that followed ran roughshod over his legacy.

David said...

Clearly you subscribe to the view that two wrongs make a right.

Not at all, Veteran. I am of the belief that it is up to the South Africans, via their democratically elected parliament, to make this decision for themselves. You are still of the belief that the "cheeky darkies" need to listen to their white betters and do as they're told.



The Veteran said...

David ... you bang on about their democratically elected parliament. North Koreans might also argue they too have a democratically elected parliament. That doesn't make it so. The expropriation of private property without compensation is not the hallmark of a functioning democracy although I can understand how, in your view, it might be.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

David considers the recent law change making it legal to steal farmers' land makes it all 'A-OK.

If I recall rightly, that's how the Nazis grabbed Jewish property in Germany.

David said...

David ... you bang on about their democratically elected parliament. North Koreans might also argue they too have a democratically elected parliament.

Jesusonawaka Veteran, stretching much? The last South African elections were contested by 16 parties, on that basis you could say South Africa is more democratic than NZ.

I have not expressed a view one way or 'tother on the legislation, I am simply making the point that the days of the white colonial oppressor are over and South Africans make their own decisions.

Just what would you have the NZ government do? Say no? Send a gunboat?

It is odd to me that you are so opposed to the SA situation, and yet you cheer on the murderous Israeli thugs as they dispossess Palestinians, not by legislation, but at the point of a gun.



David said...

Further point of order, Veteran, it is Section 25.

If you are really interested in understanding the issue, try this from a South African perspective.



David said...

David considers the recent law change making it legal to steal farmers' land makes it all 'A-OK.

If I recall rightly, that's how the Nazis grabbed Jewish property in Germany.


You are right, Adolf. And it was the same mechanism that was used to grab African, land from Africans, by the white invaders. Just as I think the descendants of the murdered Jews have a right to have their ancestors' goods returned, where possible, I also see the right for Africans to have their land returned to them. I guess you're happy that those who profited from the NAZIs are able to keep their ill gotten gains.

Gerald said...

David suggest to Veteran tell SA to adopt the Waitangi Tribunal structure for settlement of land grievances. That 'ill get him going.

Anonymous said...

David.......Something the black Africans don't like to be reminded of is that when Jan Van Reibeck set up the Cape colony it was vacant possession. There was not a black African for 700 miles. the inhabitants were nomadic bushmen with no concept of land ownership........the first winery was set up in 1657. There was no "land grab" in the cape province. Other parts of SA were fought over by the two dominant parties one moving up from the South and the other moving down from the north.

Yo have a remarkably simplistic view of a complex problem because it not just a matter of "handing it back". As usual you have a simple answer to a complex question...which is always wrong. Never forget that Russian trolls are active in Sth Africa pushing hate posts at young blacks in order cultivate a atmosphere of distrust and breakdown in racial trust.

The white colonial oppressor phrase is right out of the 80's Soviet propaganda manual.

Veteran ....I tried to explain why Ramaphosa voted for the act but you don't seem to understand. It was to neutralise a rising force in politics that would lead Sth Africa to a civil war. Everyone is long on outrage and short on facts.
https://africacheck.org/reports/do-40000-whites-own-80-of-sa-the-claim-is-incorrect/

David, the 65 year old Australian pacifist who use the word airplane seems to welcome a divided St Africa. Perhaps if the EFF take over the Russians might be asked to send a peackeeping force and in doing so gain acquisition of the jewel in the crown....Simonstown naval base.

Lord Egbut

David said...

Gerald, he suggested it himself at 10:22 above, in aplay of cognitive dissonance.

David.......Something the black Africans don't like to be reminded of is that when Jan Van Reibeck set up the Cape colony it was vacant possession.

I hadn't heard the concept of Terra Nullius in relation to South Africa before.

the inhabitants were nomadic bushmen with no concept of land ownership.

And so because they didn't subscribe to European notions of "ownership" they were fair game to be dispossessed.

Never forget that Russian trolls are active in Sth Africa pushing hate posts at young blacks in order cultivate a atmosphere of distrust and breakdown in racial trust.

Did you read the article I linked to above? That is from no Russian troll farm. There are also Australian trolls operating in our parliament claiming that the South African situation is far more dire than reality.

David, the 65 year old Australian pacifist who use the word airplane in the context of a post on American acts of terror in sovereign nations I thought it was the appropriate word seems to welcome a divided St Africa.

I have expressed no opinion on this matter, other that to point out to Veteran that the days of old white Men of Empire telling the natives what to do are long past. This is a matter for the South African people and their democratically elected government to resolve.

Anonymous said...

Well that would be simple wouldn't it, just return Cape province to the original "owners" the Bushmen.

Could prove to be difficult as the migrating Black Africans killed them all. But it's OK 'cos because a tenth generation Sth African is not really an African at all....he's a colonial oppressor.

Andrei/David two sides of the same coin.

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... yes, I did make the connection between Ramaphosa pushing the Act and the need for him to neutralize the rise of the EEF at the expense (mainly) of the ANC.

Guess my problem is that once you let the genie out of the jar it's nigh on impossible to shove him back in.

David said...

Egbut, that is not at all reflective of my views. The only view I have is that it is a matter for the South African people and their government. Veteran wants NZ to send gunboats, or something, to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation.

Anonymous said...

I thought I heard the sound of a shovel striking bedrock........

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure about that. I wonder if he just wants us to allow them to escape with their lives and leave the blacks to bicker over the scraps with those that survive that starving to death. I accept the black govt can do what they like but that doesn't make it sensible or moral. I think SA is stuffed because low IQ populations don't do democracy well.

3:16

David said...

Good morning 3:16, usual form I see. Scratch a xtian find a racist.

The Veteran said...

David said ... "Veteran wants NZ to send gunboats, or something, to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation".

You mean something like St Jacinda did in protesting the deportation of NZ Citizens living in Ox having failed that sovereign government's good character test?