The propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints for changing Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution (6)

Full title: The propagandists arguments, opinions and viewpoints for changing Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution to make land redistribution without compensation possible. Part 2: Age-old injustice and discriminative White political and socio-economic system (6)
Gabriel P Louw
iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093
Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).
Corresponding Author:
Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PUCHE), DPhil (PUCHE), PhD (NWU)
Email: profgplouw@gmail.com
Keywords: age-old injustice, arguments, constitution, discrimination, injustice, land redistribution, opinions, political and socio-economic system, propagandists, viewpoints, without compensation
Ensovoort, volume 40 (2019), number 2: 4

1. Background

1.1. Introduction

“In a world deluged by irrelevant information,” writes Yuval Noah Harari, “clarity is power.”¹
When a writer accepts the responsibility to record the political histories of persons or groups, objectivity, honesty and dedication to these persons’ and groups’ interests and courses, are absolute pre-requirements. He/she must gather relevant information at all times to give clarity. Existential observing of their past and present behavior, planning, thinking and action are the only paths to get entrance into these persons’ and groups’ mindsets and to “reprint” in writing their “assumed” cognitions of their past, present and future. The study of the antagonists and propagandists arguments, opinions and viewpoints on the subject of land expropriation without compensation, and the politics surrounding it, are immense challenges. Prominent here are the need to align opposing thinking, planning and action on the land matter, bringing us to a kind of finality to reach conclusions and to be able to make a dictum. The presence of two kinds of evidence, completely opposing each other, is evident here: facts and truths versus lies and myths. If the researcher fails to make clear what is truly fact and truth and thus to erase from the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists or the propagandists lies and myths, a matter such as true land ownership becomes contaminated and ends in false claims.^1,2
The intention with this research is to offer firstly the antagonists the opportunity to present their arguments, opinions and viewpoints (see Articles 3 and 4) as to why land expropriation is not acceptable, and thus that the land ownership at present with the Whites as the majority owners must continue. However, the propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints offered so far (see Article 5) demonstrate that the antagonists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints, as offered in Articles 3 and 4, are many times in terms of the historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari’s prescription of only true information and clarity to be able to gain empowerment, are in fact falsities.^1,2
In this article (Number 6), the antagonists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints will further be tested in terms of the requirements prescribed to be fact and truth, and thus to be relevant information which is powerful or not, as measured in terms of the counter arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the propagandists.
How much a researcher/writer is trying to penetrate the mindsets of other persons, to be able to report on their internal, deeper thoughts, remains a personal “revelation”, and an escaping ideal forever for the researcher/writer. What energies motivate and drive the individual in his/her daily life, is mostly a black secret he/she frequently fails to understand and to describe. This and the previous Article 5 (as well as in articles 3 and 4 with the focus upon the antagonists), reflects pertinently upon the propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints on their reasons to activate so-called “land grabbing”. This forces the writer to note and to report primarily upon the negativities experienced during their political history by the propagandists, in order to have internalised and formed their mindsets, activating their hope for a better future which has developed with time. In the creation and internalisation of this mindset, religion has undoubtedly played a prominent part in South Africa from 1652 with the advent of Christianity. In reference to our political history, the all-encompassing dominant role which Christianity plays in the country needs to be highlighted – not only to drive specific behavior, but to provide certain hope and planning in times of suffering and crisis, notwithstanding the short or the long term.^3-7
Since Christianity was accepted long ago by the Blacks to make them today the majority of Christians in South Africa, with strong religious empowerment as well as devotion, they started not only to believe that their Christian God (the same God as the Whites’ Christian God) would bring a long term salvation for a life in the Hereafter, but also to believe, right or wrong, in a short term earthly salvation through him and Christianity. The Blacks’ devoted worship of God and his assumed love for them, bound over many years into their earthly salvation through constructive politics, gave them hope for the eradication of their immense suppression and exploitation by Whites. However, there is little evidence that an anointed outcome reached them after “White” Christianity came into their lives: it became a White Christianity versus a Black Christianity, seemingly steering the Christian God’s love or hate in a certain direction. The Blacks sincere religious hope for an “earthly salvation” was crushed in 1910 with the founding of the Union. Hope and religion can become outright failures when the individual believer has no control or say over it. This makes the experience of a relationship between religion and politics, as well as a “God-intervention and interference” with politics (and thus an afterlife salvation versus an earthly salvation), very doubtfuly. For many Blacks this was and still is undoubtedly the experience.^1-3,5,7-12
In the late 1970s there was renewed hope of a better political dispensation for Blacks, specifically with the NP regime’s revision of the Constitution, and thus the flickering of the beginning at last of an “earthly salvation” through a “God’s intervention and interference and thus for them to at last be unchained from “Black slavery” in South Africa.^5,13 Boot-Siertsema and Boot¹³ write in 1982 with great enthusiasm about that late 1970s seemingly positive political non-racial development inside the NP regime with a kind of God’s “hand” present, as follows^13:394:

Wij moeten aanvaarden dat de nieuwe grondwetsherziening definitief een eind zal maken aan het exclusieve concept van een Blank Zuid-Afrika. Inplaats van de traditionele stijl van politiek paternalisme, zal er een nieuwe stijl ontstaan van consultatie, onderhandelen en consensus tussen gelijkwaardige partijen. Het toepassen van deze nieuwe stijl zal een zware tol eisen van het geduld en de tact van de Afrikaner. Inplaats van zelfbescherming, die tot dusver door de wet en door het ingrijpen van de staat werd verleend, aanvaarden wij dat ons bestaan in de toekomst veel minder zeker zal zijn en zelfs risico’s met zich mee zal brengen. Er zal veel meer gaan afhangen van eigen inzet en bekwaamheid. Hieruit spreekt een bereidheid tot persoonlijke offers van de zijde van de regering, waarin idealisme en realisme hand in hand gaan, een bereidheid zich tot het uiterste in te spannen voor een nieuwe bedéling voor Blank en Zwart waarin beiden kunnen overleven, en een bereidheid om daarbij risico’s te nemen die ook zij in Gods hand geeft.

But South Africa’s politics failed the hopes of positivists like Boot-Siertsema and Boot, and of course many Christian Blacks in the presence of their Christian God. In the early1980s there was nothing positive in the post for the Blacks: their politics were still run extremely by the Whites without consultation, negotiation and consensus with them on their immediate or long term socio-economic and political interests. Also was there not a single drop of White offering to the impoverished Blacks to help and uplift them, like the transfer of White land and wealth to uplift their poverty, inequality, unemployment and landlessness. Most of all, Apartheid was further, after the 1980s, practiced in its extreme form. Hope and the Christian religion did not, it seems, work for the Blacks to better their socio-economics. All that seems to play out in the 1980s was that the Blacks were forced, as so many other times in the past in terms of their Christian sincerity, to desperately believe again solely in God for future help against Apartheid’s wrongdoings. In 1994, with the political dispensation, this failure of the good relationship between hope and religion replays and stays on with the Blacks (propagandists) up to 2019.^5,7-9
Efforts by positivists like Boot-Siertsema and Boot¹³ to re-steer in the 1980s the Blacks with “good” Christian religion back into short term hope of an earthly escape from their immense suppression and exploitation by Whites, started to fail fast. Even the Apostle Jacob’s “heavenly help” seemed to be of no real “holy” value or impact to lessen the socio-economic and political suffering of Blacks after the 1980s. Boot-Siertsema and Boot posit^13:395:

Wij mogen niets goed praten van wat verkeerd is. Maar ten aanzien van de Zuid-Afrikaanse situatie mogen we elkaar wel wijzen op het klemmende woord van de apostel Jacobus: “Gerechtigheid groeit waar vrede is, en wie vrede zaait, zal gerechtigheid oogsten”.

For the Blacks the difference between a “White Christianity” and a “Black Christianity” wherein their Christian God it seems was and is on the side of the Whites became obvious with time. This “god-choice” of Whites above Blacks in their early lot, is still echoed today by prominent Black leaders pointing out the seeming anointment of the “White god-sweetheart” Voortrekker Gen Piet Joubert (hero of the Boers’ First War of Liberation against the British and deputy to Paul Kruger of the ZAR), to allow him and his men to murder and cut off the head of the Black nationalist Kgoši Makgoba (the leader of the clan baTlou of Makgoba), to be able to grab the Makgoba’s land. Joubert, when he received the head of Magoba as evidence of his termination, after keenly attending Sunday church, filled with great “White god-love” and a seemingly “god-selectiveness”, said to his Christian God with joyousness^14:21: “The Lord reigns, and I am his servant”.
But this “Christian capturing” did not stop in 1994 with exclusively White orientation. The post-1994 new age political empowerment – which was also many times driven through “sincere and pure Black religion”, aimed to free Blacks from the ongoing chains of Apartheid and to bring them at last an earthly salvation – changed to a Black orientation. It again held the same suppression and exploitation as the pre-1994 dispensation, although offered now in another potpourri. This time delinquent Black leaders and figures, most prominently Jacob Zuma, stand out in their wave of evangelical churches to steer South Africa to improvement.¹⁵ The emphasis, under the pre-1994 White suppression, is again “Christianity”: but this time openly “Black Christianity”, characterised by the same delinquency. Munusamy^15:16 writes: “Zuma recognises the enormous influence of religious leaders…”, and “…knows the mainstream churches played a major role in swinging public sentiment…”.
The new Black churches associated with Zuma not only drew large congregations and influenced peoples’ political thinking and action, but were indeed active in big business enterprises funding political ideologies like that of Zuma. Politics became religion and religion politics in this Christian Black movement. In post-2016, political parties become churches, and churches become political parties without any hope of distinguishing between them. Munusamy¹⁵ guides^15:16: “But the pull of these new political parties, rooted in evangelical and messianic churches with huge followings, should not be underestimated.” In this context it is important to note that Zuma shored up support from these Black churches, even continuously attending huge church gatherings. What they said and what Zuma said, were exactly the same^15:16: “The messages from the church leaders was overtly political – whipping up the radical economic transformation rhetoric and fostering antagonism against “white monopoly capital” and its supposed defenders”. Furthermore, on religious parties cum political churches and the Zuma confusion and contamination connection as cum politician cum priest therein, Munusamy reports^15:16: “The orbit of new political parties around former president Jacob Zuma is a noteworthy phenomenon …”, and^15:16: “Zuma is the nexus of this phenomenon and very far from the pope’s definition of a ‘good politician’.”
In these religious gatherings around the present so-called “Christian” empowerment of Zuma for the coming election and his undermining of the ANC (and Ramaphosa) and South Africa as a whole, are undoubtedly his many religious manipulating “Christian” cronies, like the African Transformation of Mzwanele, the SA Council of Messianic Churches in Christ, made up by the Twelve Apostles Church in Christ, the Bantu Church of Christ, the Zion Christian Church and a faction of the Shembe Church, with another Zuma fervent supporter Bishop Timothy Ngcobo of the African Freedom Revolution and the seemingly self-immolate “Buddhist monk” Mzwanele Manyi and his African Transformation Movement, writes Rumasamy¹⁵. About these priest cum politicians, with Zuma standing central, Munusamy¹⁵ posits^15:16: “We should not for a second believe that the religious leaders transfiguring into politicians here are doing so for virtuous purposes, or that having preacher men in parliament will elevate our politics.”
There is only one mass group that is going to lose again in a long awaited “god-intervention and interference” – and miss out also on a kind of “god’s anointment” — and this is the pre-1994 and the post-1994 mass of poor and landless Blacks.
For many Black propagandists there is undoubtedly today, after so many years of political suffering at the hands of Whites, and notwithstanding the Blacks’ sincerity as Christians, not much belief left of the existence of a biblical justice and peace for Blacks. It does not matter if this “Christian savior” is Black or White, and if Zuma is the big “Christian savior” and seems to be in contact with Jesus. Solutions to their problems need a non-religious approach, totally free from falsities, crookery, populism and emotion. This non-religious approach, according to the propagandists, is also applicable to the present land matter. There is only one solution to get the mass of poor and landless Blacks out of their chaos and to rectify the discrimination, and that is action and deed like legislation and the Constitution, as determined and driven by the majority. In this process, which can include various actions to uplift the poor, the expropriation of land without compensation when needed from Whites is central. The whole process needs to be free from the asking by the ANC regime and the poor Blacks, as in the past, for “Higher intervention and interference” to make it workable (besides of course Zuma’s religion politics to obtain votes for his selfish and opportunistic needs and intentions). The process has the intention of going against the religious concepts of goodness, honesty, sincerity, even so-called Christian salvation: pure political action, with all its risks, is the driver in the planning, thinking and action around land expropriation.^15-18
Many propagandists are undoubtedly today with good reason skeptical as to whether the benefits of the intended land expropriation initiative will be fully delivered. For them there are too many antagonists of the kind of the religious Piet Joubert left in South African politics, and the crooks of the Christian Zuma, all still “schizophrenically anointed” by their “Christian god-empowerment”, to be able to sabotage the poor and landless Blacks’ ownership of land and their right to be farmers. The manipulated and fraudulent 1994 political dispensation, which left the mass of Blacks in the cold to date, and wherein Black and White religious leaders of the Christian faith played a prominent role in their efforts to coax the unsatisfied and socio-economically and emotionally hurt Blacks into a Christian political acceptance (within an Afterlife salvation with its later benefits and privileges to come), is still fresh in the mindsets of the propagandists.^15-19
For the propagandists, there is a stern warning in the words of Motsoko Pheko when he says^19:10: “’Western Christian civilisation’ was, in fact, colonial terrorism”. The correct credo would be: “African Christianity is many times in fact also Black suppression which is repeated over and over”.^15,19
In addition of course are there also just too many so-called Christian inspired humanists active in present day politics, like Boot-Siertsema and Boot¹³, who still do not understand fully the cruel realities and dishonesty of South African politics, or what Yuval Noah Harari^1,2 really means when he writes^1:61: “[political] clarity is power.”
General Bantu Holomisa²⁰, MP and the President of the United Democratic Movement, is possibly the nearest to reality and a solution to approach the current land expropriation matter, totally free from religion as well as political unattached when he says^20:18:

We, the people, must take back the promise of 1994. We are not Zulu or Venda, men or women. We are not Catholic or Zionist, Indian or Coloured. We are not gay or straight, clever or stupid. For if we are, we are lost. We are South Africans. Period. Rise not to this reality and we are lost indeed.

For the ANC regime is it undoubtedly clear that the Blacks’ many, many calls over centuries to the higher power and their hope for some anointed Help from There to bring a justified South African society where poverty, inequality, unemployment and most of all landlessness are absent or limited, is wishful thinking: constructive political action, based upon own sound cognitive reasoning, thinking, planning and action, cutting out any assistance from “Up”, is the only way out. This approach is for the propagandists the only solution to the present land ownership matter. What is of further absolute importanceis: this action must now be activated. Cyril Ramaphosa is central to this issue.
The propagandists feel there is only one clear path left to them – as already done by them in Article 5 — and that is to show again with this article (Number 6) that the antagonists’ arrogant arguments, opinions and viewpoints offered in Articles 3 and 4 are all lies and myths. For the propagandists, the antagonists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints are irrelevant information, lacking any empowerment to obstruct land expropriation without compensation.

1.2. Short overview of White socio-economic and political empowerment, discrimination and domination

The propagandists’ counter arguments, opinions and viewpoints in the previous article (Number 5) against those of the antagonists (Articles 3 and 4) reflect a broad identification of the elements and role-players alleged by the propagandists to be active and/or established in the White injustice and discriminating political and socio-economic system of South Africa, coming from 1652, which led to the poverty, unemployment, inequality and landlessness of a mass of Blacks and which directly obstructed the 1994 political dispensation to better the lives of Blacks. These elements’ and role-players’ negativism, internalised into the mindsets of the broad public by the antagonists with their fake news and data, has so far blocked the change to Section 25 to expropriate land without compensation. The propagandists allege that much of the delinquent political thinking and action, characterising the antagonistic Whites mindsets are wanton cognitions created over decades through White socio-economic and political empowerment, discrimination and domination of Blacks. Examples of these wanton cognitions are for instance the antagonists’ rigid underwriting and preaching of the goodness of exclusive capitalism, their outright support for White corrupt business and financial capitalistic bullies, their exclusive underwriting of pro-Western political ideologies, their opposing of free political and economical world associations by the ANC regime, their obstruction of the introduction of inclusive/social capitalism, their anti-Black orientations in the country’s politics and their ongoing execution of White psychopathology politics. These elements and role-players as negative determinants, form part in this research of the propagandists’ presentation, to be understood and to be unmasked, to persuade the voters to give their permission for the change of Section 25 to expropriate land without compensation.^5-12
The opinion of the researcher is that only through such a comprehensive presentation of primary as well as secondary negative determinants in the case of the propagandists, in their opposing and their taking of the antagonists’ case in the present “informal court”, can the case be evaluated with justice and with balance. Indeed, a comprehensive open-door presentation was already granted to the antagonists in the previous Articles 3 and 4.

1.3. Research intentions

The research aim of this article is to evaluate and to describe in-depth and comprehensively what the propagandists believe are the hostile elements and role-players obstructing change to Section 25 to expropriate land without compensation. The drivers and needs for an immediate change to Section 25 and the awarding of the legal right to the ANC regime to expropriate land without compensation to empower the poor and landless Blacks, are for the propagandists actions required to neutralise the age-old White injustice and discriminative political and socio-economic system of South Africa, which makes the post-1994 political dispensation dysfunctional. Racial discrimination, coming from so far back as 1652, forms the basis for this negative setup.^5,7-12
The opposing by the propagandists of the antagonists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints against their changing of Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution, as well as the antagonists’ opposition to the ANC regime being able to effect land redistribution without compensation, is central to this research.
This article (Number 6) forms the final part of the two part article, entitled: “The propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints for changing Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution to be able to effect land redistribution without compensation”. The article will further describe and evaluate in-depth and comprehensively what the propagandists believe are the White injustices and discriminative elements and role-players making the post-1994 political dispensation’s political and socio-economic system of South Africa dysfunctional. It is only by such a comprehensive presentation that a reflection of the propagandists’ civil rights, to be able to change the Constitution in its present form and to effect land expropriation, can be made.
The presentation of the various elements and role-players in this article will be done in eleven subdivisions.

2. Method

The research was done by means of a literature review. This method has the aim of building a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research develops. This approach is used in modern political historical research where there is a lack of an established body of research on the ownership of South African land for the period 1652 to 2019 in South Africa. The sources include books for the period 1945 to 2018, articles between 2018 and 2019 and newspapers for the period 2017 to 2019. These sources were consulted in order to evaluate and to describe the current arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the propagandists for the change of Section 25(2)(b) of the Constitution to effect land expropriation without compensation.
The research findings are presented in narrative form.

3. Discussion

3.1. The pre-1994 White injustice and discriminating political and socio-economic system of South Africa (Continuation of Article Five)

The propagandists’ counter arguments, opinions and viewpoints against those of the antagonists (see previous Articles 3 and 4) reflect a broad identification of the elements and role-players alleged by the propagandists to be active and/or established in White injustice and the discriminating political and socio-economic system of South Africa, coming from 1652, which led to the poverty, unemployment, inequality and landlessness of masses of Blacks and which obstructed the 1994 political pispensation from bettering the lives of Blacks. These elements and role-players began to be identified and described in depth already in Article 5, entitled: “The propagandists arguments, opinions and viewpoints for changing Section 25 (2)(b) of the South African Constitution to effect land-redistribution without compensation: Part One” and will be continued in this article.
The abovementioned as well as many other secondary determinants form part of the focus in this research of the propagandists’ presentation. The immediate intention is to unmask, to analyse and to describe all of these negative determinants, in order to make it better understood by the general public and to persuade the voters to give their permission for the changing of Section 25 to effect land expropriation without compensation. The opinion of the researcher is that only through such a comprehensive presentation of primary as well as secondary determinants, can the case of the propagandists, in their opposition of the antagonists’ case in the present “informal court”, be evaluated with justice and with balance.

3.2. Myths, lies and fables fabricated by the antagonists to obstruct the intended land expropriation (Continuation of Article Five)

The propagandists postulate that the antagonists have mastered the ability to turn myths, lies and fables into facts and truths in the mindsets of the general public, through their constant attacks upon the government’s genuine efforts to assure political stability in the country in terms of their planned land transformation. Prominent for the propagandists are the antagonists’ constant misuse of the public media to nationally and internationally falsely portray the ANC regime as radical and Marxist driven, and as a revolutionary party with the sole intention of nationalising all private property and assets. A further untruth for the propagandists is the publically false reflection by the antagonists of an overall hostility by the ANC and Blacks against the Whites and a rejection by the ANC and the Blacks of Whites as indigenous South Africans. Constructive and positive efforts by the ANC to better the relationship between Blacks and Whites are denounced by the antagonists and mostly cold shouldered. For the propagandists in this continuing creation of conflict, is the destructive behavior of the so-called rescuers and saviors of the Afrikaners/Whites with their organised wanton, fake and false news. Many of these so-called rescuers and saviors’ histories reflect an adverse political setup of racism and the focused obstruction of Black rule since 1994.^5-7,21-27

3.2.1. Is Cyril Ramaphosa a White land grabber and an anti-White collaborator?

A point of strong criticism against the antagonists and their lack of understanding of the post-1994 South African politics is for the propagandists their accusing without proof of Cyril Ramaphosa to be a Zuma collaborator in state capture and in the country’s mismanagement during the Zuma regime.
In this context the antagonists portray him specifically as a politician who is going to bring further misery to South Africans in general and to Whites specifically with his so-called “all-out land grabbing approach”. The antagonists accuse him to be a passive ANC member and later as vice-president as a primary collaborator in Jacob Zuma’s many wrongdoings. Then there is also the criticism that Ramaphosa is allegedly influenced and steered by the politically uncontrolled Julius Malema in his decision making, especially on the land issue, making Ramaphosa a political risk par excellence.^28-36

3.2.1.1. The political integrity of Cyril Ramaphosa in perspective

Looking comprehensively at the political literature, the critics of Ramaphosa are numerous. But, after scrutinising these criticisms, is it also clear that much of the literature is activated by antagonists, emotional and flooded with false allegations, as well as arguments, opinions and views which are lacking any evidence or fact. There are many superficial “statements” or vague “generalisations” compiled by the antagonists, questioning Ramaphosa’s so-called “political intentions and actions”, showing the antagonists’ lack of evidence. When these political (and sometimes personal) “statements” and “generalisations” are further analysed, they show malicious intent against him as a person, which would not be tolerated if he was just a ordinary citizen and could activate slander and libel actions against these false accusations. But the fact that he is in the middle of the ANC’s politics and is the President of South Africa – both positions which activate political controversy and the pouring down of crude and rugged political allegations and acts by his direct and indirect political opposition – leaves him in an invidious position where he cannot really can defend himself. In the present politics of the country, the antagonists get away with extreme false allegations and delinquent actions against him, making the lies and myths of the antagonists look like truths.^28-36
Firstly, it is clear that the antagonists are misleading for politically opportunistic and malicious reasons the public upon the primary aims of Ramaphosa’s future for South Africa. Prominent in this malicious action is his and the ANC regime’s intended land expropriation without compensation. The propagandists maintain that there is a totally “stretche truth” around this matter, in order to activate fear with the individual White that his/her property and assets are going to be confiscated outright if Article 25 of the Constitution is amended and if the ANC wins the 2019 election with a mandate to effect expropriation. Many “political tails” are added to statements by him or his ministers and other officials on the land issue. The antagonists frequently misrepresent in this context for opportunistic and malicious politics, for instance, Julius Malema’s foolish rhetoric upon nationalisation, which is totally unrelated to the ANC’s policy of land- and assets-ownership, as part and parcel of Ramaphosa’s utterances. Prominent in this situation are the various antagonistic organisations and the Afrikaanse media reflecting Ramaphosa as a revolutionary and a political danger for the Whites regarding their land ownership and personal lives. Critical and in-depth evaluations of Ramaphosa’s speeches and writings show these kinds of political action in public by the antagonists as false, and as said, personal and political attacks upon him.^3,28-36
But the attack on his integrity as President is not driven alone by the antagonists coming mostly from the White sector, but is also coming from two other intertwined forces: ethnicity differences and conflict inside the Black population, and internal conflicting ANC politics. With reference here to the “classification” of Black population, it is important that the well-coined term “Black/Blacks” has became associated with the existence of one “South African Black Nation”, which is assumed to represent one single cultural, economic, political orientation and unity. This is untrue: “South African Blacks” consist of at least eleven tribes, and although their communal fighting of Apartheid and White suppression united them, these tribes stay encircled by their own uniqueness and foundations. Separateness between the various tribes became gradually stronger after 1994, with the ousting of the overwhelming politics of the nationalist Afrikaners which previously had forced all Blacks into one laager. The main and strongest role-players in the so-called “Black Nation” were in the past and are still at present the Zulus and the Xhosas. Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki were Xhosas and Jacob Zuma a Zulu. Hereto are ex-president Mthlanthe associated with the Tswanas and Cyril Ramaphosa with the Vendas. Although Mthlanthe showed himself to be a president of excellence, his reign was cut short by the ANC due to his non-Xhosa and non-Zulu identity and the Zulu overtaking of the ANC party under Jacob Zuma. Ramaphosa is now, as was Mothlanthe, in the same Zulu and Xhosa process of being politically gobbled up. Inside this “Black Nation”, disturbed by delinquent ethnicity and the ANC heartland overrun by the Zulus and Xhosas, Ramaphosa’s ousting and ongoing opposition by the crook Zuma and his cronies, is prominent. In the present unstable ANC politics, the nearly 50% Zuma-faction of the ANC-NEC, is the cause of vicious and malicious fighting, as bad as that by the antagonists. The continuation of Ramaphosa’s leadership of the ANC party and his Presidency is strongly contested.^28-39
Given that the focus of this research is upon the intention to redistribute so-called White land to a mass of landless and poor Blacks, representing all eleven of the Black tribes, the political integrity of Cyril Ramaphosa as leader of the ANC, as well as the State of South Africa, must first be place in perspective, especially because he as a person who as a politician is constantly under attack by the antagonists. On the other side stands his duty to assure political and socio-economic stability for the country, within these unjust attacks.
It is important here to pinpoint how Ramaphosa’s speeches and writings upon the matter of land expropriation became “enlarged” upon and “coloured in” by the antagonists and other opponents, the precise moment that he moved away from the exclusive future upkeep and guarantee of the present White land ownership (and seeming White richness) and his intended limiting of the exclusive shielding of the White farmers in the future from the competition of Black farmers. It is also important to note how his vague intention of the introduction of inclusive capitalism, which has successfully supported and driven as many as 32 000 commercial White farmers now for nearly a century in South Africa, was suddenly called Communism, nationalisation and land grabbing by the antagonists!^40-46

3.2.1.2. Cyril Ramaphosa’s speeches and remarks upon land reform in perspective

Firstly, land ownership and the forced need to relocate mass land to Blacks, is not a new concept in Ramaphosa’s mind (or that of the ANC elite). Indeed, the discontent around the insufficient addressing of the land issue already in 1994 has arisen many times since 1994 in the speech of ANC leaders. More recently, in 2016, it was prominently forced to the foreground by the rhetoric of the Jacob Zuma and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma gang, which aimed with utmost political opportunism to keep Jacob Zuma in the presidency, so as to force to the foreground the land transformation matter under the banner of land expropriation without compensation. Central to the issue of land transformation implementation stands the Constitution and its shortcomings to allow land transformation unhindered.^28-36
The imbalanced possession of a mass of land by Whites in South Africa was indirectly referred to in 1994 by Ramaphosa in an interview with the journalist Kaizer Nyatsumba³⁵ of The Star, when he clearly voiced his disagreement with certain outcomes of the 1994 dispensation which had negated the Blacks’ rights and privileges. Prominent in this was his reference to strategies to be developed and to be followed for corrections in this concern. But, according to the propagandists, this early so-called inclination of Ramaphosa to activate land reform so as to install balanced Black land ownership, was then (and is still today) free from extreme revolutionary intentions and changes, like the outright grabbing of every White farmer’s land as falsely alluded to by the antagonists to be Ramaphosa’s intentions.^28-36
The antagonists maintain that there are radicals inside the ANC elite (alleged to function within Ramaphosa’s intimate party circle and thus actively seeming to have his knowledge and permission) who propagate that all White land should be or will be expropriated without compensation. Prominent here are the alleged remarks by some spokespersons of the ANC, like Lamola⁵⁵, Kodwa⁴⁷ and Mokono⁵². The antagonists focus here is that the ANC’s intended “weighted compensation” of redistributed farms must only be seen as the short-term start-up of the process of land expropriation, to reach at the end full-scale land expropriation without compensation as the ultimate goal. This allegation is for the propagandists wantonly used by the antagonists to illustrate the so-called coming of land nationalisation primarily to create fear within the general public and is indeed for the propagandists a clear example of the constant manipulation of the truth by the antagonists. The various remarks of the abovementioned three spokespersons of the ANC bear the propagandists out and are in line with the ANC Lekgotla in December 2017, which adopted only a basic decision to speed up land expropriation without compensation. The propagandists contend that Lamola⁵⁵, Kodwa⁴⁷ and Mokono⁵² never referred to “utmost expropriation” of all land/property inside a nationalising model, neither did the ANC Lekgotla in December 2017 do so. In addition, there was no comprehensive plan put on the table at the Lekgotla by the ANC of land expropriation. The focus was only that certain categories of land/property be ear-marked in the future for expropriation without compensation.^47–57
In this context of a future land expropriation, Ramaphosa personally gives a further guideline when he says^55:4: “…that the state’s immediate intention is to target land from state-owned enterprises and private sector businesses that have large tracts of unused land – such as forestry giants Sappi and Mondi, and where there are already at present a load of uncompleted land claims.”
In this context, the propagandists also make it clear that the December 2017 Lekgotla of the ANC regime has not set the sights on various other traditional financial, legal and statutory institutions as alleged many times by some antagonists.^{49,52,55,57,58}
Taking into account what Ramaphosa really said and meant upon land expropriation, it is undoubtedly far from what is so far reflected by the antagonists. The true profile on Ramaphosa’s land expropriation is clearly and unchangeably formulated by Dr. Nick Koornhof⁵⁹, an ANC MP and member of the Constitutional Revising Committee of the ANC, when he writes^59:17:

Nêrens lui die ANC se besluit dat wit boere se grond gevat moet word nie! Nêrens word daar gesê produktiewe plase moet geteiken word nie! Die ANC het daarom die EFF se mosie in die parlement gewysig.

With regard to the ANC’s recently launched review of the Constitution which could allow for land expropriation without compensation, it must be pointed out that this review outcome is only one (possibly a last) option of many under consideration, writes Derby^60:2.
For the ANC regime, their basic principle of land reform will be premised upon three elements, namely security of tenure, land restitution and land redistribution. Ramaphosa’s land redistribution plan (with or without compensation), according to the propagandists, fully guarantees that the outcome of expropriation without or with compensation will not hurt the economy in the short or long term and will also not hurt foreign investments.^59-61
Bruce⁶² writes on the possible post outcomes of land expropriation as follows^62:16:

Labour tenants who have been on farms for decades will get their land. Rural families living under traditional leadership in the former Transkei and rural KwaZulu-Natal could get title. The state has a lot of land to make available to new farmers. Near the cities, where pressure for land is huge, the answer is to turn dreadful living conditions into a giant economic opportunity.
People pressing for land near their work places in or nearby urban centres will be given serviced plots upon which to build their own homes.

The most extreme impact upon South Africa’s politics and economics that Ramaphosa’s expropriation can bring is well researched and described by Haffajee⁵⁰. Three categories without real negative impact upon the economy or to influence negatively the international status of the country are identified, making the whole process clearly free from the dangerous “sting of the scorpion”. This final profile is well shielded by the antagonists from the ordinary citizens’ attention, so as to opportunistic not undermine their efforts to incite resistance to the planned democratic land reform approach of Ramaphosa.⁵⁰
Haffajee⁵⁰ writes^50:8:

The compromise gaining ground is to enhance the national expropriation laws (which are before parliament) to allow for the expropriation of certain categories of land without having to engineer an amendment to the property clauses of the Constitution.
These categories are abandoned buildings, unutilised land, commercial property held unproductively and purely for speculative purposes, under-utilised property owned by the state, and land farmed by labour tenants with an absentee titleholder.

Firstly, the above identified properties are so-called “passive properties”, held in reserve by rich owners, undoubtedly mostly Whites, for speculation and profiteering in terms of exclusive capitalism wherefrom the majority (mostly the poor and landless Blacks) is discrimitively isolated. In this context, it must be acknowledged that most of these passive properties were obtained exclusively by the rich Whites due to their favoured financial position during the more than 300 years of racial discrimination and exploitation of the poor non-Whites who not only lacked the money to buy property for speculation and profiteering, but were strictly prohibited during Great Apartheid through the Group Areas legislation to buy into better White areas’ land and property. Furthermore, much of this “passive properties/ land” was confiscated from non-Whites through the Groups Area’s legislation at ridiculously low prices to benefit Whites. This is precisely the “stealing of Black land” by Whites to which imminent Black leaders such as Pheko, Makgoba and others refer. The propagandists also note that this massive stealing of land and property was executed over centuries, phasing out most of the wrongdoing in the present day mindsets of South African people. It was only after 1994 that the attention was focused upon this whole process of injustice, which the antagonists are now trying to cover up and down play with their 1994 dispensation and Constitution as just outcomes with a duration forever in South Africa¹⁹.
Secondly, according to the propagandists, the abovementioned specific classification of properties to be expropriated is already a good indication of Ramaphosa’s sincerity to Whites and other land owners as well as White capitalists. It certainly erases the uncertainty in the mining and agricultural sectors. There is also no intention that foreign or local investors’ factories, properties or capital will be expropriated. As the poor Blacks become rich and established farmers and owners of urban land, homes, the private buying out of the land of the shrinking White population will undoubtedly follows. This latter process will clearly also be without any land grabbing of every piece of land (either for farming or home development), based upon the honest buying out of the Whites’ property at market related prices.⁵⁰
Thirdly, as stated by Haffajee⁵⁰, the above land reform plan of Ramaphosa as clear and honest, making the allegation by the antagonists that the ANC regime lacks an informative and operational land expropriation plan, null and void. Hereto there is also a clear legal detailing that there can be expropriation without compensation in certain cases, but also that realistic and just compensation is incorporated into expropriation. The propagandists show that it is impossible for the ANC regime at this stage to pinpoint precisely the scope of expropriation and how long the process will need to be applied, so as to obtain balance in equality. The propagandists note that the process of redistribution of the so-called “stolen Black land”, which was intensely activated by the Native Land Act of 1913, could not even be completed in 1994 (81 years later) by the nationalist Afrikaners themselves. To undo the present unjustified land grabbing setup in a just and orderly way, wherein more than 60% of the total South African soil belongs to Whites, illegally obtained over hundreds of years, will take time but surely not the 81 years duration of the Whites’ “land-expropriation”! Of course there are timeframes to be followed for Ramaphosa in his land redistribution, depending upon various constant changing determinants and needs of the poor and landless Blacks, as well as the state of South African and world economics, etc. But what is clear for the propagandists, is that Ramaphosa’s land redistribution plan is not going to be land grabbing as the antagonists try to profess to the public and the world. This was a bad custom and a bad habit only exclusively practiced by the pre-1994 White regimes of South Africa and will not be repeated in any way by the ANC regime.^42,50,62-64
The whole controversy around Ramaphosa’s land reform plan, which the antagonists masterly redirect with malice to be land grabbing, must be read in one of Ramaphosa’s⁶⁵ announcements^65:4: “Land expropriation without compensation is going to happen whether South Africans, US President Donald Trump and the UN General Assembly like it or not”, and: “I am going to explain it without any fear and I am going to say: ‘This is us. Take us or leave us’”.
His words to Mfeketo⁶⁷ and Collins⁶⁶ and a group of Black professionals at a September 2018 business breakfast in Pietermaritzburg were redirected by the antagonists to fits their malicious allegations of land grabbing, when he says^67:4: “Happen it shall, whether people like it or not; it is going to happen”.^65-67
The propagandists’ emphasise that he promotes land expropriation, but he never said in any way all expropriations will be outright from Whites and without compensation. His “mild” form of expropriation versus that of extremists such as Malema, and even Jacob Zuma, is excellently reflected by Hunter⁶⁸ when he reports^68:1-2: “Zuma recently released a video on Twitter in which he advocated the nationalisation of land – which is the policy of Julius Malema’s rival EFF. In contrast, Zuma’s own party stands for the expropriation of land, without compensation if necessary, so that it can be redistributed to those who were dispossessed”. The above clause “expropriation of land without compensation if necessary”, tells the story of Ramaphosa’s intention of a democratic, balanced land transformation, a process which the antagonists shield away from the public eye. This again confirms that there is not any process anticipated by Ramaphosa of nationalisation or a dramatic process focusing upon the individual White with expropriation without compensation.⁶⁸
What the antagonists ignore is Ramaphosa’s clear inclination of anti-grabbing of land when he says that the ANC regime only want an equation balance in land ownership because an alleged 87% of South Africa’s land had been given before 1994 to a minority population (Whites). It is important to note that the real context of his speech was ignored by the antagonists and needs for the propagandists to be reflected properly to the public. It reads^65:4: “We are saying that the equation has to be balanced, and because we are balanced people and we are not mad, we are going to do it in a responsible manner, but we are not going to turn away from making sure it does happen”.
It is clear that for Ramaphosa, it clearly turns around an equal and a responsible landtransfer, only applicable to “unproductive land, unused buildings”, etc. and not productive and functional White land and farming businesses. It was in this context that Donald Trump later on accepted the Ramaphosa land expropriation plan, but urged him to be more descriptive with what he intends to do. Cyril Ramaphosa is not a White land grabber as the antagonists wantonly try to portray him.⁶⁵

3.2.1.3. South Africa’s orderly democracy justifies Ramaphosa’s land expropriation

Democracy allows orderly change to rectify injustice; justice is indeed the main principle of democracy. But, notwithstanding the fact that the primary intention of democracy is to be righteous always and every moment of the day the implementation of it can take time, especially when democracy is new born to a country which had suffered for centuries under autocracy and fascism. Political, social and economical transformations ask for time and patience. Two decades have passed since South Africa became a democracy, clear shortcomings in the Constitution are coming to the foreground, forcing daring challenges to be faced and solved, like the addressing of the imbalance between the races on land ownership. The 1994 settlement on land-redistribution is, in terms of the prescription of the country’s democracy, far from a fait accompli as the antagonists try to present. In the finalising of the outstanding account of the transferring back of White land “stolen” from the Blacks, Ramaphosa is, as the official executer of it upon behalf of the ANC regime and the Nation, now unfortunately singled out as the culprit of so-called full scale aggression against Whites, which even Donald Trump believed, according to AfriForum.⁶⁵
The propagandists put it clearly that President Cyril Ramaphosa has no intention to grab functioning White private property without compensation and that his land transferring scheme is not going to target all the present land of Whites which was “stolen” from Blacks. That will be undemocratic, something he does not underwrite. Furthermore, the state’s own high potential land of millions of hectares of agricultural land, which has not been collateralised and is not productive, will become part of the intended land expropriation. There is also not any intention, like Stalin cruelly did with the privileged nobles and rich in Russia, to travel back in history to punish any White culprits for the stealing of land from Blacks: there will be no “White kulaks” to be the focus of Black or ANC revenge.^65,67,69,70
Ramaphosa, a qualified attorney by profession, has a well established mindset based upon right and wrong and has always been steered by the principles of democracy in his so-called freedom fighting politics: the concept of one-man-one-vote stands central for him without negatively influencing the rights specific to Whites. He was one of the founders of the 1994 South African democracy and one of the compilers of the Constitution. What he underwrotes in 1994 to uphold democracy he underwrites still today. The only outcome is that he believes, as the majority of Blacks also believe, that the present day Constitution must be streamlined and legal obstructions to block progress and justice must be rectified.^{37,38,65-67,69,70}
Evidence of how much Ramaphosa stresses democracy inside the ANC structures and the greater South African politics, especially regarding citizen’s rights, is his decision to make the ANC’s list of representatives for the 2019 election to Parliament far more racially representative (undoubtedly reflecting a party functioning betternow that Jacob Zuma is gone) and that the list must be consistent with each province’s demographics. Hunter⁶⁸ reports^68:1-2: “In the Western Cape there need to be more coloured people on the list because that is the constituency, and in KwaZulu-Natal because there are Indians…” Ramaphosa’s openness to democracy is also seen in his allowing of the previous presidents Thabo Mbeki, Kgalema Motlanthe and even Jacob Zuma into his advisory circle, because, as he says, they are fountains of wisdom and can make his decisions more constructive.⁶⁸

3.2.1.4. Ramaphosa’s role in Black land ownership as a “volks”-movement

The antagonists’ further postulation that the intended land expropriation is exclusively driven by the chief leaders of the ANC with Ramaphosa as the key-culprit, enabled by their extreme political empowerment to cleverly mask the manipulation of the South African politics solely to benefit Blacks, lacks insight for the propagandists. Looking closely at the real facts, the activation of the process of land expropriation is the start-up of a normal “Black volks movement” away from specific political affiliations. This is an incoming movement which Ramaphosa knows very well might be devastating if he is not steering it inside orderly democratic principles. For the propagandists it is clear that every member of the Black “volks”-movement underwrites the single motto on land ownership^66:4: “We are together”. It is not done on a populist ticket, driven by the ANC elite from their Tshwane or Cape Town headquarters. It is clear that the ANC regime’s notion of an immense incompleteness and dissatisfaction by “the people” with the 1994-2018 dispensation’s land redistribution decision and plan have a sound base. The 1994 to 2018 land reform programme cemented into the 1994 dispensation, failed to fulfill its requirements to serve the people well. Less than 15% of the poor and landless Blacks’ legitimate claims were served. This is why Ramaphosa is so well informed from as far back as 1994.^{28-36,61,66,71-75}
The propagandists’ view that the parliamentary commission’s testing of the public’s opinion upon the matter of land reform shows firstly an in-depth need for the return of Black land to its disempowered owners, and secondly that the whole process is decentralised by the ANC regime, allowing the South African people themselves to work out solutions upon future ownerships of land. It is only at the end that the whole process will be backed up by laws and a clear policy provided by the government. The ANC regime’s land transformation plan is a true tool for real transformation, to address inequality of opportunity, poverty and unemployment and not a so-called Ramaphosa “brain child” of political wrongdoing, according to the propagandists.^{32,34,71,73 71:21}
The propagandists maintain that Ramaphosa’s policy on land ownership and land expropriation and his steering of the Black “volks” movement inside this policy, adheres to the principles of the Freedom Charter, which reads specifically^71:21: “SA belongs to all who live in it, black and white”, and: “All national groups are equal before the law”. Equality was absent until 1994 in South Africa. Without land ownership and financial empowerment it is still absent in 2019 for a mass of Blacks.⁷¹

3.2.1.5. Freedom Charter as an exclusive motivator for and driver of Ramaphosa’s land reform

The abovementioned Freedom Charter’s land clause, dated 1955, reflecting upon the justified comparability of land ownership in terms of the South African race numbers and land ownership, guided by a democracy for the rights of the individual, is not the sole guidance used by Ramaphosa assuring his democratic right to effect his intended land expropriation. A further supportive guideline of the rightfulness of his programme is the ANC document on future land ownership issued in 1969 after the historic ANC Conference in Tanzania, which confirmed that the ANC was cognisant that the redistribution of land would include all race groups equally, an outcome which is now seriously lacking. Tabane⁷² writes^72:6: “It makes bold to say that the restrictions of land ownership on a racial basis shall be ended and all lands shall be open to ownership and use by all people, irrespective of race’ ’’.^72,74
It is clear from the Freedom Charter that all races can (more precisely: must) be land owners, but on the basis of equality in terms of the proportional numbers of the various racial groups. The present day South African 83% White owners versus 13% Black owners is an imbalance, representing inequality which needs rectification. It contradicts the ANC’s 1955 and 1969 decisions. For the propagandists, Thabo Mbeki’s interpretation in October 2018 that Ramaphosa is breaking the principles and guidelines of the Freedom Charter with his intended land expropriation plan is absolutely incorrect. The same can be said about the antagonists’ generalisation in this context of the Freedom Charter. As Mbeki and the antagonists see it, it is a plain reflection of the present unjust land ownership introduced in 1994.^71,72
The Freedom Charter leaves Ramaphosa no other choice but to activate land expropriation with great urgency.^71,72

3.2.1.6. Advent of a comprehensive Ramaphosa “grabbing”?

Closely related to the antagonists’ constant accusations of a comprehensive process of grabbing to come, in this context is Ngcukaitobi’s⁷⁴ argument that land redistribution goes further than just the physical handing over of White land, but that there is an emotive component as well as a further physical compensation also included in the process (a comprehensive outcome to activate expropriation created earlier by the Whites in their land grabbing of Blacks’ land), to rectify their past wrongdoings. Ngcukaitobi’s⁷⁴ postulation reads that^74:23: “… [if] the legacy is to be undone, the return of the land should be restorative of African humanity. Transactions about the ‘return’ of the land are incomplete without restoring the dignity of those from whom the land was taken,” with specific reference to dignity^74:23: “African identities, freedom, equality and political autonomy which were lost.” The antagonists maintain that an additional element of the total land grabbing and nationalising of White assets, is the further mention by Ngcukaitobi of ^74:23: “Land is not the only asset that was lost through colonial occupation. Cattle, farming implements, labour and human potential were taken away. African societies were broken up, their cultures ravaged and their identities erased”.
Ngcukaitobi’s⁷⁴ so-called “comprehensive” reparative land project goes deeper than merely the right of the so called “indigenous” Blacks to obtain ownership of their birth land and the right to stay on it and to live there. For the antagonists, this seems to be based upon masked, exclusive comprehensive Black empowerment, in order to make the South African soil and its culture exclusively Black owned and orientated, and land per se as a future point of departure, so as to steer Black politics, to the exclusion of Whites’ participation or consultation. This intention of Ngcukaitobi⁷⁴ however indirect and theoretically argued and fronted by the antagonists as a truth to come, is not in any way part of the ANC’s land expropriation. Neither is Ngcukaitobi’s⁷⁴ official part of the ANC’s elite or lawmakers, and his comments can thus not be taken seriously as the antagonists are doing. A kind of “Ngcukaitobi expropriation” is for the propagandists an outright revenge which the ANC regime is not in anyway going to allow. The ANC is viewing this as the thinking of a small radical element in its own heartland.⁷⁴
In shooting down the academic and theoretical argument of Ngcukaitobi⁷⁴ on the “total approach” of land expropriation, which is seen by the antagonists as revenge, the propagandists put it clearly that revenge or absolute reparation of the past wrongdoings by Whites is not a part of the ANC regime’s land expropriation (with or without compensation). It is important for the propagandists that the emotive can connect the past with the present, but that new and modern day lifestyles and cognitive realities already show their exclusion of their own past from their present day actions. This makes Ngcukaitobi’s⁷⁴ postulation of the need for the restoration of age-old (and many times outdated) African identities, freedoms and equalities, together with Black ideologies, which are coming specifically from those early times to a great extent, null and void. The ANC, as a modern day political party, knows very well that this “new age development” which minimised the past, impacts upon their present and future political practices. To implement it means outright inappropriate revenge upon the Whites for the ANC. It means, if implemented by them, the repeat of wanton political wrongdoings of the White rulers which they totally detested. Furthermore, it is against the principles of the Freedom Chater.⁷⁴
The comprehensive failing of revenge actions to punish all so-called culprits of Apartheid, to turn back the clock to relive the past in terms of revenge, as Ngcukaitobi⁷⁴ theoretically alludes, will not be allowed by Ramaphosa. For the propagandists this is in practice impossible through land expropriation without compensation as a vehicle.⁷⁴
Firstly, as the propagandists have already emphasised many times, is it not the intention of the ANC regime now or in the future. Secondly, our past is just too contaminated for the activation of such a process, as Makgoba¹⁴ clearly states^14:23:

Although I don’t want to turn the current fight over land reform into a free-for-all, we can not afford to ignore the seisure of land before the current cut-off date of 1913. Expropriation going back to colonial times has sentenced many generations to utter poverty and shame. Laws and practice were maintained by force of arms, leading to a system of landownership and economic development disproportionately based upon race.
However, we must recognise that going back to the colonial era raises difficult questions. What happens to white families who have long since sold land originally seised by their forebears and invested the proceeds? And what about those who bought land for the first time more recently, using big loans from the banks? If the banks lose their money, what damage does that do to the economy?
What about the land given in the 18th Century to those of our ancestors who helped the colonisers defeat other groups of African people? Who adjudicates those disputes?

The abovementioned outcomes, according to the propagandists, clearly reflect the limitations inherent to the ANC regime’s intended expropriation. It is also within this guideline that Cyril Ramaphosa is driving his land expropriation intentions. It is in this context that the propagandists’ plea that ordinary South Africans must erase from their mindset a Mugabe-Zimbabwe land grab scenario reflected by the misleading of the antagonists as an outcome on the land issue. It will not happen. The consequences are just too overwhelming and destructive for South Africa, as Derby⁶⁰, after analysis of the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe political history points out^60:2:

Our closest example of what land reform means upon a massive scale was that undertaken by Zimbabwe’s very desperate ruling elite at the turn of the century. Faced with the possible ousting by what was then an emerging, urbanised and trade union-based opposition party in the Movement for Democratic Change, they unleashed an untidy and populist land reform programme that ruined the economy, setting it back decades. But that’s not to say the elite led by former president Robert Mugabe had been leading the country towards economic prosperity in the years before the land grabs were sanctioned.

Derby⁶⁰ shows how the White elite as well the later Black elite of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe botched up Zimbabwe, plainly by their double-sided racism and foolish political thinking, planning and action. The ANC regime under Cyril Ramaphosa wants at all costs to avoid such outcomes here: the White rule from 1652 to 1994 was more than enough tragedy for him. The ANC’s land proposals and intentions are not pointing to a Zimbabwe experience in waiting for South Africa. There is another, better side to land redistribution and this is the way that the ANC regime (far from the false and outrageous allegations of the antagonists) wants to take South African farming inside the country’s total economics. In this context Derby⁶⁰ again guides^60:2:

Instead of being panicked as a nation, we should focus upon what a well implemented land reform process promises for the South African economy, which is trapped in low single digit growth territory when what is most needed is the type of growth rates experienced in East Asia over the past few decades. If reforms are done well (or nearly as well as the apartheid regime went about its reforms), it is thought that growth in Africa’s second biggest economy could move on to another plateau, one that would ensure that structural unemployment – which sits at over 26% – is finally and sustainably eroded.

The propagandists emphasise that the ANC land redistribution policy proposals of December 2017 in no way point to the Mugabe-Zimbabwe tragedy of landgrabbing, with good consensus. It is a good policy of future politics, specifically and in general, to bring about long term benefits for the individuals of South Africa.^59,60
Looking at the abovementioned reports, is it also clear that a so-called “Malema-nationalisation” is absolutely absent from Ramaphosa’s land expropriation plan, contrary to what the antagonists try to reflect.^59,60
With regard to the recent much debated 139 “White” farms which the antagonists allege are going to be “confiscated” or “nationalised” in the near future, the propagandists maintain that the present circumstances of these farms must be correctly understood and evaluated in terms of the prescribed legal process upon the transfer and pay-out of private land needed for redistribution. The reference to “confiscation” is untrue and is used by the antagonists to mislead the public. The facts are manipulated by the antagonists in order to negatively profile Ramaphosa’s presidency as well as his good intentions in the creation of a better South Africa. The truth is that the ANC regime’s land reform programme was and still is being obstructed by some White farmers who are blocking the transfer of their farms because they mostly disagree upon the final selling price. This focused “political as well as business sabotage” unnecessarily complicates the traditional “willing seller versus willing buyer” agreement for land redistribution coming from 1994. The dispute here, according to the propagandists, is purely about the constant “over-pricing” of farms. This unrealistic imbalance in value creation of their farms by the delinquent actions of some farmers has caused the government to find a justified and responsible solution. It is an unavoidable blockage which the government must overcome. For the propagandists, the constant “illegal obstruction” by White farmers in the selling of farms to the government by their misuse of the Constitution and the courts canno longer be allowed or tolerated. It is nothing less than sabotage with the prime intention to create anarchy. The propagandists note that the presence of the so-called Afrikaner/White saviours and rescuers is strongly observed in this obstruction of the government’s normal functioning to assure harmony between the races upon land ownership.^47,52,55
There is not a single fact to support the allegation of “confiscation” or “nationalisation” of White land as the antagonists allude. By going to court with test cases upon land transfers (after staying away from the courts since 1994, so as to avoid the label of autocracy, Black racism or the suppression of Whites’ rights, etc.), the government only wants at last to overcome the White farmers’ delinquent obstruction of the land redistribution programme. All that the government wants to do with the 139 farms at present is to get a legal foot to stand upon in the future, even without changes to the Constitution, so as to normalise the process of land redistribution. The propagandists emphasise that in this case it must be clear that the intention of the ANC is to undertake in the near future land redistribution within a coded legal guideline, which prescribes justified and realistic compensation.^{49,52,55,57,58}

3.2.1.7. Reviewing Ramaphosa’s new age farming system through justified land expropriation

The constant painting by the antagonists of an outright failiure in waiting for the planned new sufficient-producing Black farmers is an outright manipulation of fake facts, according to the propagandists. Rampahosa plans to introduce a totally new system of financially independent farming, based upon inclusive capitalism and the introduction of a new sufficient-producing farming system driven by specific models, varying from small scale subsistence farmers up to small scale commercial farmers and commercial middle level farmers. This farming system has the potential to also erase the present day vast debt of the majority of farmers (possible so many as 32 000 mostly White farmers) to the tune of more than R160bn to both private bankers (R129bn plus) and the Land Bank (R40bn).^26,75-79
This new planned farming policy and style of Ramaphosa’s farming sector will also erase the antagonists’ groundless postulations that if the present more or less 35 000 commercial farmers active in 2018 are increased to 70 000 farmers in the system, or that the more or less 35 000 commercial farms are each turned over to ten Black families, totally failure will follow. The antagonists clearly hang onto outdated farming models and profiles, as the only means to activate good farming, high production and food security. Evidence gathered worldwide contradicts this outdated and rigid farming model of South Africa which allows only the existence of mostly White farmers and their exclusive holding of vast areas of land under the pretext of “food security” for South Africa. The ANC’s planned new age farming system for South Africa offers hereto immense opportunities for new in-coming farmers and hasthe potential at the same time to assure food security for the country as well as the improvement of its local food production and food exports at far more affordable costs. For the propagandists, the antagonists lack insight into the ANC regime’s planned Black farming sector (and possibly also an understanding of what the concept “normal farming sector” as a whole means), while their White cultural and political exclusiveness and supremacy, cemented into their farming culture over more than 100 years, make a change in 2019 seemingly very troublesome for them.^26,77-79
The abovementioned good intentions, system and planning of the ANC regime to drive and to execute a just and balanced land redistribution are at present totally being missed by the antagonists. Their constant false allegations against the expropriation plan are being activated by their immense fear that the White farmers and business sector will lose their financial empowerment. The antagonists’ delinquent influences upon and actions within the White farming sector also create cognitive confusion in most South Africans’ mindsets about their assets and future in the country. This also throws a conflicting and misleading shadow over the intentions of the Ramaphosa regime upon economics as far it is bound to land ownership and the farming setup around so-called food security.⁶⁰
The modern day East Asian farming environment provides an excellent example to enlighten the intentions of the ANC’s intended new age farming models wherein the mass of poor and landless Blacks are central as a blue print. The East Asian farming reform and progressive management in the upliftment of millions of poor Asians, as well as their phenomenonal delivery of agricultural products by these new incoming farmers to their countries’ local as well as international markets, are not only an example of what the ANC intents to do, but an aim which they can easily reach with their planned land reform and a new generation of Black farmers. These farmers vary from small and commercial up to mega farmers within a comprehensively functioning Black farming community. Prominent examples here are the rise of masses of farmers in the East Asian nations China, Japan and South Korea.⁶⁰
In the Asian context the restructuring of agriculture, based upon land reform, erased inequalities in wealth with the enrichment of previously landless poor people after financially securing them as farmers and workers. At the same time, have these new agricultural enterprises made a turn-around with the limiting of importation of food and its costs by the constructive delivery of these new farmers to local produce. South Africa’s agricultural sector holds the potential to conservatively create a million more jobs (from farmers to labourers) in ten years time, if a good land reform scheme, supported by an increase in investments to start up production and Black farmers, is implemented.⁶⁰ With regard to the positive impact of new technology and agricultural science to increase not only agricultural production but also the better use of small pieces of land, Derby⁶⁰ writes^60:2: “With new technology, fertilisers and irrigation systems, the land that we once thought barren in rural South Africa need not be, as long as there is government and private sector support and it is well organised”.
Land expropriation as done in East Asia, always has unavoidable short term negativities, but these are mostly fast overcome with a supportive and well organised government and private sector on the one side, and an eager sector of incoming farmers on the other side. The antagonists are correct in their argument that the new age farming system of the ANC is going to require, as it did initially in the East Asian countries, sacrifices from all the roleplayers, but if these sacrifices and positive contributions are not made, anarchy, revolution and starvation are on the cards for South Africa as a whole. For the propagandists it is clear that it is going to be the antagonists, now rigidly hanging on to their under-used land and unjust privileges, as the White farmers foolishly didin Zimbabwe, who will be the greatest losers if land expropriation is not activated in 2019.⁶⁰ In this context Derby⁶⁰ writes^60:2: “But of course, as part of land reform, some farmers will find themselves having to carve up their lands; one can’t ignore our shared history. Land reform comes with great upheaval as it involves taking land from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t. To unleash it, title deeds are necessary. Landowners, white farmers, the government and our chiefs and kings need to buy in so South Africa can reap the economic rewards”.
To make an East Asian farming system sustainable and viable in South Africa, the South African State can at last, after hundreds of years of utmost suffering by millions of Blacks, of which the most are at the moment still caught in poverty, inequality and unemployment, bring about a positive change through land expropriation. For the propagandists, Ramaphosa is obliged by the country’s post-1994 democracy and the absolute need to erase the country’s tragic political past, to effect immediate and comprehensive land expropriation. Moreover, Ramaphosa has no other choice. The propagandists believe Ramaphosa’s and the ANC’s new age farming project is not only positively challenging, it is something great with which to get involved.

