From Newsgroup: alt.law-enforcement

The following recent edition of the TLU/TAU (SA)'s International
Bulletin expertly outlines the true facts about the historic land issue
in South Africa, and thereby effectively destroys the outlandish claims
being spewed out by the ANC regime :-



IGNORANCE IS NOT ALWAYS BLISS, AND CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!




CNN TV presenter and political guru Fareed Zakaria recently pontificated
on the controversy surrounding the decision by US president Donald Trump
to bring 59 white South Africans to his country as refugees. It takes a
strong heart to leave South Africa, arguably the world most beautiful
country, but they left for reasons that made sense to them. Not only is context crucial in assessing political events: cause and effect are key
tenets of world history. Mr. ZakariarCOs ten minute litany of South
AfricarCOs rCLtroubledrCY past contained every clich|- in the book. There were falsehoods as well, but this has become par for the course where South
Africa is concerned. The popular narrative has been set in cement and
the more it is repeated, the harder it is to refute. Facts frankly mean nothing: they are dismissed as biased or fake news. Very few question
that which has been set in stone for so long.



To many South Africans who live at the bottom of a blighted continent,
the CNN clip was embarrassing. Surely someone like Zakaria should have
carried out some background research as to why South African whites are relentlessly criticised while their genetic kin in other countries of
the new world have literally gotten away with murder! White South
Africans were faced with a conundrum no other white group has had to
face in history! Yet the popular narrative on wicked white South
Africans continues unabated. It is given currency by ignorant TV
presenters masquerading as experts. Cherry-picking items to give
plausibility to a story, is egregious. Combined with ignorance, it is
just plain dishonest.



It is the question of land in South Africa upon which we concentrate, if
only to allow some fresh air into the stale cell of the imprisoned
narrative that whites rCLtookrCY blacksrCO land.



LAND



Land in South Africa is viewed by two opposing viewpoints rCo the first
and third worlds, the two mindsets that have clashed from the first time
they met on the South African veld. Land rights are perceived as being
valid by black and white for entirely different reasons rCo either by rCLoccupationrCY or rCLuserCY on the one hand, or through provable heritage and/or Western-style written and recorded title. Land as an issue in the political rCLliberationrCY of Africa has been one of the continentrCOs prime vote getters, with promises made to rCLreturnrCY land to those who either occupied or used it, notwithstanding the fact that the occupiers held no
title and, more importantly, had not developed the land either
agriculturally or otherwise. As well, in most cases, the rCLoccupationrCY
was of a migratory or temporary nature.



Black people ventured into Southern Africa from the north of the country
at around the same time as the Afrikaner Voortrekkers moved into inland
South Africa from the Cape. They met around 1778. These whitesrCO
forefathers had arrived in Cape Town in 1652, just a few years after the American Plymouth Rock landing and the formation of the English
settlement at Jamestown in the USA. South AfricarCOs white settlers were
no different from their counterparts in the rest of the new world, and
their legitimacy cannot now be challenged any more than white settlers
in America, Canada or Australia. (It is interesting that the first white settlement in Australia was in 1788 at Botany Bay, 136 years after the
first Europeans landed in the Cape. How far back then is settler rCLlegitimacyrCY established?)



It is important to note that in no area inhabited by blacks was there
any system of individual freehold land. Tribal members only possessed
usage rights within the territory of their particular group. Some land
was occupied by different tribes at different times. The question arises
as to how long land would have to be occupied before any legal right (in
the Western sense) to the land would be established.



As in other parts of the new world, the land question created the same conundrum. None of the ancient migratory inhabitants, even those who rCLutilisedrCY the land for periods of time, had title to land in the
Western sense. Western law had taken priority, and land ownership had to
be designated to claimants according to modern systems already existing
in the rest of the world. It was a new world movement inculcating a
system of regulating and controlling primitive tribes wandering through
the land at will. It had to happen. What else could South Africa do? It
did what everyone else was doing. It introduced legislation to bring
order to chaos.



