Marxist Propaganda about White Land Ownership in South Africa

Marxist Propaganda about White Land Ownership in South Africa, PDF format

Karl Marx said: “The first battlefield is the re-writing of history.”  This is an age when, very rapidly, the truth about the past is being “revised” by Marxists, liberals and others, and unless this wicked revisionism is resisted, people will be thoroughly indoctrinated with lies and myths presented as “truth”.  Already vast damage has been done, and even many who lived through more recent historical events have been so well indoctrinated, and conditioned to think along the “party” line, that they actually believe the lies and myths they have been fed.  Very few people think critically anymore.  They do not even know how to do so.  They simply swallow whatever they are told by their Red, almost-Red, and religious-Red heroes and masters.

The purpose of these articles is to counter the deliberate re-writing of history with those stubborn things called facts, and that wonderful thing called truth.  “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

  In his State of the Nation address to parliament in February 2012, South African President Jacob Zuma spoke about the fact that the ruling African National Congress’ (ANC’s) “land reform programme” (by which 30% of white-owned land was to be transferred to black farmers) was not working, and that the principle of “willing seller/willing buyer” should therefore be “reviewed”.  Although the ANC came to power in 1994, he claimed that by 2012 only 8% of the land belonging to white farmers had been transferred to black owners.  And he added: “The year 2013 will mark the centenary of the Natives Land Act of 1913, which took away 87% of the land from the African people.” [1]

  Aside from the fact that “transferring” land from whites to blacks, merely to “correct” what are falsely termed “historical imbalances”, is part of the Marxist agenda of radical social “transformation” and is a wicked thing in itself, these statements were factually incorrect. 

  Note how Zuma referred to blacks as “Africans.”  His clear implication was that white South Africans and others are not Africans; that only blacks can be properly termed “Africans”.  This is a falsehood, but one which has often been trotted out by black South Africans, their purpose being to constantly enforce the lie that white South Africans are nothing but “settlers”, invaders, not true Africans.  This despite the fact that white South Africans have been living in South Africa since the 17th century, and are as much entitled to being called Africans as any black person. 

  Note also that Zuma implied that all of South Africa had once belonged to blacks, until the whites supposedly stole 87% of the land from them.

 

  In his response to the presidential speech, Dr Pieter Mulder, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the leader of the Freedom Front Plus, a conservative Afrikaner political party, boldly challenged the accuracy of what Zuma had said, and in doing so stirred up a vicious hornet’s nest – even though what he said was absolutely correct.  But the ruling ANC, comprised as it is of black racists, black and white Communists and Communist supporters, and white liberals – was spitting mad as a result.  So were leftists and liberals in the opposition Democratic Alliance, who, given the opportunity to take a stand on the side of factual history, chose rather to side with the ANC and attack Mulder.

  The reason for Dr Mulder being the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, despite being leader of an opposition party in parliament, was because Zuma gave him the post as a way of giving out that he was “inclusive” and accommodating to whites and to opposition parties.  And Mulder accepted the post in the hope of being able to do some good from that position.

  It is well worth reading those parts of his excellent speech which stirred up such racist vitriol, and then examining them in the light of historical reality.  This is what he said:

 

  “But in the same week the president repeated the statement that the ‘willing buyer-willing seller option has not been the best way to address the land restitution question.’  In plain language it means that the government believes in the nationalisation of agricultural land….

  “Anybody who has anything to do with the redistribution of land points out that the problem does not lie with the willing buyer-willing seller principle.  The problem is the disastrous way in which land redistribution is being implemented.  On my desk there are numerous letters of white commercial farmers who had offered their land to the department but have not received any response.  Numerous letters from commercial farmers who had concluded purchasing contracts with the department and after three years they go bankrupt because the department does not pay out their money.

  “The president quotes in his address the Department of Rural Development’s figures on land reform.  According to that, white people possessed 87% of the land and the government had reached only 8% of its 30% target.  I seriously differ from these figures.  As I do seriously differ with the statement that white people had stolen all their land.

  “Land is a very emotional issue which has led to numerous wars.  The president asks for a national dialogue about this issue.  Such a discussion cannot be undertaken with propaganda facts, twisted history and emotional slogans….

  “The ANC readily speaks of ‘Black people in general and Africans in particular.’  Sir, Africans in particular never in the past lived in the whole of South Africa.  The Bantu-speaking people moved from the equator down while the white people moved from the Cape up to meet each other at the Kei River.  There is sufficient proof that there were no Bantu-speaking people in the Western Cape and North-western Cape.  These parts form 40% of South Africa’s land surface.

  “There are also differences of opinion about the influence of the Difaqane on land ownership.  Read the diaries of the Voortrekkers about what they found when they moved into the interior.

  “How does the Department calculate the 8%?  There isn’t a completed land audit against which we could correlate these facts.

  “What does the ANC mean by 30% land in the hands of black people?  Does it include state land and urban land?  It is accepted that the State owns about 25% of the total land surface.  State land certainly does not count as white land.  25% State lands should then be added to the 8%.  What about the Ingomyana Trust land of more than 2.8 million hectares of the Zulu king?  Where is this and all the other communal land added?  Mr [Cyril] Ramaphosa and Minister Tokyo Sexwale recently bought a number of farms from white farmers.  My source in Vryburg says that a company of Minister Sexwale recently bought 30 farms in that area.  This also has to be added to the 8%.  In the Karoo and Kalahari huge farms are available.  Why does the Department not buy some of that land to reach their 30% quicker?  These semi-desert lands are however added to the 87% propaganda percentage as white land.

  “The development Bank calculated in 2001 that 44% of the land belongs to whites, 20% to blacks, 9% to brown people and 1% to Asians.

  “The way in which the Department has calculated the 30% and 8% figures creates the impression that they are setting themselves up to fail.

  “I said land is an emotional issue – but I experience good will and a preparedness with commercial farmers to address the issues.  Propaganda figures and emotional slogans will not bring us to answers.  Realistic debates with real figures however will.

  “The size of arable land under production dropped by 30% from 1994 [when the ANC came to power] up to 2009.  Failed land reform, where 9 out of 10 farms are not successful, played an important role in this.  Farmers now have to produce more food on less land for South Africa’s population of 50 million.

  “I agree when Minister Nkwinti says it does not help to merely chase after hectares.  If that land does not produce food, we will have famine very shortly and then people will be running in the streets as they did recently in Mozambique when bread prices increased due to shortages.

  “In 2000 Zimbabwean farmers produced 2 million tonnes of maize.  Last year, following land reforms they produced only 900 thousand tonnes.  In 2000 Zimbabwe had 250 thousand tonnes of grain, last year they only had 10 thousand tonnes.  It is not the result of drought.  In the same period, Zambia grew to where it has started exporting maize.

  “I want to repeat a quote which I used in the Cabinet Lekgotla.  Mondli Makhanya wrote in the Sunday Times (28/2/2010):

 ‘…we are wasting valuable time and energy trying to restore people to their peasant ways.  Ordinary South Africans either do not want land or just do not have the capacity to work it.  They want to go to cities and work in the modern economy…. Large-scale, highly mechanised commercial farming is now the way of the world.  You cannot turn the clock back four decades.  That is just the reality.  Furthermore, the young people would, as has happened elsewhere, have simply upped and headed for the towns and cities.  Yet we continue to nurse the notion that we can reverse the inevitable march to an urban future.  We keep wanting to fight the logic of large scale commercial farming…. The money and energy that is spent on getting peasants back into subsistence (farming) would be better used to create a strong class of black commercial farmers who actually do farm for commercial rather than sentimental reasons.’

  “I dream of white and black commercial farmers who do not have to go to [the rest of] Africa for opportunities.  The children who were born in 1994 are 18 years old this year and can vote.  They only know an ANC government.  There is no reason why such a child should not be able to buy a farm or obtain a bursary, just because he/she is white.  Yet this is still happening.”[2]