3.2.2. The ANC’s present day steering of the Poor Black Problem

The antagonists allege that there is presently a low success rate around the upliftment of the poor and landless Blacks through farming initiatives by the ANC regime. The antagonists allege this to be a direct failure which was activated by certain negative characteristics of the poor and landless Blacks, together with an incapable and failed ANC regime. The propagandists reject this view completely as devoid of truth. For the propagandists it is again a planned racist effort by the antagonists to obstruct the ANC’s land expropriation plan.
Regarding the specific allegations by the antagonists that the 1994 to 2018 land redistribution plan of the ANC regime failed because negative characteristics hamper the placed Black farmers, the propagandists note that the antagonists missed the fact that it takes far more than 24 years to acclimatise and to promote disadvantaged peoples, in this case specifically as farmers in a new socio-economic and political system. The fact is that the Black farmers of the 1994 to 2018 land redistribution programme all come from an extremely poor background, mostly uneducated and poorly trained in the agriculture profession and trade, which they had to overcome while at the same time having to adapt to new standards of functioning and living from which they were excluded most of their lives by the pre-1948 and later the Apartheid system. To understand the complexity of the ANC regime which their 1994 to 2018 land redistribution had to face, and the so-called low success rate of 10% to 20% accompanying it as alleged by the antagonists, it is firstly important to go back into the political history of the post-1948 successful nationalist Afrikaners, noting the problematic course of upliftment of the so-called poor Afrikaners (pre-1948) of the 1930s as farmers and their failure to obtain an immediate high success outcome.^{3,26,42,75,77-78}

3.2.2.1. The 1994 to 2018 Black farmers’ upliftment a repeat of the poor Afrikaners’ farmer rehabilitation (1830-1939)

In the problematic upliftment of the so-called poor Afrikaners (pre-1948), it clearly stands out that the failure of some of the descendants of the poor and struggling Voortrekkers (proto-Afrikaners) who had left the Cape Colony in the 1830s and who were in 1939 (more than 100 years later), still under very supportive Afrikaner/White political regimes and their racial favouring, but were still poor and unsuccessful in the economically progressive South Africa of the 1939s. Geen³ illustrates this reality well^3:74:

Looking back it may not be unduly optimistic to claim that the political division [Northern Afrikaners versus British and Cape Dutch] that began in 1836 were healed by the Union of 1910, but the decisive social consequences of the Trek – the Poor White and the Native Problems – still remain [in 1939] to be solved and affect the public weal in the Union of South Africa today.

This rigid, ongoing White poverty and its negative and obstructive role in the South African economy, especially in the farming communities in the 1930s, is also well illustrated by the Carnegie Commission’s comprehensive reporting of 1932 on the poor White. The Commission estimated that more than 300,000 South African Whites, as much as 17.5% of the total White population of South Africa, were very poor, living mostly in rural areas where 30% of them were landless squatters.^3,5
To understand the problematic situation around the present day rural Black poverty and the dilemma of the ANC regime to make a mass of poor and landless Black people immediately successful farmers and financially independent, the propagandists show the importance of noting Geen’s³ excellent reflection upon the Afrikaners’ poverty dilemma. In this study the following is highlighted³:
a) The proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners’ similar pre- and post-1930 poverty as compared to that of the pre-and post-1994 poor Blacks, and
b) the Afrikaners’ failure to be made successful farmers immediately.

3.2.2.1.1. White settlement at Kakamas on the Orange River

With reference to the well established land settlement schemes of the Union Government and the Dutch Reformed Church to immediately provide the poor Whites with smallholdings, finance and the teaching of improved farming methods and skills, Geen³ offers the following disappointing outcome of the failure of these enterprises and farmers^3:200:

The Church settlement at Kakamas on the Orange River in the north-western corner of the Cape Province has been one of the most successful rehabilitation settlements, but every such scheme is a palliative rather than a cure. Moreover, the families placed on the settlements have been carefully chosen and yet only about half of them seem to make good.

This meant that a success rate of not more than 50%, notwithstanding an immense direct and continuing programme of moral, psychological and financial support by well established Afrikaner institutes such as the DRC and the AB, as well as further immense financial support by the South African Government. This mere 50% success rate by the poor Whites, growing up in a White governmental setup which had brought immense benefit over many years to Whites only and had greatly supported the White farming establishment and enterprise, confirms that a fast implementation scheme of Black-ownership of farms as required and prescribed by the antagonists as a absolute outcome after 24 years of implementation (lacking further the immense support from a large rich Black community, which was and is totally absent in pre-and post-1994 as a result of the Blacks’ immense poverty in general), is completely impossible. This explains why the immense financial inputs by the post-1994 government, as with that of the Eastern Cape Province which the antagonists allege yielded only a success rate of an alleged 10%, cannot and must not be seen as failures inherent to the poor Blacks as persons and the ANC regime as a poor ruler.^3,42
For the propagandists the Afrikaner dilemma of the 1930s must be further used as a blue print to understand the post-2018 plans of the ANC regime with their uplifting of the mass of poor and landless Blacks within their planned land expropriation programme. What must be noted is that the 2019 dilemma around Black poverty is enormous in comparison with the small White poverty dilemma of the post 1930s. The present day official poor Blacks count is more than 29 million, while the poor Afrikaners in the 1930s counted only 300 000 (reflecting 1% or the ratio 1:100 against the Blacks’ numbers). Furthermore, this present day Black poverty is undoubtedly not due to personal shortcomings or characteristics inherent to the Black population or by their own wrongdoings, as is frequently argued by the antagonists (whose mindsets are still seemingly caught up in racism and White supremacy), but mostly a direct negative outcome of the long term planned racial discrimination against and suppression of Blacks, coming from as far back as the days of the British Cape and pre-1910s South Africa, and ending only in 1994.^3,5 Geen³ reports here, in line with the antagonists’ so-called “failed” Black farmers of post-1994. This mirrors some of the proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners own “personal shortcomings or characteristics inherent to them” (which the British authority at the Cape had described as the proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners “economical and personal backwardness”). About this unfortunate situation, which for years contaminated the Afrikaners socio-economically and personally to prolonge the poor Afrikaner problem (and which is also echoed by today’s poor Black problem), Geen³ writes^3:197:

Many factors have played a part in the origin of the poor White section of the community. The hardships and isolated life in the frontier districts of the old Cape Colony were one of the earlier causes and it is likely that many poor Whites found land and some salvation by joining the Great Trek, for as long as there was empty land to which to trek, their numbers were kept down. But before long the conditions that prevailed in the outlying districts of the Cape Colony were repeated in the states founded by the Voortrekkers on the interior plateau of southern Africa, for they did not go forth to found a new world but to continue the old one that they knew. The isolation of life in the huge area between the Orange and the Limpopo was even more marked than in the Cape of pre-Trek days. Educational facilities were often almost non-existent and there was no inducement to enterprise. Their environment tended to make many of the pioneer Boers an ignorant and indolent people, though hardy and self-reliant withal. Moreover, the time came when land was again scarce and then it was revealed that, though many had obtained much land too easily, others were landless squatters on the farms of the more well-to-do. For many years both in the Cape Colony and in the two republics the deterioration of a large section of the European population was overlooked, as a result of the preoccupation with numerous wars against the Bantu and the political strife between Boer and Briton, but before the end of the century the problem was engaging the attention of the Cape Government as well as that of President Kruger in the Transvaal, where changing economic conditions consequent upon the discovery of gold to increase the number of the poor Whites, who as a group have proved very unadaptable to new ways of life.

3.2.2.1.2. White-poverty and Whites’ obstructive attitude to manual labour

To understand in further detail the present immense poor Black situation and the most challenging political, social and economical environment the ANC regime since 1994 faces and wherein it must trys to function and rule optimally to correct unjust land ownership and its roots of unemployment, inequality and poverty, is it also important to focus upon the roots of the poor White setup of the 1930s (which was overcome with time by the then White regime) and then to reflect from this how it is also rooted in today’s poor Black problem and can be solve by the ANC regime.^3,5
Prominently intertwined with initial White poverty was the obstructive attitude of Whites against manual labor. This, on the one side, was work which most of the ordinary Blacks were forced to do, starting in the early Cape, so as to be able to make a living, and which had, willingly and unwillingly, became part of their financial and personal survival for centuries inside the White racially dominated economy. The primary intention of this economy was to create a contingent of plentiful cheap, untrained Black labor. This discrimination between types of work, so called “White work” and “Black work”, had made the Whites resistand refuse to do suitable unskilled and semi-skilled work provided by the Cape Government. In order to develop Whites and to give them insight into the need to do all types of work, so as to help them with time to overcome their joblessness and poverty. But the Whites’ negative and discriminative attitude to not do so-called “Black work”, continued for a long time and forced many Whites into the category of the 300 000 poor Whites of the 1939s. The fortunate position of Whites inside their discriminative political and economical system and the financial favouring of Whites in general through better work and business opportunities which included land ownership and farming, enriched most Whites and saved them from doing comprehensive cheap manual work. However, this had only emerged after 1948 with the DF Malan nationalist Afrikaners in government. This rich man, poor man setup, creating a master-servant relationship, was one of the prominent reasons for the maintenance of White racism and the keeping of masses of Blacks in immense poverty. This degrading situation and negative setup of landless and poor Blacks, which continues up until today, is highlighted by the propagandists as the contaminated situation which the ANC regime is now trying to rectify with their land reform to comprehensively uplift the poor and landless Blacks and which some White racists, who have been constantly obstructing Black rule since 1994, try to uphold.^3-6,10,77

3.2.2.1.3. Roman-Dutch law of inheritance and the division of land

A further contaminative factor in the creation of ongoing White poverty was the early custom and tradition of the constant division of a father’s farm among his sons. In Transvaal this habit, based upon the Roman-Dutch law of inheritance, was abolished in 1902, but was still respected for years in the more backwards rural areas all over the Union. This constant sub-division of land blocked the creation of thrifty peasantry of small landholders as in Europe, basically due to South Africa’s harsh agricultural and climatic conditions and the failure to adopt new farming models to overcome these blocks. This aggravated poverty on the growing smaller and smaller “small” farms, lead thereto that the initially White owners became White “bywoners” on the lands of progressive White farmers, or were forced to look for work at diamond diggings and in towns where they, as result of a lack of training and skills, joined the ranks of the unemployed and unemployable, mostly Blacks. Many of these poverty stricken White “bywoners” were later on forced from the land of progressive landowners by improved farming methods and the development of pastoral farming, ending up in cities as poor and landless Whites.³
The abovementioned tragic outcomes, according to the propagandists, also occurred in the Black territories (besides the fact that they lost their land and farms to White land grabbers), forcing Blacks to seek work in the White farming community as poor paid labourers, as well as labourers in urban areas and at mines, due to the unprofitability of their constantly decreasing own tribal land. This outcome matches the Whites’ differentiation of “White work’ and “Black work”. Regarding the large contingent of poor Black and landless labourers, working and living from early times upon White farms, since 1994 an immense forcing out of these Black labourers from White farms where they and the ancestors had stayed for many years took place. They became, as did the poor Whites of the 1930s, a mass of poor, unemployed and unemployable persons in towns and cities with very little say in their destiny or a real human existence.^3,5

3.2.2.1.4. White Helping Hand for only Whites

With regard to the then exclusive White Helping Hand for Whites only to uplift the poor and landless Whites in the post-1900s, Geen³ shows that the cure approach of the poor Whites by the White regimes from 1910s was the use of an exclusive focused discrimination (WEE) against non-Whites. This early outcome makes today’s AA, EE and BEE (and intended comprehensive forms of land redistribution) not only understandable but fully justified.⁵
Today’s AA, EE, BEE and intended comprehensive forms of land redistribution by the ANC regime also focus once again attention on the present day accusations by the antagonists that the ANC regime is solely a liberator with the modus operandi to destroy rather than build. They maintain that the ANC are unable to run a passable government and to greatly improve the quality of life of Black people beyond giving them handouts by the “redistribution” of the wealth of the rich Whites, like so-called “land grabbing.”
Upon examining the racially discriminative and exploitative political history of South Africa, the propagandists, quite rightly ask what were the actions of the White regimes from the 1800s up until 1994 other than to destroy rather than build, an inability to run a passable government to effectively serve the total population and an immense failure to greatly improve the quality of life of every citizen besides giving handouts only to Whites and the “redistribution” of the already limited wealth of the non-Whites to Whites?^3,5 The White Helping Hand for Whites Only initiative demonstrates this extreme process and immensity of the handouts by the White governments of the assets of Blacks to Whites.
Geen³ illustrates this inclination of White liberation and the exclusive promotion through WEE to Whites at the costs of Blacks, over centuries, but especially from the 1910s, very well when he writes^3:200:

Successive [White] governments have also adopted a white labour policy to provide the poor Whites with unskilled and semi-skilled work on the railways, roads and irrigation schemes. In 1921 there were 4,700 unskilled Europeans employed by the S.A. Railways. Seven years later the number was not far short of 16,000. They were given free housing and paid at the rate of from 3s. to 5s. a day. In this manner over a period of years, thousands have reached a higher level of subsistence. On the other hand, this policy of replacing Natives in unskilled occupations by Europeans added another disability to the Bantu. In the case of the railways it also meant that, contrary to the provisions of the South African Act, they were being used as a means of disguised poor relief. By means of such subsidised relief work and by charitable endeavour the rest of the community is helping to carry the poor Whites and to raise their status.

3.2.2.1.5. Black Helping Hand for Blacks Only

The propagandists emphasise that the Black and the non-White communities were so impoverished since 1652, especially after the founding of the Union in 1910, that “charitable endeavor by the rest of the Black and non-White communities” to uplift the poor Blacks – a much needed Black Helping Hand for Blacks Only – was never possible up to 1994, even until today. Positive opportunities regarding Black farming, similar to that of the upliftment of the poor White, never occurred for them before 1994. It is only in the last 24 years, that the ANC regime under very troubled circumstances could engage for the first time in an action of upliftment similar to that of the Whites’ with their Black Helping Hand for Blacks Only. The motto of Geen^3:200: “To keep the poor Whites on the land the Union Government and the Dutch Reformed Church have established land settlement schemes to provide them with smallholdings and to teach them better farming methods”, is precisely what the ANC regime is going to do now with the poor and landless Blacks on the road to perdition. For a successful outcome, the ANC regime only needs to return the unused and unproductive land of White farmers that were grabbed by their ancestors over centuries to the Blacks.

3.2.2.2. Ongoing Black poverty within undisturbed present day White wealth

The propagandists believe that the years of isolation of the mass of Blacks in Black territories and the later so called Bantustans (areas representing in practice only 15% of the total South Africa geography) undoubtedly also contributed directly to the present day immense Black poverty and the Blacks’ ongoing political and economic disempowerment. To erase this negative setup will take much more time than the 25 years already spent, while an outright immediate success of 100% as the antagonists require and rigidly prescribe is just impossible. For the propagandists, a long term programme of comprehensive land redistribution is an absolute must for the ANC regime to be able to rectify the economics of the poor and landless Blacks and to correct the political wrongdoings around land ownership. In this setup the antagonists are clearly either uninformed of the South African political history and the immense efforts needed to uplift the poor, or they are deliberately sabotaging for their own opportunistic reasons, the ANC’s efforts to bring about a better South Africa for all its citizens.
The ongoing White political historical ignorance on the sound reasons of the ANC to activate land expropriation in order to rectify the immense injustice over a broad spectrum, are seen by the propagandists as blind and blunt opposition by the antagonists to a balanced and justified land ownership. The Blacks’ dire present day general financial position, when compared with the good general position of the Whites, nullifies the antagonists’ opposition that any form of compensation should be done for the poor and landless Blacks. For the propagandists, land expropriation a must, notwithstanding all its consequences. (For the propagandists, these consequences are minimal in comparison with the consequences if land expropriation is not effected in a fast and comprehensive manner).^58,80-82
In this context it is important to compare the alleged 350 000 to 400 000 poor Whites in South Africa, and the alleged 150 000 financially struggling Afrikaners with the masses of non-Whites still living below the poverty line in South Africa in 2018 (reflected at an 8% poverty line). It is conservatively estimated (which seems to be an underestimation) that as many as 29 236 632 Blacks, or 73.0% of the total Black population [and 2 175 417 Coloureds (48.1% of the total Coloured population) and 150 409 Indians (11.8% of total Indian population)] are living in poverty. The dire situation of unemployment among Blacks is a further indicator of the poor Black Problem which the ANC regime must immediately address through action such as land reform. In this context statistics reflect that of South Africans (with ± 55 million of which the Blacks are by far the majority and ± 5 million Whites) older than 15 years, less than 40% are employed in some form, while of the 55 million of the total population (of which 35 million can accept employment), only 15 million are in stable employment. This means that 20 million persons (mostly Blacks) are unemployed and that for every ten persons who have work, 25 persons are unemployed (meaning 40% or the ratio 2:5 for employment).^58,80-83
This negative impact upon the Black population is much higher when one remembers that the total population of ±55 million needs some basic income to be able to live, and that only 15 million are working in some form of established work. Comparing Whites to Blacks, these statistics indicate a ratio for Whites of ten in work against 13 unemployed (10:13), while the ratio for Blacks employed versus unemployed is 10:28. (In the rural areas in Kwazulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape the expanded Black unemployment rate is 41% and 50% respectively for 2017-2018). Hereto the official unemployment number for Whites is 7% versus 30% for Blacks.^58,80-83
How extreme this unemployment and poverty are within the Black community, is further confirmed by the fact that there has been an insignificant increase of only 127 000 persons into employment from 2010 to 2015 in the age group 7 to 17 years, to bring to a total 11.2 million persons in work placement for this age group. In 2015 2.4 million children, mostly Black, not really qualified and mature enough to work, were being forced to work as a result of their family’s poverty.^58,80-83
Looking more closely at the official statistics which reflect that only 26.6% of the population is unemployed, these statistics are misleading, seeing that only 42.8% of the total population is employed in some way and that the youth unemployment is 53.7%, most of whom are Blacks. This calculation means unofficially that 57.2% of the total South African population is not in employment, and as much as only 46.3% of the youths are employed. Again in terms of the number of Blacks against that of the total population, this reflects not only the presence of immense unemployment, but at the same time immense Black poverty.^58,80-83
The abovementioned data is further strengthened by official household studies that reflect the average annual income of Whites as R444 446.00 versus that of Blacks as R92 983.00 (with the Indians at R271 621.00 and the Coloureds at R172 983.00). The ratio of this annual income for Whites versus all other South Africans is 2:6, while for Whites versus Blacks it is 2:9.^5,58,80-83
These statistics, as with all the others quoted thus far in this subdivision, confirm the permanent cementing of a mass of Blacks in extreme poverty of which they, on their own, ever can escape (and for which they are mostly not responsible). Direct intervention and interferance by the ANC regime to start-up the rehabilitation of this mass of poor Blacks is the only way out. The fastest and most appropriate approach for the propagandists is the present intended land expropriation (based upon the just redistribution of stolen Black land).^5,58,80-83
The propagandists contend that AA, EE and BEE did not solve 70% of the total Black population’s tragic poverty between 1994 and 2018. It was too minimal to focus upon the total poverty of the Black masses. Other, better focused and planned immediate solutions, even extraordinary undertakings, are needed to bring about a positive turn-around.^5,58,80-83
The further reflection that the Blacks possess only 20% of the South African economy compared to 80% of Whites, notwithstanding that the Blacks having 100% of the political power is a demanding highlight of dissatisfaction by the general Black population that needs to be answered by concrete actions. These actions include land ownership and the right to make a living through farming on the one hand and on the other hand the right to be trained, to have housing and housing property and to be able to work for a decent income and live a good lifestyle. It must be noted that when the BEE-system started in 1994, it was not meant to be a permanent structure to forever empower Blacks: it was aimed at economic upliftment on the one side, and on the other side to make up for the comprehensive derailment brought to Blacks by White political rule over centuries.^5,58,80-84
The fact is that BEE did not work properly due to the immense gap between the White haves and the Black have-nots, the mass of unemployment of Blacks, as well as the ongoing comprehensive White empowerment. The maintenance of this gap today is due to ongoing White supremacy and the Whites monopoly of every part of the South African economics and financial world since 1994, with their exclusive White capital, making the dismantling of BEE today impossible. Other measures to rectify the discrepancy between the rich (mostly Whites) and the poor (mostly Blacks) are needed urgently. As already demonstrated many times by the propagandists, land redistribution and the creation of self-sufficient Black farmers, is the best solution. However, the duration of the land expropriation is also unclear: the process and progress of the completion of it will be determined by the start-up level (low or high) of expropriation when it is activated and how intensively it is driven in the future.^5,58,80-84

3.2.2.3. Upkeep-mechanism of Black poverty, inequality, civilisation, dignity and inferiority

Looking at the literature, the references to a discrepancy in terms of wealth and poverty between South Africans, and of a discrepancy in terms of Black and White between South Africans, are prominent. It is further necessary for the propagandists to be enlightened at this stage to support why they think that land expropriation is an immediate must.
Two issues in this regard are intertwined: poverty and inequality (and in the background: landlessness, uncivilisation, indignity and inferiority). The propagandists argue that the White economists and politicians frequently underwrite outdated theoretical views (which some propagandists believe can be an internalised colonial cognition) to see poverty and inequality as separate troubles which also need separate treatments. Bruce⁸⁵ hereunder tries to prescribe to the ANC regime how to mend not only the country’s racial problems, but also Black poverty as well as inequality^85:16:

Why, for instance, are poverty and inequality almost always mentioned in the same sentence as if they were the same thing? A real leader would have sorted that out long ago. If you had the choice, now, to fix either poverty or inequality in South Africa, which would you choose? You can’t do both. They have different causes and, therefore, must have different solutions.
Inequality is caused by the presence of wealth. Poverty is caused by its complete absence. And you surely, surely, fix poverty first.

Bruce’s⁸⁵ opinion and understanding are totally inappropriate in modern day humanities, economics and politics and reflect a strong antagonists’ standpoint. It is clearly vested in a racially discriminative colonial cognition, which also characterides the thinking in general by the antagonists on the so-called “inability” of the Black race to address today’s political problems effectively with good planning and action, and to bring from the background Black uncivilisation, indignity and inferiority immediately to the foreground. In the present setup of White politics and economics aiming to squash the ANC regime’s intended land expropriation plan, it seems for the propagandists as though the racial and belittling White talks of 1908 to 1909 of Blacks as a specific race during the Convention to found the Union of South Africa, are replayed again and again, to reflect again to-day’s so-called “inferior or uncivilisation” identity of Blacks to again carry out contaminated political planning and action.⁴ Jan Smuts’s⁴ Memorandum of Proposals for the formation of the Union reflects the “liberal” Cape politician Merriman’s extreme racial writing to him, echoing this White South African age-old view of Black inferiority. Merriman⁴ reflects^4:18: “…I do not like Natives at all and I wish we had no Black man in South Africa. But there they are, our lot is cast with them by an overruling Providence and the only question is how to shape our course so as to maintain the supremacy of our race and at the same time do our duty.” On this Smuts⁴ answered in a very similar negative racial tone^4:19: “…I sympathise profoundly with the Native races of South Africa whose land it was long before we came here to force a policy of dispossession on them… But I don’t believe in politics for them. Perhaps at the bottom I do not believe in politics at all as a means for the attainment of the highest ends, but certainly so far as the Natives are concerned politics will to my mind only have an unsettling influence.”
Smut’s⁴ final conclusion upon the role of Blacks in future South Africa describes the fates in 1908 of Blacks and other non-White races and the age-old negative racial indoctrination and contamination of the Whites’ mindsets, which it seems is still today present, when he says^4:19: “When I consider the political future of the Natives in South Africa I must say that I look into shadows and darkness; and then I feel inclined to shift the intolerable burden of solving the sphinx problem to the ampler shoulders and stronger brains of the future.” It is this early “darkness”, an economic and political mess created exclusively by Whites – which over many years locked the Blacks into immense poverty and inequality in their daily existence and psyche – that the ANC regime (since 1994) must try to solve in only twenty-five years, after more than three hundreds years of White failure and supremacy. This absolutely needed rectification was in 1994 and is now in 2019 for the propagandists an unattainable outcome to expect from the ANC regime, notwithstanding their best efforts. This is an immensely problematic setup which is “comfortably missed out” today by the antagonists and which they opportunistically describe as the so-called “shortcomings of the Black farmers and the ANC regime” to fulfill their racially driven unrealistic and unreachable aims and masked intentions.^4-7
The political naivety of the antagonists upon the comprehensive abilities of today’s Black (which includes their view of the ANC’s abilities) is not only shocking, but also lacks the understanding of the intertwining of poverty and inequality in the complex South African racial society. For the propagandists, the two issues can and must be addressed simultaneously, as the ANC has correctly been doing since 1994. Just because the White politicians and journalists seemingly lack the ability themselves to think analytically and comprehensively, it does not mean that the present day Blacks also lack this ability. Many of the antagonistic White journalists and opinion-makers’ understanding of modern day governance and political transformation is seemingly still caught and steered in the thinking-pattern and political knowledge of Grand Apartheid, which still emphasises utmost White superiority in thinking, planning and action upon behalf of the “inferior” and “uncivilised” Blacks. It is in this racially contaminated cognitive context that the ANC regime’s uplifting of the poor and landless Blacks through the receiving back of White land is attacked.⁸⁶ For the propagandists, the antagonists today still miss out a century later on JBM Hertzog’s viewpoint of the 1920s when he warns some of the arrogant racial Whites^86:195: “… that the time would come when a black skin was no longer a test for uncivilisation and that the Blacks of South Africa would one day politically and physically swamp the white civilisation”. This political rectification is now well-reflected by the “civilised” Ramaphosa’s effort through land expropriation to constructively mend the country’s economic and political mess left by the NP-AB-alliance when they fled the political scene in 1994.
By firstly only addressing so-called Black poverty, as propagated by Bruce⁸⁵, the propagandists show that the White rich and the White business sectors will economically and politically profit more. This handling will successfully keep Black inequality strongly in place, while at the same time assuring the continuation of Black-poverty (and undoubtedly in the antagonists’ mindsets their contamination of a so-called “Black inferiority and uncivilasation”). The abovementioned naïve political view, specifically his lack of insight into the violating nature of Black-White inequality which is fully intertwined into poverty, is reflected further by Bruce’s⁸⁵ postulation^85:16: “You end poverty in South Africa and you fix everything. It doesn’t mean the end of inequality. But it means the end of our greatest curse – indignity”. For the propagandists this is a laughable and superficial political view. To think that indignity is only locked into poverty is a myth. Inequality holds the same indignity in the activation of hatred in Blacks, as that of poverty: the proto-Afrikaners’ delinquent retro-behaviour up to 1948 and the Afrikaners’ delinquent retro-behaviour up to 1994, as a direct result of their own inequality, coming from the pre-1900s, still brings out today in them today the emotions of indignity and inferiority, long after their poverty and indignity was erased.⁸⁵
For the propagandists, Ramaphosa’s present approach, specifically his land redistribution to the poor and landless Blacks, is correct: if you change poverty you change inequality, and if you change inequality you change poverty. Cyril Ramaphosa as a Black, living under Apartheid, knows well the intertwining of poverty and inequality as well as the indignity internalised in each. It is only after the poverty, indignity and inequality are fully erased from the mindsets of today’s poor Blacks (and, as already said, this is a process that lives long in the mindset), that the process of economic upliftment of the poor Blacks in Ramaphosa’s land expropriation plan will have a positive impact.⁸⁵
There is no doubt in the mindsets of the propagandists that the ANC regime knows well the risk of future revolt and anarchy, and that land grabbing instead of land distribution is a reality, if justice is not done.
What the poor and landless Blacks under the guardianship of the ANC now require is the rectification of the immense injustices done to them through Apartheid. Prominent actions, according to some propagandists, required from the ANC, are extreme RET and RST, which include direct and fast land grabbing (which the ANC is not going to do). On the other hand, RET and RST are for some propagandists simply the breaking down of superficial political, economical and human borders (and contaminated political, racial and economicbeliefs) created by Whites over more than three centuries to safeguard their privileges in the country.^{5,58,80-83,87} This is captured in an extraordinary discriminative phenomenon and experience, overwhelming in its human and psychological destructiveness, which the late Professor Richard van der Ross⁸⁷ already highlighted in 1979 when he wrote^87:92: “To be told by law where to live, whom to marry, with whom to dance, against whom not to play cricket, where to go to school, which university to attend…”.
Enough is enough for most Blacks: the 1994 dispensation and the South African Constitution failed the mass of South Africans. It is clear for the propagandists that through well manipulated emotions around land ownership, and the various hijackings of the economics and the judicial thinking by the so called “good” Constitution since 1994 by White racists and exclusive capitalists, the Whites are still fully governing South Africa at the cost of the non-Whites. This imbalanced and unjustsetup must be rectified with immediate effect, of which the introduction and activation of land-expropriation is the least disruptive and the most just choice. For the propagandists, as shown over and over by them in this article, many antagonists are still caught up in a nationalist Afrikaner racial mindset, beset by false supremacy and empowerment, believing that they can block any form of reform.⁵ Louw⁵ describes this mindset of abasement as a5:44: “…doctrine that taught that they are a superior race that does only the ethically correct and good, versus the inferior Black subordinates whose actions were infected with unethical and bad behaviour and an inferior disposition”.
Furthermore, many of the Whites are fighting off the incoming land expropriation not only to keep their enrichments coming from Apartheid and other racial discrimination over 300 years, but also the seeking of a better and more secure position to enlarge these enrichments through more masked political (juridical) empowerment assured to them by the present day unjust Constitution. The antagonists sudden pleading of Minority Procurement (MP), after their many years of the extreme practice of Minority Empowerment (ME), is laughable as well as a surprise. For the Whites, selfishly fighting for MP to further uphold their racial ME there is in a balanced democracy no justified grounds to listen to or to consider this. The antagonists know it well.⁵
It is clear that the antagonists various “savior and rescuer” organisations, fighting so-called upon behalf of the White farmers and their White land (but in reality for upholding the “old” White racial South Africa and its White exclusive capitalistic models and systems, are losing their battles one by one. In this context it is for the propagandists clear that more than 90% of the White population are ignoring the various exclusive “Afrikaner bodies” like the Freedom Front Plus Party (approximately 166 000 supporters), Solidarity (approximately 350 000 members), and the organisations with minor support such as AfriForum, the Institute of Race Relations, the FW de Klerk Foundation’s Centre for Constitutional Rights, the National Dialogue Initiative (Nasionale Stigting-dialoog Inisiatief or NSDI), the Organisation for Unrepresented Nations and Groups (UNPO) and the Africa-European Indaba. The efforts of religious groups with minority status within the White community to mesmerise the mindsets of a small group of directionless Afrikaners with their false doctrines are in the process of being faded out. All these various antagonistic organisations’ lifespans are at most that of ten years, and are very superficial, directionless, nor viable or sustainable in the new South Africa.^{23,24,75,88-94}
The Ramaphosa land expropriation with the main intention of erasing the poverty and landlessness of a mass of Blacks is also in the process of erasing the pre-1994 racial cognitions and mechanisms cemented into the political minds of some Whites, which are steering their wanton propaganda of Blacks as uncivilised and inferior.

3.2.3. Can the Afrikaners’ military derail South Africa in the future?

In 1994 the incoming ANC was well aware of the military, as well as the political empowerment of the Afrikaners to derail the new dispensation up to the 2000s. This empowerment slowly declined from the first five years after 1994, to end up in the present day in complete political and military disempowerment by the Afrikaners to be able to derail or stop any dramatic land reform. For the propagandists, the Afrikaners and the Whites as populations are in disempowered positions to endanger Ramaphosa’s land reform intentions. The previous mass of Afrikaners who so publically and eagerly underwrote anti-ANC rhetoric and who blocked the ANC physically at every turn in South Africa are today a small segment of minimum importance. The so-called military power of the “nation of the Afrikaners” is just a ghost of the past. Since 1994 the Afrikaner-volk started splitting up in into small, less rigid and less extreme Afrikaner cultural, political and financial bodies. It seems that only a small number, not more than ±300 000 of unhappy and rigid nationalist Afrikaners, mostly from the farming sector and a segment of the exclusive White capitalist sector, as well a small part of the old NP-AB-DRC-alliance, form part of the antagonists. This minority is prominent in their constant efforts to oppose the ANC regime in various ways, as well as to derail and to block Ramaphosa’s intended land expropriation. Since the beginning of 2016, this opposition has become louder and more organised, but seemingly with little success.^3-5
The propagandists acknowledge that most individual nationalist Afrikaners have settled into a new South African lifestyle that is completely different from that of their fathers. They have clearly repositioned themselves as individuals, stripped from all the emotional and political rhetoric with which they are falsely bombarded daily by the extreme racial Afrikaner politicians and executive leaders, who are forming the so-called antagonists. The land reform issue is not really a worrying aspect today for most of the ordinary Afrikaners, as what the “saviours” and “rescuers” of the Afrikaners try to present. The 1994 dispensation was indeed a watershed for the Afrikaners of South Africa.⁵
For the propagandists it is clear that many of the ordinary Afrikaners had to learn to live as individuals inside a new South Africa after 1994. Their old ties with the Afrikaner Nationalist’s “volk” were suddenly cut, erasing blind group loyalty and dogma and the protection of the group’s interests. For the poor and peace-loving individual Afrikaner, it swiftly became clear after 1994 that he would not benefit in any way from the wealth of Afrikaner exclusive capitalist magnates such as the Ruperts, Wieses and Steyns, etc. For the ordinary Afrikaners these exclusive capitalist Afrikaner magnates must save themselves: they have the abilities to get rich on their own and surely also have the abilities to stay rich on their own. At the moment the ordinary Afrikaner is only misused by the exclusive White capitalists in their economic and political self-empowerment, leaving the poor individual Afrikaner in the cold. The same kind of opportunistic “self-centredness” can be said of the farming community who are crying “wolf” about a so-called impending “land grabbing”. Looking closely at the situation, the ordinary Afrikaner never benefited over the years from the farming community or the Afrikaner magnates who now run with the antagonists. He missed out on their many benefits and was nothing more than a springboard and a voter voice to be misused by the Afrikaner/White farmers, politicians and business magnates. With reference to the Afrikaner/White business magnates, the prominent question today for the ordinary Afrikaners and for the propagandists is: why can the ultra-rich White South Africans not be targeted for RET, and thus also especially landv expropriation? Financial data shows that 66 000 South Africans (mostly Whites) are part of the richest 1% in the world, with 40 400 of the world’s 13.6 million ultra-rich and between 38 500 and 45 000 billionaires (mostly White) living in South Africa. The three richest South Africans (Whites) possess more than 50% of the total South Africa riches.^{5,23,24,75,88-94}
About 2.7 million other Afrikaners and more than 4 million Whites in total are completely ignoring the antagonists’ plea for an organised offensive against the current ANC regime. It seems as though most modern day Afrikaners, many of whom are already politically and culturally differently minded to their parents of 40–60 years ago, are driven in their daily lives and future planning by their own life needs, decisions and planning, clearly outside the antagonists’ dogmas and false intentions of so-called “Afrikaner/White rights”. The political intentions to derail or physically obstruct land reform are absent from them. In all honesty, these ± 4 million modern thinking and politically orientated Afrikaners/Whites know that the ± 300 00 antagonists (mostly passively as “co-riders” to the small group of opportunistic Afrikaner/White saviours and rescuers) do not have real political or military power, know-how and the finances “to restore” in any way the nationalist Afrikaners’ so-called “pre-1994 South Africa”. Most of these ±4 million Afrikaners clearly dissociate themselves publically from this racial “pre-1994 South Africa”. They also see the so-called loss of “dignity and rights” that the antagonists allege were taken away from the Afrikaners/Whites by the ANC regime, as false statements and well planned manipulations to mislead the general public upon the truth around the intended land expropriation of Ramaphosa and the ANC.^{5,23,24,88-95}
Another prominent factor which is well known to the ANC regime – making the possibility of a “Boer-revolution” zero – is the hard fact that in 100 years time only between 10 000 to 30 000 Afrikaners/Whites will be left in South Africa. This makes the “pure” Afrikaners/Europeans as a dynamic entity insignificant in a future South Africa and the present-day rescue efforts of the “pure” Afrikaners/Europeans and their exclusive rights by the antagonists a failed effort. Statistics indicate that the Afrikaners may decrease to between 1% and 3% of the total population in 30 to 40 years from now, leaving a remnant of less than 1 million Afrikaners against an estimated 70 million Blacks in South Africa. In 40 years from now their diminishing from the scene as a “population” will be phenomenal.⁵
With regard to the diminishing numbers of the Afrikaners (and also the Whites) and their move into insignificance, the propagandists maintain that the Afrikaner/White population has already become a so-called “old population”, lacking young people to assure growth. In 2016 the ratio for Black persons under 16 years to persons over 60 years was 100:20, while this ratio for Whites was 100:130. This imbalance will increase over the next five years, as more young Whites are leaving South Africa permanently and the high concentration of the elderly is growing.⁵
In this context is it also very important for the propagandists to note that not all Afrikaners and Whites agreed with the NP-AB-DRC-Alliance’s racial policy or were ever members of these bodies. Many of these persons always supported a fair and justified South Africa. These so-called “liberal” Afrikaners/Whites do not support the antagonists’ obstructive thinking, planning and action around the intended land expropriation programme. They directly and openly support Ramaphosa’s land expropriation plan.⁵
From another perspective the propagandists note that the average Afrikaner has become poorer since 1994, making them less of a target through RET for the ANC- egime if they should decideon such a step. In this context the propagandists note that 22% of the total Afrikaner population are 60 years and older: to capture their already constantly diminishing capital through RET will only impoverish these older persons further and make them a direct financial burden for the state. It is thus more and more clear for most of the ordinary Afrikaners, outside the old nationalist Afrikaners’ sick political system and remnants of a corrupt elite, that RET and land grabbing will not be applied to them as the antagonists falsely predict.^5,79,95-97
Regarding the antagonistic White farmers’ call to other Afrikaners and Whites for “help against the so-called land grabbing of Ramaphosa”, the propagandists mention in this context that the NP-AB-Alliance themselves long ago dropped the Afrikaner farmer community due to their self-centered intentions – a group who the propagandists see as mostly adhering to the extreme racist thinking of DF Malan, HF Verwoerd and JB Vorster. There has been an enormous decline over the years in the numbers of Afrikaner farmers — they declined from 116 000 in 1950 to more or less 65 000 in 1986, while in 2018 they number ±36,000. As the NP became “politically liberal”, most of the declining number of White farmers (basically due to their diminutive numbers and thus less political empowerment) became unsupportive of the NP and became thus less important as voters. By 1985-1986 the NP turned their attention away from the White farmers to urbanised industrial and business orientated Afrikaners for votes. It is an open question why the ordinary Afrikaners must be supportive to the White farmers in a setup wherein only the White farmers are opportunistically benefitting.^5,98
It is clear that land redistribution is not a primary issue for the hard working individual Afrikaner outside the farming sector who had cut his umbilical cord with the “volk” in 1994. The antagonistic White farmers and rich Whites are on their own in fighting their battles with the ANC regime to keep their land and riches. There is no justice in benefitting and favouring more or less 36 000 persons who are not part of the country’s poverty group and who benefitted from racial discrimination, above 29 million landless people, who have livedforever in outmost poverty.⁵
The ANC regime is well-informed about the present day Afrikaners/Whites’ political empowerment and poor status in the greater Afrikaner/White community. The isolation of the antagonistic group as a very small minority group with limited influence and empowerment in the future South Africa on the one side, and on the other side the majority of Afrikaners/Whites who are not against land reform, make the Afrikaners/Whites as a future political pressure group null and void.
For the propagandists, the antagonistic Afrikaners/Whites as a possible racial, political, economic and military force to derail the ANC regime’s intended land reform, are not a force of which to take note. To allow them to keep and uphold their present exclusive rights at the cost of an immense and growing sector of poor and landless Blacks, is not only unwise and foolish, but a crime against mankind. Immediate land redistribution is thus a must for the propagandists.^100-103