THE 1913 LAND ACT LEGISLATION



The Bantu Land Act of 27 of 1913 was designed to regulate and apportion
land to the different peoples of South Africa. The Act embodied the
principle of territorial segregation of black and white. It was not the Afrikaners who created and legalised this segregation rCo it was the
British colonial government under whose rule South Africa existed at the
time. Already it was obvious to the government that they were dealing
with two different worlds rCothe subsistence cultivation of the black
tribes and the commercial agriculture of Western heritage which farmed
not for one day but for current and future consumption. For everyone in
the country to be fed, it was impossible to continue with South AfricarCOs third world subsistence mentality. The land available remained a
constant, while the number of people who wanted to live on a little
piece of ground and plant corn, far outnumbered the land available.



BLACK POPULATION EXPLOSION



The black population explosion turned the original apportionment of land
on its head. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, 11th
edition, Vol. 27, p.226, the 1904 SA census showed a SA population
figure of 3,495,000 blacks and 1,118,000 whites . In 1921, blacks
numbered 4,697,813 and whites 1,519,468. In 1936, blacks were at
6,596,689 and whites 2,003,069. In 1960, blacks totalled 10,926,00 and
whites 3,088,000. In 1996, the black population figure was 31,128 000
and whites 4,434,000. In 2024, according to Stats South Africa, the
population was 63 million, of whom there were 51,5 million blacks rCo
81.7% of the total rCo and 4,5 million whites (7.2%). The percentage population increase from 1904 to 1996 was blacks rCo 792% and whites 297%.



In fact nobody knows how many people there are in South Africa today.
Under the ANCrCOs policy of open borders, millions of people from Africa
and elsewhere have streamed into the country without control or count.



THE 1936 LAND ACT



The terms of the 1913 Act existed until 1936, when cognisance was taken
of the already very obvious black population explosion. More than 6.2
million hectares were earmarked for exclusive black use. This land was purchased from mainly white farmers. This was in addition to land
already designated as rCLhistorically black areasrCY. So blacks legally obtained land after thousands of years of wandering. Given the
population at the time, and given the obvious fact that blacks could not
and never did farm commercially - that is efficiently and for a profit -
it was considered as fair as it could be at the time. Land allocated to
blacks was amongst the most fertile in South Africa, with exceptional potential and high rainfall. The quality of this good land was such that
86 ha of this land had the same potential as 126 ha of land owned by
whites. The question was: what did the blacks do with this land? That
was the key to intelligent land preservation and conservation. It could
not be that the more the black population exploded, the more land they received, given that they did not farm commercially. It simply didnrCOt
make sense.



SOUTH AFRICA PRE 1948



Not only did the purported division of South AfricarCOs land (the old 87% white and 13% black myth) come under Mr. ZakariarCOs TV scrutiny.
Apartheid, the old bogeyman, has always been a mandatory target in any
debate about South Africa. In the TV program, pictures were shown of
policemen chasing blacks, and segregated seats in parks. (This happened
in America where there was no racial threat to the whites.) The reason
why apartheid was introduced in the first place was ignored. Suffice it
to say, given the black population explosion, some space had to be given
to whites to develop the country, which they did on all fronts. This
included the elimination of disease, the provision of medical services,
the creation of industries and infrastructure, education and employment,
not to mention the provision of food.



Given the huge disparity between the acculturation and social evolution
of the two groups, separate development was the only solution to the
conundrum where two highly disparate racial groups could live together
in an undivided territory.. Separate development was the only answer
within the one land mass that was South Africa. Whites were prepared to provide the funds and the skills to assist blacks to develop at their
own pace. The alternative, where the numbers would swamp those with the
skills to make things work, was unthinkable. In the end the tragedy of
one man, one vote was imposed on South Africa and the results, wholly predictable, are now here for all to see.



Black South Africans could not and cannot still support themselves. As a
group they had created nothing rCo an empirical fact. The most important reason why MandelarCOs ANC refused to become part of the homeland system
was that they could never have managed a homeland. They needed the
whites to survive. They knew only land and cattle as assets. Their
standard of living had not moved much further than the stone-age within
whose ambit they had lived for thousands of years. In the early
nineteenth century and even earlier, British and German missionaries
recorded the African life styles they witnessed in South Africa. Some of
these visitors from Europe built rudimentary schools and dwellings for
the black people. Observers sent to the Cape by the British government
to report on the rCLnative tribesrCY (as the British put it!) found that not much had changed from centuries before.



