Analysis

South Africa Was Invaded By Barbarians From 1652 The Chickens Are Now Coming Home To Roost

By Sam Ditshego

Africa and other parts of the world were invaded from 1500 BCE until 1500 CE. The Munhumutapa Empire was destroyed circa 1400 CE by the Portuguese and was precipitated by rivalry and in-fighting. The seat of government of the Munhumutapa Empire was in Great Zimbabwe the place that most people know as the Zimbabwe ruins.

The Dutch were not the first Europeans to come to the shores of South Africa, it was the Portuguese in the 1400’s who included Bartholomeus Diaz but their vessels ended up at the shores. The Dutch who were led by Jan Van Riebeeck came in 1652 on April 6. The Pan Africanist Congress of Azania was formed on 6 April 1959, to coincide with the day the Dutch colonialists arrived in South Africa.

What happened to South Africa and the continent was not an overnight event but was a process of destruction resulting from the Aryan (European and Arab) onslaught lasting more than three thousand (3,000 years). The onslaught continues to this day with a militarily defeated population having to endure invading predators who murdered African people and continue digging our minerals. In addition, having to endure identity theft of epic proportions against absurd claims that they civilised Africans. We now have the destroyers claiming to have created the very civilisation they have, and continue, to destroy. This is a horror story.

These are barbarian invaders who set themselves up as rulers and forging their domains on the spoils of the invaded. The fabrication of civilisation is one such example of a domain created by barbarian invaders on the spoils and demise of those from whom the foundation of civilisation was taken.

South Africa was under foreign rule for more than three centuries and many people would argue that we are still under foreign rule because the ANC is governing on behalf of Britain and Washington. There is palpable evidence that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 was dictated by foreign interests and is therefore not the constitution of the indigenous people of South Africa. It does not bear any resemblance to ancient African constitutions. Moreover, a survey revealed that half the population of South Africa are ignorant of the constitution and does not know it exists, a grave indictment on Chapter 9 Institutions and the governing party. https://www.fhr.org.za/index.php/latest_news/our-democracy-not-working-constitution-important-report/

I take it for granted that everybody on social media knows that the Joint Constitutional Review Committee has called “for written public submissions on the review of section 25 of the Constitution (Property Clause) and other sections where necessary, to make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation”.

1 of Section 25 declares that no one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.

But land was usurped from the African people and they were deprived of their properties without application of the law. PAC basic documents lay bare the fact that the penetration into the interior of the country by wave upon wave of European settlers involved the loss of sovereignty by the indigenous peoples and the alienation of more and more portions of their land which the PAC described as land robbery and political subjugation. These European settlers undermined the extant laws and now they want to apply their laws after the fact. Their forefathers took our land by force and they now want to sell it back to us. They cannot be judge, jury and executioner.

The fundamental contradiction in South Africa’s struggle for liberation is the dispossession of the African people’s land. The drafting of South Africa’s constitution which was preceded by secret negotiations eschewed this central issue.

Expropriation is a taking of private property or rights by the government for just compensation when it is for a public purpose. It may be the exercise of eminent domain powers. … The taking of property may be with or without the permission of the owner.

Expropriation, therefore, presupposes that a person or persons from whom land is expropriated own it. The basic documents of the PAC differ with this line of reasoning because those who dispossessed the African people of their land do not own it, they usurped it. Since they don’t own our land, expropriation is a misnomer. Consequently, compensation is inconceivable. The phrase ‘expropriation without compensation’ is therefore misplaced under these circumstances.

Those whites who are mobilising their brethren in the US and Australia are doing so on a misguided concept. They are mobilising on a flimsy conviction. They must mobilise on the correct principle of the return of land to its rightful owners. They know the ANC and EFF do not pose a threat to them, they know their real threat comes from the PAC and perhaps Black Consciousness organisations. How can the ANC and EFF be a threat to whites when they believe in the preposterous Freedom Charter whose preamble says South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white?

The barbarian invaders are fearful of their own scarecrows, and like spoilt brats, ran to western capitals to raise a false alarm of an empty threat on expropriating the land they usurped. They envisage a situation where the wheels of their elitist constitution going off the rails. Yet they deny that South Africa’s constitution safeguards their interests and is a bane to the African indigenous population.

The Barbarian invaders should know that it is not only Section 25 of the Constitution that is at issue but the entire constitution which must be drafted from scratch by a constituent assembly and ratified through a referendum. These barbarian invaders should know that their invasion was illegal and is still illegal and that eventually the indigenous population will get their land back. They should not postpone an eventuality and prolong the resolution of the land question.

Instead of being obdurate, the barbarian invaders should humble themselves because they know they are guilty of the crimes they committed over the centuries.

 South Africa’s Illegitimate Constitution

Fellow Africans should be cautious about the invitation by the Constitutional Review Committee to make submissions on Section 25 of the Constitution of South Africa of 1996 regarding expropriation of land without compensation. I understand online voting on this review has been mooted which would be a big blunder to be duped into participating in such a charade. The Freedom Charter organisations are going to be helped by the big guns from London and Washington to whom they are answerable to rig the outcomes in favour of Britain and the USA because South Africa’s constitution works for them and not for the African people.

I argue in this post that South Africa’s constitution is illegitimate and participating in the Constitutional Review Committee hearings without exercising caution would be tantamount to legitimising an illegitimate constitution.