3.2.4. The postulations: Almost all victims of land dispossession are been compensated according to relevant circumstance, versus expropriation of land without compensation which has been tried in communist regimes where it has harvested riches for a few and devastation for everyone else

The remarks by Opperheimer⁴² that^42:18:“…almost all victims of land dispossession have been compensated, which is worked out according to relevant circumstances…”, and that^42:18: “…expropriation without compensation has been tried in communist regimes, where it has harvested riches for a few and devastation for everyone else…”, needs in the propagandists opinion, serious attention, basically for two main reasons. Firstly, the superficial and well-planned distraction by the antagonists of the attention from their upholding of White empowerment and their exclusive model of capitalism (the same approach the antagonists follow in all their presentations to create discontent around the intended land expropriation programme), and secondly, the total misleading of the public on the ANC regime’s good intention to soften the immense poverty among more than 29-million Blacks left by the racial pre-1994 regimes. Above all stands the Afrikaners’/Whites’ bloody, merciless and vicious political history of land grabbing inside their own RET since 1652, which has seemingly been completely erased from their mindset by political Alzheimers. The growing disregard for truth by the antagonists in their practice of politics in the present day South African setup is a point of concern for the propagandists, especially by the passivity of the media to the Black setup.^{5,29,31,42,103-105}
Firstly, in presenting his argument, it is clear that Opperheimer’s⁴² mind became fixated upon extraordinary and singular political cases such as those of Stalin, Mao and Mugabe, totally unrelated to present day South African politics, and the intentions and the management of the ANC regime thereof. Looking at all three of these cases of land grabbing (and comparing them to the present land expropriation plan of the ANC), there is a prominent similarity: the fact that the elites (the rich, the massive land owners, the vicious political and economically empowered masters and exclusive capitalists) of the three countries’ populations, who later fell prey to outright land grabbing, were groups who over time through their political empowerment viciously suppressed the lower socio-economic groups and stole land over long periods. Most notabe in these empowerments are the Tsar and his nobles in Russia, the Emperor and his royals in China and Cecil John Rhodes and the British Empire’s men in Zimbabwe (the old Rhodesia). Initial requests and pacific efforts to reform Russia by the Bolsheviks, China by the Maoists and Zimbabwe by the Mugabits, were blindly ignored and suppressed by the elite in order to uphold their wealth, rights and privileges. In Zimbabwe, the requests of the Mugabe regime to the White land owners for the free transfer of their redundant land to the poor Blacks were fought with court cases. In addition, there were no efforts by the Smith regime to compensate the Black victims for their land which was stolen by the White British colonialists, or to uplift the poor and landless Blacks. In all three cases most notable is the fact that the land was stolen. Indeed, in all three cases, land grabbing was further accompanied by the murder of the elite landowners.^{5,29,31,42,103-105}
The abovementioned situation’s comprehensive tragic setup and the contaminated elements of human disrespect by the elite landowners, as well as the vicious behaviour of the elite landowners is totally ignored by Opperheimer in his contention regarding the rightness of the constitutional dispensation of 1994 and its guarantee of ongoing exclusive capitalism and land ownership in South Africa by the post-1994 democracy. Furthermore, human rights and justice became only institutional values after 1994 in South Africa for Opperheimer⁴², with the contaminated pre-1994 political history absent from his mindset. Land grabbing, as a selective form of revenge, was for the propagandists in all three of the cases a normal predicted outcome, after the failiure to activate through the elite themselves correction of their wrongdoings, so as to cleanse the past’s immense injustice and most of all, the breaking down of resistance by the elite to activate reform in order to benefit the mass of the poor. If this had not occurred, namely the cruel phasing out of the elites in the three countries, theywould undoubtedly still be ruled today by small groups of exclusive capitalists with a political leadership of empowerment, based exclusively upon dictators, autocrats and fascists. For the propagandists, the extreme political outcomes in Russia, China and Zimbabwe are exactly what the ANC regime is trying to avoid here with a peaceful and orderly land transfer before the mass of poor and landless overtake the present government with radicalism.^{5,29,31,42,103-105}
The propagandists maintain that the South African White regimes and their inhabitants from 1652 to 1994 never compensated their ancestors’ Black victims for the masses of land stolen or the atrocities committed (very much in line with the behaviour of the unrepentant elites of Russia, China and Zimbabwe). During the pre-1994 period, the antagonists labelled anyone who dared to oppose the White capitalists and Afrikaner political system and thinking, as “communists”, “terrorists” and “traitors”, mostly accompanied by the incarceration (and often murder) of these dissidents. The post-1994 antagonists still today use the old trick of the NP-AB-alliance by classing anyone opposing their policy communists or so-called “Chinese and Russian parrots and followers” who intend to transfer South Africa in line with Russia and China into a totalitarian, communist state.^{5,29,31,42,103-105}
Opperheimer’s⁴² postulation that^42:18: “…almost all victims of land dispossession have been compensated”, which is worked out according to relevant circumstances…,” is false. In South Africa, the Whites’ land grabbing began the moment Jan van Riebeeck put his feet on South African soil, without until today any compensation to “all the initial victims and their descendants”. It seems as though Opperheimer’s⁴² above postulation of “relevant circumstances” means that when the land was stolen by the Whites from non-Whites, the “clause of compensation” was not applicable.⁴²
Above reference by Opperheimer⁴² that private owners must be compensated, reflects arrogance and ignorance. A simple and strait answer to nullify today’s Whites’ call for compensation of their so-called land under the intended land expropriation without compensation, is the balancing of costs to their Black victims by the Whites’ early land grabbing without compensation. For the propagandists the present day White land owners do not deserve any compensation, firstly seeing that most of them and their forefathers stole their present land mostly by land- terrorism and bloodshed since 1652; and secondly because the intended land expropriation will be done in an orderly manner, with justice and moderation, and not based upon the pre-1994 land grabbing under Whites.^3,5-7
How much Opperheimer⁴² missed the good intentions of the ANC regime (and of course the true political history, particularly the Whites’ land grabbing) to bring about with its intended land reform plan inclusive capital, is well illustrated for the propagandists by his confused postulation^42:18: “…expropriation without compensation has been tried in communist regimes, where it has harvested riches for a few and devastation for everyone else…”. Firstly, if the ANC regime wanted to change South Africa into a communist regime, it could have done so shortly after 1994. Secondly, South Africa will never change to a communist state, and its intended land redistribution is not based upon communism, but upon balanced and justified democracy wherein the voice of the majority is paramount. Thirdly, the immense land grabbing characterising the South Africa political history of 1652 to 1994 was not executed by so-called “communists” to “enrich a few communist leaders”, but by so-called Christian and democratically orientated Afrikaners/Whites to^42:18: “…harvest riches for a few and devastation for everyone else…”. In this context of harvesting riches for a few, 5 million Whites stand against the devastating poverty of a mass of ±45 million Blacks!
The present day amnesia of Whites of their own and their ancestors’ delinquent actions and roles in the tragic political history of South Africa, wherein land grabbing and murderare central – delinquent actions well-planned, activated and steered by the Netherlanders, the British, the proto-Afrikaners and the later Afrikaners – is surprising. The many lies and myths offered today by the antagonists to cover up the immense political delinquencies of Whites are thus not surprising for the propagandists. Mthombothi³¹ diagnoses this “memory malfunction” of South African Whites well when he writes^31:17:

It is understandable at times, especially in the heat of political battle, that there would be different interpretations of what happened or what was said, but nobody is entitled to their own facts. There’s been a lot of rewriting of history lately by people who seem incapable of either reading or writing, especially those who never witnessed such events first-hand, and
Lies and falsehoods often have dire political consequences. Those who know the truth should have the courage to speak up.

For the propagandists, White South Africans’ own RET (specific that of the Afrikaners) from 1652 to 1994 was so immense and of such a spectrum that it can never be but into monetary value, a psychological perspective or the counting of lives. It can only be described as a tragedy, far worse than the modern day Rwanda genocide and chaos.
Opperheimer’s⁴² postulations that almost all victims of land dispossession have been compensated, according to relevant circumstance, and that expropriation of land without compensation has been tried in communist regimes where it has harvested riches for a few and devastation for everyone else, are inappropriate to apply to the post-1994 ANC regime. When looking at the pre-1994 White regimes’ action, then the postulations are fully applicable.

3.2.5. Is the ANC’s need for land reform insignificant and driven by few opportunistic politicians?

The postulation by the antagonists, reading^42:18: “…barring a few opportunistic politicians, almost no-one views land reform as a burning issue…”, reflects for the propagandists the intense confusion and the distancing of the antagonists of themselves from the broad South African news, especially the reporting upon the immense dissatisfaction of Blacks about their landlessness and poverty. Mthombothi’s³¹ reference to these “fact-blind” antagonists as^31:17:“…people who seem incapable of either reading or writing”, is very meaningful. For the propagandists this is very descriptive and declares to a certain extent the antagonists’ constant illogical and unintelligible attacks on the ANC’s good intentions to bring about a bettered life for all South Africans by land redistribution. It seems as though the antagonists are totally mesmerised and struck blind and cognitively frozen by their own untrue White political propaganda upon the land issue, turning “White” myths and lies into “false” facts. Looking carefully at how the antagonists position their “facts” with the statement^42:18: “land reform is not a burning issue”, to make their arguments, opinions and viewpoints “respectable” and “true” (but totally based upon untested research and evidence) and as if it is issued by “experts,” so as to influence the public’s mindset with the wanton cognition that the ANC regime’s land expropriation intention is evily disposed, it becomes clear that misleading statements have with time overcome the antagonists’ mindsets, limiting their ability to distinguish between right and wrong.^31,42
Rapport¹⁰⁶ reported on the 23rd September 2018 that land reform is seen by only 4% of Black voters, 11% of White voters and an average of 6% (White and Black) of the population as a top priority to be addressed. (The research statistic is seemingly obtained from a probe by the firm Victory Research of a said Ryan Coetzee).¹⁰⁶
When looking to the initial outcomes of the parliamentary countrywide testing of the public’s opinion on the change to Section 25 of the Constitution, the results show that there is, contrary to the results of Victory Research¹⁰⁶, a strong public support reflected by their testimonies showing an immense demand for land reform, even drastic land grabbing. There is an emphasis in these testimonies that the land belonging presently to Whites was stolen since 1652 to 1994 from Blacks, and indeed that land expropriation must immediately be activated. As much as 40% and higher of the presentations support some form of land reform and land grabbing as a form of compensation (against the average of the Victory Research of only 6%). This nullifies the Victory Research finding. In addition, an analysis of the reports of independent journalists upon opinions of Black sack-dwellers countrywide on the need for immediate land expropriation, show an immense need for drastic land reform and the execution of a policy of land grabbing from Whites. These outcomes oppose the Victory Research’s findings that the present ownership of land and the transfer of White land in terms of the intended expropriation plan is a matter of insignificance. Secondly, the question for the propagandists here is about the reliability and objectivity of the Victory Research to be able to evaluate scientifically in terms of trustworthiness. The propagandists ask whether there is any direct association between Coetzee¹⁰⁶, Victory Research and the antagonists. Pelser¹⁰⁶, editor of Rapport, writes pertinently that the study was specifically done by Victory Research for the South African Institute of Racial Relations (IRR), bringing thus the position and role of the IRR¹⁰⁶ in the present antagonists’ attacks on the land reforms of the ANC prominently to the foreground.
Literature upon the present fight against land expropriation shows that the IRR stands central as one of the so-called Afrikaner/Whites rescuer and saviour organisations and a body which stands directly and hostilely to the ANC’s land reform. Musyoka¹⁰⁶, specific to this context, classes these organisations, in terms of the two opposing role-players representing various subgroups each on the land matter, as the conservative nationalists (right-wingers), ranging from the centre-right DA, agriculture-based associations – most of which represent the interests of white commercial farmers – to far-right groups such as the Freedom Front Plus and solidarity groups such as AfriForum. This clear association of political or personal and group interests contaminates the IRR’s impartiality. The IRR’s commissioning of Victory Research and the prominence of the Afrikaans media’s reference to the so-called “shockingly low number” of only 4% of Blacks’ concern on the land matter makes the findings of Victory Research for the propagandists null and void. Reading with this the fact that only an insignificant number of 978 respondents (voters) out of a potential 35 million voters were consulted, the whole IRR exercise is for the propagandists a well planned manipulation.^7,106
The strength of the antagonists’ first postulation, namely that “there is not a need to effect land expropriation”, was finally totally erased on the 4th December 2018 when 209 MPs voted in favour (with only 91 votes against and zero abstentions) to amend the Constitution to effect land expropriation without compensation.^107-109
This outcome also nullifies further the antagonists’ other arrogant postulation, namely that^42:18: “… barring a few opportunistic politicians, almost noone views land reform as a burning issue…”. The fact that as many as 209 MPs, the so-called “few opportunistic politicians” in terms of Oppenheimer’s⁴² factless argument – counting 118 more than the 91 MPs supporting the antagonists’ viewpoint of no land expropriation without compensation – have voted for land expropriation without compensation, confirm the immense impact that the land issue has upon the ordinary people as well as the political leaders of the country. For the propagandists, land expropriation without compensation (limited in certain cases) is a reality and is irreversible. Although the antagonists seemingly intend to obstruct through court action the ANC regime’s intended amendment of the Constitution, the propagandists believe that they face failure. In Zimbabwe the White farmers followed the same path of legal obstruction of land expropriation, only to be demolished in the end.^107-109▼
▲The present voting in the National Assembly where the 209 MPs voted in favour and 91 MPs against the amendment, reflecting a 69.6% in favour (which is 3% above the two-thirds majority), is reflected hereunder^{22,47,110-113}:

For a change to the Constitution, a two-thirds majority is needed in parliament and an approval from six of the nine provinces, while the ordinary Bill on Expropriation that is serving before parliament at the moment only needs an approval vote of 50% by the parliament. Two sections of the Constitution will have to be amended – 25 and 31. Section 25 is applicable to the property clause that allows for expropriation, and 31 is the limitations clause that outlines when rights, to, for example, property, can be limited. Although a two-thirds parliamentarian majority is needed to Section 25 (Article 25) of the Constitution, it ultimately depends upon a 75% parliamentarian majority vote as guided by Article 74(1) of the Constitution. To change the Constitution the amendment must be approved and accepted by the National Assembly, after which the concept amendment must also be considered and accepted by the National Council for Provinces. Laws aimed at streamlining the expropriation process without constitutional changes are the Employment Equity Act, the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act and Codes, the Skills Development Act, the Levies Act and the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act. These legislations are supported by for instance the National Development Plan and the Black Industrialist Programme. Land expropriation in terms of democratic principles and African empowerment, is clearly described by Section 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, while the redistribution of agricultural land is further partially covered in the Agri BEE codes.

From a critical evaluation point, the propagandists’ sense worrying characteristics in the present day actions of many of the antagonistic organisations. For the propagandists, AfriForum’s mediaconference in April 2018 in Centurion about their looking for international support against the changes to the Constitution and the planned land-redistribution shows AfriForum’s total lack of understanding of the working of democracy and international opinion and empowerment to bring changes in countries. This also reflect their foolishness in determining who were the prominent role-players who changed South Africa in the 1980s from a White autocracy for Whites only to a Black democracy for all South Africans: the international community! (This is demonstrated by Donald Trump’s fast turnaround after his initial criticism of Ramaphosa’s land reform, to support it in the end).¹¹⁴
The propagandists agree that political criticism is good, but not one-sided, manipulated White-criticism thoughtout steered by the antagonists to incite political delinquency. For the propagandists, AfriForum and many of its White associates lack patriotism and a love for their South African bastard fatherland. Most of the White antagonists, as are mostly everyone in South Africa, are from long ago not White or Non-White, Black or non-Black, Colored or non-Colored: they are the Bastards of South Africa. Land redistribution must be seen in this reality: every bastard of South Africa must be in some way the owner of land. That is a bastard’s legal right, at least from 2019.¹¹⁴
In light of the above ongoing foolish arguments, assumptions and manipulations by the antagonists as a group, it is the view of the propagandists that the political empowerment of groups like AfriForum, Solidarity and the IRR and many of their leaders’ unconscious and conscious rigid racial bias must be wrenched away from them. They endanger South Africa more than any land redistribution can do. It seems for the propagandists that without the activation of affirmative laws, bringing about BEE and land redistribution, the White privileged classes will never that Blacks have competence and skills and can be responsible land owners. Bias, conscious and unconscious, is alive and well in South Africa.¹¹⁵ Haffajee¹¹⁵ sumsit up well^115:2: “Apartheid injured them [Afrikaners] too, by making them blind to anything except that which looked like them. Apartheid, designed to promote Afrikaner interests and to maintain Anglo-Saxon corporate interests, required not only oppression but active bias, and it lingers because it is intergenerational, since sons learn from their fathers”.
Looking to the easy influencing of some Afrikaners/Whites at present by the antagonists, planting suspicion of the ANC’s planned land redistribution, it seems as though many of these antagonistic Afrikaners have never outgrown their political and socio-economic immaturity, which the leaders of the NP-AB-DRC-alliance so effectively used to cloud the nationalist Afrikaners’ mindsets with racism and to steer the practice of Apartheid.^116-118
For the propagandists, there are still too many persons in AfriForum, Solidarity, the DA and IRR, with their roots in the late AWB, who are mimicking the nationalist Afrikaners “tough” but failed actions of the “Stormjaers of the Ossewa-Brandwag” of a century ago in their present foolish driving of so-called Afrikaner interests and the maintainanceof Anglo-Saxon corporate interests. They are as blind as their fathers when it comes to the immediate demanding realities and interests of land redistribution by their fatherland, bastard South Africa.⁵
The propagandists wonder if it is not time that the South African Government starts to take a more critical look on the ideologies of the many false prophets of doom on land redistribution and RET, and whether their actions are not equal to sabotage.
Land redistribution is a burning issue which needs to be addressed immediately, to prevent anarchy, mass unrest and revolution before or just after the 2019 General Election. How lucky South Africa has been in the last five years to escape revolution, when 29 million of its people, out of a total of 55 million, live in utmost poverty. Ramaphosa sees that revolution is here and tries to erase it by his constructive land reform policy.^116-118
The ANC shows that the need for land reform is significant and is driven by a mass of Black citizens and Black politicians of status.

