proagri

International Bulletin: In defence of White SA

SOUTH AFRICA BULLETIN

from the headquarters of

TAU SA in Pretoria

Web:  www.tlu.co.za

Tel.:  + 27 12 804 8031       Fax:  + 27 12 804 2014

E-mail:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

August 13, 2018

________________________________________________________________________

The Bulletin attached hereto is provided as a means to inform stakeholders of agricultural developments in South Africa.  These International Bulletins are distributed at regular intervals and can also be found on TAU SA’s website at www.tlu.co.za.

 

TAU SA is the oldest agricultural union in South Africa and has been in existence since 1897. The mission of the union is to ensure a productive and safe existence for its members on the land they own.  Current reality in South Africa indicates that this is not possible at the moment due to a variety of actions and threats against commercial farmers.

 

Your comment regarding the Bulletins and other information provided to you is valuable and will be appreciated.  However should you prefer not to receive information from TAU SA, simply tick the "unsubscribe" link below.

________________________________________________________________________

 

IN DEFENCE OF WHITE SOUTH AFRICA

Anyone who attended any of the recent public hearings on the SA government’s proposal to introduce legislation permitting land to be expropriated without compensation would have realised that there are two distinct trains of thought in this country, and never the twain will meet.

If ever the unbridgeable abyss between white and black thinking about land, a modern economy and food security was so starkly exposed, these sittings were it. Western logic was set against a strange mixture of racial resentment and at times open hatred, plus a thought process on the use of land which, if unconstrained, would lead to famine in SA.

As black after black speaker stated that whites were “rotten people”, that they “belonged to Europe and should go back”, that they took the land “because we were black”, that “we are impatient and we will take the land by force” and “these 1652 white gangsters robbed us”, whites in the audience simply shook their heads in hopelessness because who can argue with such obtuseness?

The futility of trying to debate with those who said they were “sick and tired of white people”, and that “whites won’t reconcile with us” was obvious.  Whites were warned that “going to international courts” wouldn’t help because “the land will be taken physically”.  One ANC provincial official declared that “since Jan van Riebeeck set foot on South Africa’s soil, whites have been rapists!”

The fact that the government used these public hearings as an endorsement of their own imbecility shows what South Africans are up against.  Whether savvy urban blacks agree with the fatuous declarations by officials who clearly know nothing about how a modern economy works, or that scientific farming is the only path to food survival in a drought-ridden country like SA, is a moot point.  Suffice it to say that anyone who thinks that the people in the halls will somehow uphold food security when they get “their land” needs to quickly go back to the drawing board.

MOMENT OF TRUTH

The moment of truth is upon us.  We now must acknowledge that with the coming to power of the ANC, the stage was set for the inexorable destruction of, inter alia, South Africa’s food security.  The government must be stopped in its tracks with this legislation.  Amazingly there are still those who argue for “debate” and “compromise” on land expropriation (read theft).  The immutable fact remains that only South Africa’s commercial farmers can produce enough food for 57 million people.  No other group in the country can do this, and tinkering with this fact on the altar of political correctness or Freedom Charter humbug is setting South Africa on the road to Zimbabwe.

The unashamedly racist blacks spouting bile and venom against whites are clearly too backward to realise the bald irony of their situation – here they were hectoring the meeting chairmen about the evil whites in a hall built by whites, using a microphone not indigenous to Africa, wearing Western clothes, speaking a Western language, sending their children to schools teaching Western education, using Western money, buying food produced by white farmers, and travelling in Western transport.  Virtually nothing inside or outside those halls, or in South Africa’s cities, towns and rural areas, is indigenous to Africa.  Yet the people who created every single thing around them while they shouted and complained, were vilified.  This strange anomaly has been commented upon with incredulity by several overseas TV presenters.

Not one jot of credit is ever given to white South Africa for taking most South African blacks out of the stone age.  When the first Europeans arrived in South Africa in 1652, it was more than 1970 years after Ptolemy the First built the magnificent library at Alexandria in Egypt.  In 1652 all that existed at the southern tip of Ptolemy’s continent were mostly warring tribes, living in mud and grass dwellings and using some decorated clay pots.  Kraals held African wealth – cattle - while rudimentary crops were planted.  Land did not “belong” to anyone in the Western sense of the word – it was just there, to be used.  (It seems as if this mentality still exists - we want the land, is the clarion cry, with nary a thought about what will become of it (and them!) when it is “used up”.)

Living from day to day – the modus vivendi of Africa before Western influence – still exists in the minds of those now clamouring for land, otherwise they would be thinking of what they would do after taking the land.  They haven’t the slightest idea, of course, and herein lies the danger, not within their minds but within the mind of the so-called sophisticated president of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa.  He is pandering to this lunacy for thirty pieces of voting silver in next year’s election.  He’s also looking over his shoulder at the most backward of them all, Mr. Six Percent Julius Malema, he of the fiery but empty promises.  The President is not telling his people the truth, and they will turn on him when they find out!  And there will be no country south of South Africa to run to (as did the Zimbabweans) when the SA cupboard is bare!

In the meantime, the “land grab from the whites” clarion call rings loud and clear across the veld where no jobs exist, where the soil is degraded, and where nothing is produced.  No wonder ignorant poor people are led to believe that a “piece of land” will improve their lot!

Ramaphosa’s blustering will not save South Africa.  The despised whites will do so, with the other population groups.  Whites are only 8.5% of the population (2011 Census) but without them there is Zimbabwe, there is Haiti.  By 2030, based on SA’s current age 0 – 24 years population growth, there will be only one white for every 91 blacks.  This is just over ten years hence!

GETTING RID OF THE WHITES

What will be the consequences of “getting rid of the whites”?  Messrs. Ramaphosa and Malema would do well to read some history books.  History is an unerring teacher.  For those who never had the written word, they will need to consult the history of other nations.  And history has shown us what happens when “getting rid of the whites” became a reality.

In 1804 a massacre occurred in the Caribbean country of Haiti, a French colony where slaves had already rounded upon their masters and slaughtered many whites during a revolutionary uprising some years before. Subsequent mass killings of whites were carried out on the order of one Jean-Jacques Dessalines, a mulatto.  Full details of this relentless purge are in the history books, but suffice it to say that practically the whole French population of Haiti was annihilated.

Starting in the 1730’s, French engineers had constructed complex irrigation systems to increase sugar cane production in Haiti.  By the 1740’s, Haiti and Jamaica (a British colony) had become the main suppliers of the world’s sugar.  Haiti was the wealthiest colony in the New World.  There existed tremendous racial friction and the slave revolt was certainly understandable.  But the aim of relating this story is that once the whites were thrown out, Haiti never recovered.  That is the point.  The Caribbean nation of 10 million today cannot feed itself.  More than a million families a day are fed by UN food aid.  The country has had its share of natural disasters, often used as an excuse for its poverty.  But Japan has more natural disasters per capita than any other nation, yet it is the world’s third largest economy.

Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.  The Duvalier family who ruled Haiti from 1957 to 1986 left the country economically decimated.  Other corrupt and inept leaders followed.  The hated colonists at least had created an economy, even though poverty existed.  What followed the annihilation of the French was complete collapse.  Ironically, educated professionals left Haiti for the lands of their former oppressors.  Agriculture was destroyed, while deforestation and soil erosion worsened the impact of hurricanes and tropical storms.

ZIMBABWE

We don’t have to look further than across the river Limpopo to see what “getting rid of the whites” did to the once beautiful and productive land, Zimbabwe.  The first white hunters, traders and missionaries who, in the 19th century came to the region, found a land devoid of infrastructure.  The wheel was not in use.  Early travellers moved around for days without seeing any human habitation.  They recorded this fact.  With a black population of about 250 000 at the time, most of the land was not occupied.  (At the time of the Mugabe government purge of the whites in the 1980/1990’s, the black population stood at around 12 million.)

Commercial farming was started by white settlers on what was, for the most part, virgin land.  There were no roads or railways, no electricity or telephones.  There were no fences, boreholes, pumps, windmills, dams, irrigation schemes, cattle dips, barns or any other farm buildings.

From this barren starting point, commercial agriculture developed faster than it had anywhere else in the world, courtesy of the whites.  Soon the country became self sufficient in most agricultural products.  In many cases yields per hectare and quality equalled or bettered those in the developed world.

 

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Year Book of 1975 ranked the then Rhodesia second in the world in terms of yields of maize, wheat, soya beans and groundnuts, and third for cotton.  In the combined ranking for all of these crops RHODESIA RANKED FIRST IN THE WORLD. Rhodesia’s Virginia tobacco was rated the best in the world in yield and quality.  The world’s largest single citrus producer was developed early in the country’s history.

The story of the destruction of this productive country is that Western political correctness trumped good sense and the morality of being able to feed a population.  Whites were literally chased out and murdered.  Their farms were taken for “the people”, which farms mostly ended up in the hands of the governing party’s chums.  Today it is estimated that more than three million black Zimbabwean refugees live on the fringes of South Africa’s cities.

In 1972 around 50 000 prosperous, hard-working Indians of Uganda were forced out of their own country by the puerile and mentally-retarded Idi Amin.  His actions reveal the same inferiority complex now evident in the anti-white behaviour of SA’s rulers.  They are patently unable to rule a country successfully. Instead of trying to learn, they destroy those who are successful.  Do they care? Apparently not. In the early seventies, a top official of the Transkei homeland government told a visiting American that Transkeians didn’t care “if the roads turn to dust”, as long as they “got rid of the whites”.  Well, the whites left and the roads did indeed turn to dust.

(It is noticeable that current Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni asked the Indians to return.  Despite making up less than 1% of the population, Uganda’s Indians now contribute 65% of the country’s tax revenue).

Those meeting hall provocateurs who think milk comes in supermarket packets may be in for an unpleasant surprise.  From SA’s 50 000 commercial dairy farmers in 1997, the figure is now a paltry 1600.  Many could leave the industry in future.  Will the new owners of these uncompensated farms continue to produce sufficient milk for the country?  Mr. Ramaphosa should be thinking about this but of course he’s not.  He’s worrying about holding on to power at the next election.

 

Taal/Language