POLITICAL DECISIONS AND THE COMMERICAL FARMING COMMUNITY



In 1948, whites faced an election of necessity. The situation in the
country was untenable. What would happen to South Africa if the swamping
of the cities continued? Whites chose separate development (apartheid)
as a solution: not perfect but under the circumstances, arguably the
only option worth looking at. How to accommodate people of vastly
different cultures and norms and levels of development in one political system? The other option on the cards was rCLdemocracyrCY, African style, as proposed by various black political factions at the time. This was unacceptable to the people who were carrying the country and whose
forefathers had built it from nothing. This discussion on South AfricarCOs political choices is important as the question of land rCLneedrCY is always used by black politicians to whip up their followersrCO emotions, despite
the lunacy of such a policy. Black population growth is never mentioned.



The homelands were developed at a cost of millions, and thousands of
white civil servants were seconded to these areas which prospered, some spectacularly. The Bophuthatswana homeland became the fourth largest
economy in Africa. The ANC however rejected the homelands because they
are incapable of governing themselves. They need the whole of South
Africa on which to depend for their own survival.



FOOD EVERY DAY, WITHOUT FAIL.



There are 32 000 commercial farmers in South Africa: they produce 96%
of the food needed to feed 65 million people every day. South Africa is
not a farming friendly country rCo only 12% of the land is arable and only 1.5% rCo 2% is irrigated. The state owns around 30% of South AfricarCOs
total land surface of approximately 123 million hectares. Only 15
million hectares of South AfricarCOs total surface is commercially cultivated. SA is a dry country with a mean annual precipitation of only
464 mm in a world average of 857mm. Sixty five percent of the country
has an annual rainfall of less than 500 mm, usually regarded as the
minimum for successful dry land farming. Yet South AfricarCOs farmers
produce virtually every available crop there is.



MURDERS, ASSAULTS AND FARM LOSSES



Despite their crucial role in the countryrCOs survival, SArCOs farmers have been the targets of ANC victimization and earmarking for assassination.
They have endured punitive legislation, water pollution, crimes such as
stock and harvest theft, farm invasions for dog bunts, land grabs,
illegal squatting and dysfunctional local government. Third world
politicians receiving generous taxpayer-funded salaries publicly call
for farmers to be killed: the rCLKill the boer, kill the farmerrCY clarion call was recently revealed to the whole world from the White HouserCOs
Oval officerCOs television set.



SArCOs farmers are murdered at a rate far greater than any other group
outside a war zone. Many are tortured during the assaults: burnt with
hot water and hot irons, cut open with machetes, and other obscenities.
These are good people who provide food for the cretins who call for
their deaths! From 1990 to 2024, 2302 farmers, both black and white,
have been murdered in their homes. That is one farmer, his family and
his farm destroyed every five days.



And nobody is punished for farm murders. Only 6.8% of murderers are
convicted in South Africa for crimes across the country. Getting away
with murder is a piece of cake! Murders in South Africa occurred at 74
per day in 2022. Under apartheid, the general murder rate was about 90%
less than under the ANC, and farm murders were almost non-existent. The
crime rate in white areas was extremely low.



LAND rCyREFORMrCO



During the ANCrCOs land rCLreformrCY program, millions of hectares of productive farmland were handed over to rCYclaimantsrCY who used some very tenuous rationalisations as proof of ownership.. More than 3 500
operational white farms were lost to production. And to this day
productive farms are still handed over under this policy, and more farms
are lost. The book rCLThe Great South African Land ScandalrCY, published twenty years ago (and still on line), reveals in shameful detail how successful farms were destroyed by ANC recipients, many of them friends
of government officials who used these properties as weekend party venues.



A once successful first world country rCo South Africa rCo has degenerated into a third world example of what would have happened 60 years ago if apartheid had not been introduced. The country is rife with every
third-world African governmentrCOs malaise rCo wholesale corruption and
theft, inefficiency, the placing of incompetents and party supporters
into positions for which they are abysmally unsuitable, of criminal syndicates, violence both gratuitous and otherwise, a worthless police
force, huge unemployment, porous borders, hard scrabble black poverty juxtaposed against the obscene wealth of the black elite. Everything the
ANC has touched has turned to dust. It is time the world acknowledged a
South African reality hidden for years by a devious media. It is time to
set the record straight.
--
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of
doubt, while the stupid people are full of confidence.rCY rCoCharles Bukowski

"When guns are outlawed, only foreign invaders and the government
officials that invited them in will have guns."

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2