The second President of the PAC, Zeph Mothopeng who was jailed thrice in his lifetime (twice on Robben Island) for his involvement in South Africa’s struggle for liberation and PAC founding member and the longest serving political prisoner on Robben Island in modern history, Jafta Masemola rejected participation in the imperialist sponsored negotiations which were initiated in secret between some ANC leaders and representatives of the apartheid government which resulted in this illegitimate constitution.

After the deaths of Masemola and Mothopeng in April and October 1990 respectively, the PAC, under the leadership of the late Mlamli Makwetu, Dikgang Moseneke, Patricia De Lille and others jumped on the negotiations bandwagon because there were reports that they were forced to participate by the Front-line states. Masemola was assassinated and we believe Mothopeng was poisoned to clear the way for the negotiations to go on.

In an assassination we must look at who benefited and the motive. ANC leaders, London and Washington benefited from the assassinations of Masemola and Mothopeng. In my other article I addressed the motive and would like to skip it in this post. Muntu Myeza of Azapo who was close to Masemola was also killed in a mysterious car accident.

The Azanian People’s Organisation (Azapo), the torchbearers of the Black Consciousness Movement of martyrs Steve Biko and Onkgopotse Tiro rejected participation in those imperialist sponsored negotiations and boycotted the 1994 elections. Their hand could not be forced by the Front-line states.

Egoistic and egotistic ANC leaders could not be bothered by Mothopeng’s and Masemola’s rejection of the imperialist sponsored negotiations, neither did they give two hoots about Azapo’s rejection of the negotiations and ultimate boycott of the 1994 elections. Now they want everybody to take part in the Constitutional Review Committee hearings of an illegitimate constitution when they were told that the way they went about building a new South Africa was flawed.

How is a country’s constitution supposed to be drafted? It is drafted by a constituent assembly and ratified through a referendum. This did not happen in South Africa. A readymade constitution was forced on us and we are now expected to take part in its amendment. Why should we take part in reviewing a section of an illegitimate constitution when we do not agree with the entire constitution based on the grounds delineated in this post?

For them to return the African people’s land to its rightful owners we don’t need an amendment of one section of an illegitimate constitution, the entire constitution must be drafted from scratch.

WHO SHOULD DO PROGRAMMING FOR THE SABC AND WHAT IS THE ROLE OF A PUBLIC BROADCASTER?

There are imminent constitutional review committee hearings on Section 25 of South Africa’s constitution regarding the expropriation of land without compensation. The ANC government does not respect its constituency the way the apartheid government respected its constituency. I’ve already written in my previous posts that when HF Verwoerd wanted to withdraw from the Commonwealth, he called for a referendum in 1961 which excluded us. In 1992 when the National Party wanted to put the ANC in office, FW De Klerk called for a referendum which also excluded us. The ANC has not called for a referendum on anything because they don’t respect us and because they take orders from London and Washington.

I am not sure if SABC radio and television are doing their job sufficiently to inform the people of South Africa about democracy, their rights and these constitutional review hearings considering that a recent survey revealed that half of the population of South Africa knows nothing about the constitution. Not only do they know nothing about the constitution but also don’t know South Africa has a constitution.

In other countries, programming is done by broadcasters. A broadcaster is an organisation that transmits a programme or is someone who gives talks or takes part in interviews and discussions on radio or television programmes.

At the SABC it is management that is responsible for programming. There is a problem with this type of arrangement because some of those in management don’t necessarily have broadcasting expertise and experience. That is why Sakina Kamwendo remonstrated when she was told the format of the 0.600hrs – 09.00hrs weekdays show she was presenting was going to be changed. Because she remonstrated, she was taken off air by management thirty minutes before her last three-hour show ended and management played music for the remainder of the time.

A few weeks later, head of news Nada Wotshela said in a television interview that Sakina Kamwendo was taken off air because she veered off the script. Following the removal of Sakina Kamwendo halfway through the last hour of her last show, SABC management promised to come back to us the listeners to explain as Sakina said during her remonstrations that management should explain to us the listeners. This was towards the end of March and we are now in the middle of May and no explanation is forth coming. SABC management messed up SAFM radio programming big time. Obviously theirs is a top down approach which smacks of political interference.

I would like to share an instructive response a Canadian civil society organisation, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting sent to that country’s parliamentary Standing Committee on Heritage to make a submission when it was invited to make a presentation on the Role of the Public Broadcaster in the 21st Century during the on-going investigation into the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

Re: Role of the Public Broadcaster in the 21st Century

FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting submits the attached brief in response to the Committee’s invitation. We look forward to appearing as a witness during the course of the CBC investigation.

Executive Summary

In contrast with private radio and TV, delivering audiences to advertisers and wrapping Canadian ads around foreign programs, the public broadcaster’s mission is to illuminate Canada for Canadians. CBC is not a ‘company’, but rather an essential public service. Its Board should be chosen at arm’s length from patronage among the best and brightest Canadians, and that Board should have the authority to hire and, if necessary, fire its CEO. Local programming is at risk among all broadcasters. CBC’s priority should be to “reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions”. CBC Radio One should establish a programming presence in large centres where it currently has none. Canada should finance public broadcasting at least as well as other western democracies. CBC’s Board should be invited to develop a business plan to address its regional responsibilities and wean itself from its dependence upon television advertising. To fund that plan, Parliament should increase CBC’s budget progressively by annual increments of $100 million over the next five years, and consider this as an investment in up-dating Canada’s social infrastructure amounting to 15¢ per Canadian per day.

In South Africa we don’t have organisations such as Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and even if we had them, the ANC dominated parliament would not invite them.

Tags
Show More

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Close
Close
%d bloggers like this: