Springbok Special Circulation List -- South Africa

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. Zakaria’s ten minute litany of South 
Africa’s “troubled” past contained every cliché 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 “took” blacks’ land.



LAND



Land in South Africa is viewed by two opposing viewpoints – 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 – either by 
“occupation” or “use” on the one hand, or through provable heritage 
and/or Western-style written and recorded title. Land as an issue in the 
political “liberation” of Africa has been one of the continent’s prime 
vote getters, with promises made to “return” 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 “occupation” 
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 whites’ 
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 Africa’s 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 
“legitimacy” 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 
“utilised” 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 – 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 –the 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 Africa’s 
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 – 
81.7% of the total – and 4,5 million whites (7.2%).  The percentage 
population increase from 1904 to 1996 was blacks – 792% and whites 297%.



In fact nobody knows how many people there are in South Africa today. 
Under the ANC’s 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 “historically black areas”. 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 didn’t 
make sense.



SOUTH AFRICA PRE 1948



Not only did the purported division of South Africa’s land (the old 87% 
white and 13% black myth) come under Mr. Zakaria’s 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 – an empirical fact. The most important 
reason why Mandela’s 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 “native tribes” (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 “democracy”, 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 Africa’s 
political choices is important as the question of land “need” is always 
used by black politicians to whip up their followers’ 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 – only 12% of the land is arable and only 
1.5% – 2%  is irrigated. The state owns around 30% of South Africa’s 
total land surface of approximately 123 million hectares. Only 15 
million hectares of South Africa’s  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 Africa’s farmers 
produce virtually every available crop there is.



MURDERS, ASSAULTS AND FARM LOSSES



Despite their crucial role in the country’s survival, SA’s 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 “Kill the boer, kill the farmer” clarion 
call was recently revealed to the whole world from the White House’s 
Oval office’s television set.



SA’s 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 ‘REFORM’



During the ANC’s land “reform” program, millions of hectares of 
productive farmland were handed over to ”claimants” 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 “The Great South African Land Scandal”, 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 – South Africa  – 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 government’s malaise – 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.” —Charles Bukowski

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