3.2.6. Unsupportive and wavering DA in land reform

With regard to the two prominent political parties’ active in South African politics, namely the ANC and the DA, is it clear for the propagandists that it is only the ANC which plays a prominent role in the promotion of land expropriation, specifically without compensation in certain cases. With regard to this promotion of the population’s welfare and interests, the DA is for most propagandists very passive and unattached. The propagandists see the DA today as the 1999 Tony-Leon-party, which openly called upon Whites and supporters of the apartheid era’s National Party to vote with one single aim against Nelson Mandela’s ANC: to secure absolutely the interests of Whites. For the propagandists, the DA has still today an absolutely obstructive approach to anything that looks anti-capitalist (specifically exclusive capitalism) and anti-White.^117,119
The DA’s inconsistent policy initially publically opposing BEE, other forms of affirmative action and land redistribution, versus their later masked ongoing adoption of the ANC policies on issues such as broad based BEE and affirmative action, has been a catastrophe, alludes Grindrod¹¹⁹. He writes^119:14: “What is the point of voting for an opposition that largely replicates government policy? It takes a lot more than vague policy statements and sound bites to attract voters.”
The DA, as a so-called “Black obstructive party”, is captured by its rich and influencial Whites leaders, members and supporters. For the propagandists, it is the DA’s segment of Whites who are the creators of most of the anti-Black politics and actions today. Excellent examples here are the unrelenting yapping in parliament by the DA’s leaders such as John Steenhuisen against every action of the ANC regime, Helen Zille’s inappropriate comments about colonialism and Mmusi Maimane’s recent remarks about White privileges in South Africa.^{116,117,120-126}
To further illustrate the DA’s constant unfocussed and superficial attacks on the ANC and Ramaphosa, Grindrod¹¹⁹ writes^119:14: “Very little of its outputs articulate solutions or alternatives, for the larger part it simply exists to criticise. A year after Zuma’s resignation, it is still on its Stop Zuma campaign. If Zuma does not exist, the DA would have to invent him.”
Enlightening specifically the DA’s ongoing inconsistance on BEE, affirmative action and land redistribution, etc., since 1994, blocking the direct bettering of the mass of poor and landless Blacks, Grindrod¹¹⁹ writes^119:14:

SA, however, has been very poorly served by the official opposition. The DA over the past two years has floundered in terms of both style and substance. We have witnessed a lot of rhetoric, media stunts and theatrics, but little to inspire us to elect Mmusi Maimane as president of the republic this year. This has largely allowed the ANC a free pass to perpetuate the mediocrity, corruption and mismanagement we have suffered.
In its frantic efforts to be all things to all people, the DA is pleasing very few. Its much-vaunted takeover of metros such as Joburg and Tshwane in 2016 came only as a result of an unholy alliance with the EFF,.a wholly unprincipled move that illustrated hunger for power at any cost to its claimed values.
The self-inflicted misfortunes of the DA can be directly attributed to three factors: weak leadership, abandonment of its founding principles, and a failure to understand that South Africans are looking for a change in direction, not just PR branding. As a result, its right flank is bleeding off to AfriForum (via COPE) and the FF Plus, its left flank is marching back to Ramaphosa’s revitalised ANC, and its centre is a shrinking mass of grudge voters with nowhere else to go.
They have become a motley group of naysayers and Afro-pessimists. I sometimes think they relish it when our country falls short. In some perverse way it may affirm their smug “told you so” attitude. The party should oppose the government by any means, but that does not mean it should talk down our country in the process.

The abovementioned obstructive thinking and action by the official opposition not to constructively support good projects with merit, or at least oppose the government on matters and give clear facts for their objection, give a good understanding for the propagandists as to why some of meritorious projects of the ANC regime failed since 1994 to get through parliament. The failure to write a mandate on just and balanced land ownership within a focused and sincere political setup with the DA, as the ANC tried to do over a long time, was just such an unfortunate outcome. This has lead to today’s negative build-up countrywide around the land matter. Drastic land redistribution, outside the passive and disconnected DA policy, is now forced on Cyril Ramaphosa as an unavoidable must. For the propagandists, it is the DA, with its exclusive whitish interests, which is going to be the loser at the 2019 election box, and not the ANC regime which the DA is putting constant under attack.^{62,117,119120,126-129}
The propagandists see the DA as totally unsupportive and wavering in the establishment of just land reform. They believe that the present interests of the poor and landless Blacks are secondary for the DA, and that the party with its well planned delaying, wavering and obstructive actions, is a role-player in the maintenance since 1994 of the mass of poor and landless Blacks.

3.2.7. Is South Africa’s Bill of Rights much lauded nationally and internationally?

To plead innocent about the devastating faults of the South African Bill of Rights with rhetoric by the antagonists such as^42:18: “We have an internationally lauded constitution premised upon freedom, dignity, and equality. We have never altered our Bill of Rights and the evidence shows that there is no reason to do so now”, is for the propagandists a further admission of guilt by them that they do not understand the indigenous realities of South Africa and are indeed unprepared to become true Africans.
For the propagandists, the antagonists’ underwriting and promoting of the 1994 Constitution as statutorily excellent, is evidence of a self-appointed European supremacy, as in pre-1994 South Africa, to be able to ignore democracy, human rights and other demanding realities within South Africa. They see the basis of this thinking, planning and action as to assure further benefits and to safeguard the interests of the small White minority. These interests of the pre-1994 suppressors’ interests and their future are still paramount, while leaving the interests of masses of deprived Blacks in the cold.^5,26,74,130
The Bill of Rights is incomplete for the propagandists. They have no doubt that the Constitution’s primary aim was to exclusively serve the White politics and economics for a long time after 1994.
Evidence shows that there is a good reason now to change Section 25 of the Constitution, allowing various forms of land expropriation, so as to address the pressing demands of poverty and unemployment of the mass of Blacks. In this statutory planning to change Section 25, the propagandists maintain that there is undoubtedly no intention by the ANC regime to alter the South African citizens’ freedom, dignity and equality. The only aim is to improve the Bill of Rights to serve the South African citizens appropriately. To offer praise by the antagonists for the so-called^42:18: “… international lauding of the Constitution”, is to infer that its contents are accepted worldwide as absolutely “good” and as such cannot or may not be changed, is out of context and lacks reality. . The fact that the ANC regime, with their voting to activatea change to the Constitution, obtained a 69.6% favourable vote, confirms the antagonists’ lack of reality and their outdated thinking “on behalf” of the Blacks in the New South Africa. For the propagandists, the antagonists seem to be increasingly “blind and deaf strangers”, lost in their own darkness in South Africa.^7,42,107-109
Firstly, the question for the propagandists is who are these international persons lauding the 1994 Constitution? Praise here, is for the propagandists undoubtedly from the White international capitalists who shamelessly exploit/ed pre- and post-1994 the South African economics through shares and foreign owning of land. In this context, their masterly political manipulation through the antagonists as activists’ groups to safeguard their interests is clear. The truth for the propagandists is that these persons prefer an exclusive foreigner-right in South Africa, through an even exclusive foreign-orientated Constitution, allowing with them into the country’s land ownership and capital.¹³⁰
Secondly, for the propagandists, the question is cleverly watered down by the antagonists in terms of who must really be favoured by the Constitution: is it not the South African inhabitants, especially the poor Blacks, who form the mass majority?
Thirdly, upon evaluation of the phrase: “international lauding”, meaning undoubtedly excellence and integrity, the propagandists contend that Israel’sconstitution is also a so-called “international laudatory” one, as evident from the USA, the UK and France’s acknowledgement of it, while it is arguably one of the most suppressive ones in the world. It’s is an “Israel Apartheid”, allowed by the Western world to continueundisturbed, to commit war crimes, genocide and land grabbing from the Arabs since 1948 (Al Nakba). The classification or status of “international lauding” of the South African Constitution by the antagonists is hereto for the propagandists undoubtedly applicable only when a Constitution exclusively suites Western countries’ corrupt interests, while it devastates at the same time the interests and rights of the poor, indigenous people. Although most of this type of “Israeliconstitutional contamination” was expelled in 1994 from South Africa, are there still elements of contamination in the country’s Bill of Rights which must be rectified. The beginning of its “healing”, according to the propagandists, can be seen in the recent overwhelming Parliament vote in the National Assembly to begin with the process to “repair” the 1994 Constitution, to bring back land ownership to the lawful people and to erase the immense poverty, inequality and unemployment of Blacks.^5,7,131,132
In perspective, South Africa’s Bill of Rights is not really lauded nationally and internationally. This is simply “fake news”.

3.2.8. Altering of Section 25 will block and damage South Africa’s local and foreign economics?

To argue, as many antagonistic White-capitalists do that^42:18: “The alteration of Section 25’s would block the country’s flourishing economy and that foreign investors won’t risk having their land confiscated when they can pick any number of other nations that will protect their investments”, is a foolish argument. The propagandists note that indigenous land is in the first place not meant for foreigners to possess and to make money from. In South Africa’s troubled poverty, profits must be transferred back to the inhabitants. If foreigners can make a good living on South African land and be successful as entrepreneurs and farmers, so can South African Blacks make agood living on the land and be successful as entrepreneurs and farmers. There is more than enough South African capital internally available to aactivate a start-up of large scale Black-farming.¹³³
The false concept of the introduction of so-called “good” by foreigners to the country through their ownership of South African soil, is in the mindset of the propagandists created solely by the White minority who own masses of land and their association with the outside White communities, who are really not worried about the short and long term interests of the Black community. The ownership by foreign elements, such as the Jews, of land from the 1900s in Germany and Russia, was one of the direct reasons for the Holocaust, which led to the murder of approximately 10 million Jews. To allow further unlimited foreigners into South Africa as land owners, will only aggravate the present day conflict around land ownership and can easily lead to a “South African Holocaust of foreigners and Whites” in the near future. How the antagonists’ oppose some form of curbing future foreign investments and land ownership, even citizenship, is not new in South Africa: South African White political leaders such as DF Malan, HF Verwoerd, JBM Hertzog and JC Smuts, put such a block into practice in the 1930s on the Jews fleeing the Nazis to South Africa, without any negative international impact on the economics or activating a political backlash. (Smuts to the contrary, after the 1930s became an imminent world leader, respected worldwide). The Malan-clan did the same on a full scale locally with Apartheid to the Blacks from 1948, again without any internationally financial backlash. It must also be noted that South Africa’s political and economic associations are today far less intertwined with the “extreme Western democracies” such as the USA and the UK, but are directed and steered by the political thinking and action of their BRICS partners, which are less of hypocritical “ultra-democracies”.⁵
On the so-called immense negative impact that the ANC’s land reform can activate, the economic adviser of the Optimum Group, Dr. Roelof Botha¹³³ (a son of the late ex-minister Pik Botha of the NP), states that foreign investments are not playing nearly such an important role as our local investments: in the last three years, foreign investments only amounted to an average of 0.7% of South Africa’s annual gross inland produce (GIP). The unimportance of a contingent of foreign investors is also well reflected by the decline of direct foreign investments of R76 billion in 2008 to only R17.6 billion in 2017. Inland investments (local capital-forming) are thus far more important than foreign investments which the White politicians within the antagonists try to reflect as an absolute pre-requisite not to become another Venezuela or Zimbabwe. It confirms that South Africa can develop immensely without foreign investments. It also means that land redistribution, even in its most ugly form, will not necessarily devastate the country’s economy, as many of the financial prophets of doom, especially from the White side, predict. Furthermore, it is kept silent by the antagonists that the intended land expropriation is not going to be radical, in line with nationalising the Whites’ assets. In this context it is important to reflect back to Haffejee’s^50;8 description of the land expropriation plan: only certain categories of land like abandoned buildings, unutilised land, commercial property held unproductively and purely for speculative purposes, under-utilised property owned by the state, and land farmed by labour tenants with an absentee titleholder will be expropriated. There is also no intention by Ramaphosa to block foreigners from the ownership of land. This was a Zuma theoretical “delinquency”.^50,133,135
For Opperheimer⁴² to also speak of a flourishing economy to exist in South Africa today is a little bit overdone. (See again the above reference: the direct foreign investments were in 2017 only R17.6 billion against the R76 billion in 2008). Regarding the effort of Ramaphosa to attract new foreign investments per se of R1 200 billion is praiseworthy, but not the end of the road if it is not reached. If this foreign investment is to be based upon an exclusive land ownership wherein rich foreigners or White South Africans are the main role-players and policy makers, then South Africa’s masses of landless poor Blacks are doomed. It will be a replay for the propagandists ten-fold of Apartheid’s wrongdoings of 1948 to 1994. Such an outcome is unacceptable for the propagandists and will not be agreed upon or allowed by the ANC regime before or after the 2019 Election. It must be noted that the securing of abnormal foreign investment in the unstable political setup which the ANC regime inherited from the NP regime, and which needs at least another 25 to 50 years to rectify, is risky for the State, given the danger of financial overpowering by foreign powers, as the Russians tried to do to South Africa with their nuclear deal. South Africa does have the internal riches in the form of minerals, human capacity and money, to make a positive growth if the country’s human potential can develop through political and economic actions, like land redistribution to uplift the poor and the landless. The propagandists believe for this correction, the country urgently needs Ramaphosa and his land reform.^42,135
That the South African so-called “flourishing economy of 2018” will be devastated by land reform as Opperheimer⁴² tries to reflect, is wishful thinking, which again characterises the antagonists’ many wanton actions to damage the ANC regime’s and Ramaphosa’s improvement of the dire poverty of the Blacks. The impact of land expropriation will not devastate the economy in the long term, because the implementation thereof will be kept inside the initial December 2017 Nasrec-resolutions of the ANC, which exclude extreme land expropriation like land grabbing. For the propagandists it is the intention of the ANC regime to channel national capital into the country’s development through land expropriation (and vice versa), not only to fast erase the poverty associated with the poor and landless Blacks, but to turn these poor Blacks also into independent financial generators as effective Black farmers to be able to contribute to the inland investments. With this new political and economical stability in the poor Black sector, a rise in the economy, more jobs, as well as a rise in foreign investments, can follow five years from now.^42,135

3.2.9. Restructuring of South Africa’s colonial financial structure and land ownership

Taking into account the present day South African economy in general (local and foreign) which the ANC regime inherited from the basically bankrupt NP -regime in 1994 and still has to struggle with, the propagandists show that this political, social and economical setup is unfortunately part of a colonial financial structure and land ownership which dates back to long before Apartheid. The ANC is indeed in the process of addressing the exploitations that are inherent to this system, like the imbalanced and unjustice land ownership which is located in White hands.^50,59135-138
For the propagandists, notwithstanding how the antagonists try to denying it at all costs, South Africa is today, as in 1795 with the first kind of proto-Afrikaner self-rule, still being governed by a self-serving White minority who is mostly seated in the White business and financial sector, including a strong foreign component. The antagonists, especially those coming from the White business and agricultural sectors, are seen by the propagandists to be an inclusive part of thss self-serving White minority, still awarded with colonial empowerment to be able to think, plan and do for the mass of poor and landless Black South Africans. The importance of foreign capital, as reflected by the antagonists, and their allegation that the impact of the land expropriation is going to destroy it, is untrue. So far the antagonists have failed to offer a trustworthy report to confirm the negative impact of the intended land expropriation on foreign investments or on the age-old colonial farming setup.^{50,59,135-138}
It must be remembered that 2015 was a milestone for post-Apartheid South Africa, writes Tsotetsi.¹³⁸ As a water-shed it brought to the foreground not only lingering governmental and nation questions and incompleteness coming from pre-1994, but also demands for the equaling of citizen rights after 24 years of democracy. It was the start-up of the total “decolonisation” of the New South Africa, wherein the Blacks’ land ownership was central and that of foreigners secondary. Tsotetsi¹³⁸ writes^138:21: “That word – “decolonisation” – is one that’s been uttered, shouted and written about many times. It’s the spirit of the Fallism, which I understand as a movement that, at its core, is about taking charge of our present so that we can be more in control of our future”; and: “It was about reclaiming a country that hasn’t felt like ours in our lifetimes or in those of our parents, or of their parents, and maybe even of their parents’ parents”. Tsotetsi¹³⁸ can, in this context, with right postulate that the Freedom Charter fails the landless poor Blacks because it states that South Africa belongs to all who live in it (Blacks as well as White foreigners). It was never fully positioned with the majority of Blacks at the centre. Notwithstanding their political liberty awarded in 1994, the majority of Blacks are disenfranchised economically, socially and even politically due to their faulty 1994 Constitution wherein the land matter was never clearly spelled out and which the antagonists now are misusing around the so-called blocking of foreign investments. This, state the propagandists, is precisely the correction which the ANC regime wants to effect with land expropriation and why decolonialisation of South Africa is an absolute neccessity.¹³⁸
For the propagandists many of the Whites of 2018 in South Africa are undoubtedly missing their centuries old colonial political “White privileges”, like their domination of the Black population, White land lordships and the benefits of an exclusive White farming economy. In the upholding of these privileges (or at least a last effort to uphold it) the South African Whites need the direct backing of White and Western foreigners (and their governments) through their investments here, forcing these foreigners, through fear created by the antagonists of land grabbing and nationalisationg, to get active with the antagonists in fighting the ANC’s so-called land reform. In this context of ongoing White economic empowerment, the propagandists show that notwithstanding there are only 2.8 million Afrikaners left in South Africa (representing just 8% of the total population), they, although White-rule ended 25 years ago, are still beingappointed in 72% of the country’s top executive managerial posts in the private sector, in spite of the fact that they only take up 5.6% of the workforce. [Joblessness for Whites is at 7%, while the country’s national statistics reflect 26.7% (which can be 55% and higher for Blacks)].^59,135
Further contradicting the antagonists’ profile of a so-called failed ANC regime and that its land reforming is going to be a further mass failure to endanger the investments of foreigners and to close the door for them, the chair of Naspers, Koos Bekker, is of the opinion that there was more prosperity created from 1994 to 2018 (25 years) by the ANC-regime, as in the 300 years up to 1994 by the various White regimes (This financial improvement is also reflected for the post-1994 Whites’ prosperity and demonstrates why foreigners are so eager to invest here, notwithstanding the antagonists’ many false doom stories). Outstanding here is the evidence that for the period before 1994, the Whites were the greatest beneficiaries (although a minority), while post-1994 , for the first time the advent of riches to Blacks, began to slowly cut down on the Whites’ sole right to riches. These benefits were also extened to foreigners (mostly White Westerners) for pre- as well as post-1994 South Africa. What land expropriation will bring for foreigners after 2019 is the same cutting down of their riches as for local Whites, simply because the sole right to the enormous pool of riches of all Whites was erased with the normal advent of a relocation of riches to Blacks.^59,135
The focus above is again upon the immediate constructive land redistribution by Ramaphosa to restart the aims of the Freedom Charter after 25 years of failure to the majority of Blacks as equal citizens. It is this calling that many Whites (locals and foreigners), clinging to their unjust and doubtful land ownership, are missing out on and are trying with groundless arguments and foolish resistance to uphold, in terms of their dying colonial political establishment versus the poor Blacks’ fast growing demands. The explosiveness of the demands of the poor and landless is read well by Tsotetsi¹³⁸ when she writes^138:21: “The voices of decolonisation grew louder because the philosophy spread to those who had previously ignored it. Fallism and the conversations it has sparked isn’t just about taking on white privilege, racism and the pervasiveness of whiteness – it’s also about challenging the present government”.
It is this choir of demanding voices which Ramaphosa hears loud and clear, and tries to steer constitutionally constructively. The incitement role played by the antagonists, using every page from the crook’s book to stay in power, is clear. The interests of foreigners are also clearly misused here by the antagonists.
For the propagandists, the ANC regime with its intended programme of land redistribution is in a specific process to replace South Africa’s outdated colonial state and its accompanying aged economic principles and visions with a solid bond between exclusive and inclusive capitalists, landowners and the masses of poverty stricken people who indeed possess immense political power through their mass votes to be able to activate any political and socio-economil changes if needed and wanted. The South African State is becoming a modernised democratic institution under Ramaphosa and his regime.

3.2.10. White participation versus White resistance

Looking at the reactions by the antagonists since 1994, especially from 2016 by the so-called rescuers and saviours of the Afrikaners/Whites, it is clear that any constructive change planned by the ANC regime to better South Africa financially, politically and in terms of the racial environment, is just unacceptable for this White group’s leadership. The ownership of land since 2016 is particularly forefronted, although the financial interests in general of Whites are also prominently well positioned in this “White resistance”. Seen in terms of the context of a political diagnosis, it is prominent for the propagandists that the antagonists are in a White existence crisis wherein their fear of losing what they see as the “last part” of their White political and financial power, left to them in post-1994 South Africa, stands central and on trial. This outcome of a striving for an outdated “empowerment”, is a small remnant left of their diminished Afrikaner nationalism, which is still nurtured in the mindset of a small faction of Afrikaners through the contaminated influences of the opportunistic and delinquent antagonists as so-called “needed behaviour” to uphold Afrikanerism. Schoeman¹³⁹ brings this political mess together well when he says^139:4: “Die hele kwessie van die herverdeling van grond, ook die konseponteieningswet, word misbruik vir politieke doeleindes en word gegrond op ‘n skeefgetrekte en eensydige geskiedenis.” This description summarises precisely the extreme wanton and misleading actions of the broad public by the antagonists and their collaborators in the present day politics.¹³⁹
Looking objectively at the antagonists’ inciting and driving of “White resistance” against the ANC regime and the leadership of Ramaphosa, is it clear that it is wanton behaviour: there is no evidence of any action by the ANC regime to block Afrikanerism or to harm the interests of the Afrikaners/Whites (and this includes harming their land ownership and lifestyles around it). What is important here is the offering of a good quality of life to all South Africans and not exclusively to Whites (and rich Blacks). There is undoubtedly an element in this setup which can financially stress Whites (and rich Blacks), but is not unbalanced or exploitive, as Dr Peter Matseke¹⁴⁰, the CEO of Clinix Health Group, puts it^140:11: “The privileged, both black and white, can no longer remain comfortable while the majority of the country languishes in squalor and poverty. Some 24 years into democracy, they [heroes of the Struggle] would be expecting us to accelerate our efforts towards a just, non-racial, united, democratic society”.
What is urgent needed is that the wanton actions of the antagonists inside the greater Afrikaner/White community are erased as fast and comprehensively as possible. The advent of constructive mindsets with Afrikaners/Whites, especially the White farming community, on the present day South African politics and socio-economic setup, is an absolute imperative. Such positivity will help all the races to let Apartheid’s wrongs go, to interrelate, while it will reflect to all South Africans the importance of sound and balanced thinking for co-existence between exclusive and inclusive capitalists, Whites with know-how and the majority of Blacks now ruling to make the country work. Such a change will eliminate the degrading influences of substandard politicians and short-sighted activists, who are currently very active within the circle of antagonists.¹³⁸
The propagandists highlight that arguing by the antagonists of an ANC land expropriation in terms of the EFF’s fanatic policy, which prescribes wholesale property and bankconfiscations as fact, is misleading and indeed “fake news” of the ANC’s true and sincere intentions of redistribution. This falsity is the same as that by the antagonists in their talk of the horrors of Mao’s, Stalin’s and Mugabe’s regimes. To “jump” by the antagonists from the ANC regime – as the ex-politician Tony Leon¹¹⁶ did in his warning to the South African public of the ANC’s intended land redistribution – to Julius Malema and his EFF, as a diminutive and insignificant group to be the possible “true, unstoppable possible future ruler of South Africa”, and then to draw lines in terms of this theoretical governmental setup with the chaos of the Venezuela executive political leaders Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro and their failed revolutionary parties, is plain cheap journalism. The comments by Leon¹¹⁶, reflecting on this Malema- Chávez- Maduro-brotherhood as seemingly “on way to South Africa” through the ANC’s plan of land reform, is for the propagandists laughable. Leon¹¹⁶ writes^116:18:

He [Nicolás Maduro] and his late predecessor [Hugo Chávez] implemented an EFF-style programme of uncosted giveaways, at war with private production or even basic economics, reducing what was once the richest country in the hemisphere to beggary.
Inflation is recorded at 13 000%, the world’s highest, and prices of basic foods, mostly now imported, double every month. But eventually fact-free economics wearies the truest of believers, and very few bothered even to vote last weekend.
One fed-up Chavista, Carlos Gonzales, 64, who abstained, put a price on his disillusion. “My monthly pension is only enough to buy one frozen chicken…”

The question by the propagandists is: was Tony Leon, as a member of parliament and leader of the opposition ever badly paid by the ANC regime, or is his pension as a parliamentarian and an ambassador, presently again paid by the ANC regime, just enough to buy him one frozen chicken? The answer of the propagandists is a decisive No: so why this distrust of a parliament and a country he himself decided to serve as a parliamentarian, even as ambassador? As a White he was and is today surely not financially or personally discriminated against in terms of his parliamentarian pension and other payments, ownership of property or other assets. Can he reflect that he is in danger of losing his parliament benefits from 1994 to 2018? For the propagandists it is an open question as to why this fantastic political double-talk arises now from Leon¹¹⁶, on his accusations of so-called land grabbing by the ANC? Is this opposition of the ANC, which is reflected by the antagonists’ actions, nothing else than rigorous opposing of Black rule, even after 25 years of Black political empowerment?¹¹⁶
It is for the propagandists time that the many suspicion mongers inside the antagonists, together with political and so-called cultural leaders like Tony Leon, Flip Buys of Solidarity SA, AfriForum, AgricSA, Oppenheimer, the IRR and the anti-ANC Afrikaner social media, attacking constantly without motivation and clear evidence the ANC’s planned land redistribution, apply a much needed self-introspection about their political and business intentions and interests and how these are aligned with the ANC’s politics versus exclusive White capital. Only after such self-introspection, will it be clear for them if they really are making a constructive contribution to the future of South Africa and if there is really sense in their political rhetoric and actions. To act politically deconstructively landed many people in the time of the NP regime behind bars.^32,59,138
With regard to Leon’s¹¹⁶ association of Julius Malema and his EFF with the ANC, it is important to note that it was not the ANC which was lured by the EFF’s political songs to be taken as a partner, but the DA which was foolishly (or was it opportunistically) lured to fall into a working relationship with the EFF, and which has allowed Malema to sing in the choir with Maimane. For the propagandists, is it clear that the EFF will never become part of the ANC regime under Ramaphosa. The propagandists maintain that Malema himself as a person and as a “politician”, is unacceptable to the established ANC elite and emphasise that Malema’s behaviour inside formal politics has shown him to be uncontrollable and bewitched by his own “untrammeled power”. The propagandists believe that it is also politically foolish to think that a reckless EFF with only 6% of the votes can ever be allowed entrance into the ANC, making “warnings” by the antagonists of an “evil collaboration” between the ANC and the EFF wanton actions, spread by the antagonists purely for their own selfish political gains.^32,59,119
For the propagandists, looking at the easy influencing of many of the ordinary Afrikaners/Whites at present by the antagonists in their creation of suspicion of the ANC’s planned land redistribution and about Black rule, it seems as though many the Afrikaners never outgrew their political and socio-economic immaturity which the leaders of the NP-AB-DRC-alliance so effectively used in the old days to cloud the nationalist Afrikaners’ mindsets with racism and political wrongdoing.
Yes, allude the antagonists, for the unprepared Whites, still cast in their European dressings and unwilling to understand and adapt to South Africa’s indigenous realities, the present day South Africa is undoubtedly a critical and frightening time: there is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of tension and a lot of anger, but the signs are good for at last a better South Africa in the making, or as Tsotetsi says^138:21: “[It is an] inspiring time to live in South Africa”. There is no doubt for the propagandists that even Tony Leon and many of the antagonists are going to stay on to live comfortably and safe forever in South Africa: the country is at least still safer than Israel and free from their immense politics of suppression and delinquence! For the propagandists all that Leon and the contingent of antagonists must do to be able to also be happy in their hearts here, is to free themselves from White imperialistic thoughts and symbols, colonised curriculums, as well as the chains of patriarchy and misogyny and the hierarchies of White privilege. The ANC regime is by far better than the NP regime in which most of the antagonists have lived “so very happily for many years” while the Blacks were completely unhappy. The question for the propagandists is: if South Africa under the ANC regime (together with Black rule) is so “bad”, as the antagonists preach daily, why are they staying on here? It seems just too nice to leave!¹³⁸
White participation is far nicer than White resistance. More than 90% of the Afrikaner/White population have learned this fact fast since 1994 and are living happily here. But to obtain this happiness they freed themselves from the contamination of the antagonists.

3.2.11. President Cyril Matamel Ramaphosa: The last bright candle light in South Africa’s darkest night?

There has been a lot written about Cyril Matamel Ramaphosa, the person and the leader, since the 1990s. This writing has picked up speed since his appointment as President of the country. As Jacob Zuma was initially a blue-eyed politician, but fell with time into unpopularity with the antagonists, it seems also to be the path to come for Ramaphosa. The specific reason for his sudden unpopularity, preached daily in the media, is his so-called “political turn on Whites” with his intended land expropriation without compensation. Enclosed therein stands some ongoing but justified rhetoric by him which the Whites see as hostile against them, just because he does not favour them more than the Blacks in the past.^50,142-145

3.2.11.1. Antagonistic White sector’s misleading and suspicion-mongering

We need to teach our children that in life, some things are not going to be fair. That there are going to be some white people who will not like you simply because you are black, but at the same time, there are good white people and bad white people, and that tolerating and celebrating diversity should be our life-long journey.^145:25

The above postulation, maintain the propagandists, holds certain truths, ignoring Mkhondo’s¹⁴⁵ own racism and racial subjectivity. Indeed, admit the propagandists, he failed to elaborate fully to reflect also in reverse upon the fact that there are good as well as bad Black people doing the same good or bad racial things as the Whites, and that both Black and White sometimes are doing delinquent things activating unacceptable racism. But, argue the propagandists, no-one can object to Mkhondo’s¹⁴⁵ argument when it comes to the racism echoed by the behavior and rhetoric specific to Cyril Ramaphosa. For the propagandists, this racism is more than locked-in because Ramaphosa is the leader of the ANC party as well as the president of the ANC regime, but rooted in Mkhondo’s¹⁴⁵ postulation: he is not like, simply because he is Black.
The present generalised writings in newspapers by various journalists on the person of Cyril Ramaphosa, especially those coming from the antagonistic White sector on what land redistribution is going to be under Ramaphosa, are mostly misleading and unnecessary suspicion-mongering about him. The intimation that Ramaphosa is going “to try a big score” through the unruly and indecisive Black voters in 2019 with his bringing in as a vote motivator comprehensive land expropriation without compensation, is for the propagandists anathema. Although this propaganda must be taken with a pinch of salt, many of the ordinary Afrikaners/Whites, even those outside the farming sector and capitalist business sector, have become filled with fear for their future by the antagonists’ ongoing orchestrated false allegations. This places Black and White on a collision course, with the Afrikaners/Whites seeing the poor and landless Blacks as the “takers” of their property, forcing the country into a dangerous face-off between “haves” and” have-nots”.^{42,64,117,134,136,142-144}
Prominent in these unanchored criticisms – remarks undoubtedly, as mentioned, to be taken with “a pinch of salt” – are those where the Afrikaners/Whites want “more” attention, privileges and benefits than the rest of the other South African races. Pertinent to such an outcome is that the contention of the chair of the Afrikanerbond (AB), Dr Jaco Schoeman¹³⁹, when he says^139:4: “Een van pres. Cyril Ramaphosa se uitdagings met die 107de verjaardagviering [January 2019] in KwaZulu-Natal om te wys dat hy die leier van alle Suid-Afrikaners, ook wit landsburgers, kan wees, sê die Afrikanerbond (AB).” For the propagandists, this remark clearly confirms how the Afrikaners/Whites became used since 1652 to an exclusive preference of treatment, notwithstanding their socio-economic and political wrongdoings and continued privileges and benefits at the cost of the majority of non-Whites. The central issue here again for a certain segment of the Afrikaners/Whites (specifically the insignificant group known as the AB), is the possible loss of the land which Whites stole from Blacks and which the ABs from their limited framework of reasoning and honesty, now see as “discrimination” and “wrongdoing” against the Whites. Schoeman¹³⁹ and his AB group ignore the hard fact that there are more than 50 million so-called non-Whites living in South Africa who were hard done by many of the ancestors of the present ABs and other Afrikaners/Whites. The question is clear: were DF Malan, JG Strydom, HF Verwoerd and BJ Vorster ever good and sincere leaders to all South Africans (most prominently Black South Africans)? The answer is a resounding: no; not a single one of them. Ramaphosa is forced to balance the interests of all citizens and to do justice to all the main tribes within the country, of which the Whites are only one. He shows daily that he is all the people of South Africa’s president. (The ABs will benefit from realising that Ramaphosa is not a psychologist/psychiatrist with the official order to treat South African citizens’ attention and rejection syndromes).
For the propagandists, the comparison by the antagonists of the qualities of Cyril Ramaphosa with those of Jacob Zuma as a president, as was indirectly done by Schoeman¹³⁹, is inappropriate. The journalist Prince¹³⁹ of Beeld reflects on Schoeman’s thinking^139:4: “Schoeman sê oudpres. Jacob Zuma het dit in sy termyn baie duidelik gemaak dat die ANC belange bo die Grondwet was. ‘Daarmee het hy hom van ‘n groot deel van die bevolking vervreem’.” For the propagandists, this “redirected and indirect” kind of thinking and rhetoric on Ramaphosa by the antagonists is far from the truth. Secondly, this shows the disconnection that exists in the mindsets of the antagonists to be able to observe and to read political facts and realities correctly (especially when they are Black facts and realities).¹³⁹
Louw⁵ comments on the contaminating potential of executive political leaders when he describes how Afrikaners surrender their “independent thought” to their leaders^5:218-219:

Afrikaner status, Afrikaans as an exclusive Afrikaner language, Afrikaner radical economic transformation, Afrikaner state capture, the racial purity of the Afrikaner, race separation, the limitation of Black politics, Afrikaner social and economical empowerment, Afrikaner nation identification, Afrikaner group identity above individuality, etc., became the dominant propaganda of the Malan era.

Thirdly, reflects Schoeman¹³⁹ there is a seemingly “absolute innocence” on the exclusive and immense wrongdoings of the proto-Afrikaners and nationalist Afrikaners between 1652 and 1994 by his allegation of the so-called “suppression and autocratic behaviour” of the ANC regime between 1994 and 2018. Schoeman¹³⁹ postulates in this context^139:4: “…die [ANC] party wat self rassisme en diskriminasie op allerlei maniere toepas en in die proses vele Suid-Afrikaners van hul vryheid en self-respek ontneem het.” The question is prominent for the propagandists: who were these South Africans who lost their so-called beloved “freedom and self-respect”? If it is supposed to be the Afrikaners/Whites (on whose behaf Schoeman with his ±20 000 ABs is not authorized to speak and as a small selfish group are ignored by the majority of Afrikaners/Whites), then his¹³⁹ remark is politically wanton for the propagandists, just to put Ramaphosa and the ANC regime under suspicion.¹³⁹
Self-enrichment and self-empowerment were undoubtedly the main motives in the Whites political policies over the centuries. On the contaminated intertwining of these two powers, fully applicable to the White South Africans lifestyles, Chomsky¹³² says it well^132:28:

Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle.

The above clearly reflects that it is not the post-1994 ANC which is responsible for today’s mass poor and landless Blacks: it comes directly from the pre-1994 White rulers’ pairing oftheir concentration of White wealth with their concentration of White political power. In this context upon the remnants of the pre-1994 Black poverty rooted in today’s Black poverty, Mmusi Maimane writes^{146: 22}: “Our country still has deep divisions of colour, of gender and religion. But the biggest division in our society is between those on the inside – people with jobs, good education and access to opportunity – and the millions still locked out of our economy.”
Specific to Maimane’s¹⁴⁶ reference to the immense ongoing Black poverty since 1994 which needs Ramaphosa’s attention through land reform, Mcebisi Jonas¹⁴⁷ writes that the past 25 years brought significant improvement to the Blacks’ earnings but less improvement to the provision of wealth. He writes^147:15-16: “The inequalities in wealth and opportunity present a threat both to the dignity of our citizens and to the strength and security of our society. Inter-racial inequality provides fertile ground for divisive populism.”
The question is clear for the propagandists: do Schoeman and his ABs understand what Maimane¹⁴⁶ and Jonas¹⁴⁷ are basically saying, especially about: “the millions still locked out of our economy” and the: “inequalities in wealth and opportunity present a threat both to the dignity of our citizens and to the strength and security of our society”? Looking critically at their constant and rigid defense of their favoured position as: “people with jobs, good education and access to opportunity”, they are, it seems, lost politicians from Mars!!
With regard to Schoeman’s remark on the actions of the ANC regime who people’s “selfrespek ontneem” (it can only be assumed to be Afrikaners/Whites), he failed, to offer trustworthy research to back up his postulation, but most of all he stays silent on his Afrikaners/Whites’ pre-1994 extremely delinquent actions to Blacks. In this context the answer to Schoeman¹³⁹ by the propagandists is clear: it was exclusively the Afrikaners/Whites and their ancestors who robbed millions of Blacks over centuries of their self-respect, causing a setup where millions of Blacks are still lacking self-respect and dignity, and not the ANC who had “robbed the Afrikaners/Whites of self-respect”. The postulation by Schoeman¹³⁹ is again an antagonistc farce.
A fifth clear example of the antagonistic White-sector’s misleading and suspicion-mongering against Ramaphosa and the ANC, is the narrative by Schoeman¹³⁹ on the political history of South Africa when he reflects subjectively^139:4: “Die hele kwessie van die herverdeling van grond, ook die konseponteieningswet, word misbruik vir politieke doeleindes en word gegrond op ‘n skeefgetrekte en eensydige geskiedenis. Ongelukkig maak die president hom ook skuldig aan die narratief wat net een geskiedenis voorhou.” The only narrative in the reference of Schoeman is seemingly that the “history” he refers to, is the post-1994 one wherein the 25 year regime (1994-2019) of the ANC is central, ignoring the “pre-1994 history” wherein from 1652 to 1994 (342 years) the history was exclusively and totally one-sided, driven and written by the autocratic White/Afrikaner rulers (and a delinquent history wherein the AB played a prominent role). The most contaminated part of this pre-1994 history occurred from 1948 to 1994 by the NP-AB-DRC-alliance under their politically corrupt and autocratic Grand Apartheid. Hereto has the ANC regime since 1994 tried in all seriousness to put a balanced political history upon the table, covering the period from 1652 until today. So far is it solely the antagonists who are completely ignoring the badness of the Afrikaners/Whites’ role in the 1652 to 2019 history. Secondly, they are deaf and blind, as Schoeman’s doings reflect, to the balanced historic facts offered by the ANC regime. To accuse Ramaphosa (or the ANC regime) of presenting a one-sided or false history around the land expropriation matter, is for the propagandists again an example of the antagonistic White-sector’s well-planned misleading and suspicion-mongering against the person and leadership of Ramaphosa.^4-7,139
It becomes clear for the propagandists that the so-called Afrikaner/White rescuers and saviours, like the AB, AfriForum, Solidarity, AgriSA, FF Plus, etc., still, after 25 years of Black rule and empowerment (and a Christianity coming from 1652), have not developed insight that their internalised cognition of White supremacy is a “bad” characteristic, based upon a clear cut between Black and White. Central to this naïve thinking, planning and action, driving seemingly the majority of Afrikaners/Whites mostly unconsciously since 1652 by their belief system of an association of good with White and bad with Black, stands racism. From a psychoanalysis view it seems as though they never learned what racism really is and the many manifestations thereof as reflected in human behaviour including their own. Much of the present misleading and suspicion-mongering against the person and leadership of Ramaphosa is cemented in this contaminated mindset. But this misleading and suspicion-mongering would be reflected against any other Black in a leadership position (as Nelson Mandela also experienced) in South Africa by the so-called Afrikaner/White rescuers and saviors. It did not matter whether these Blacks were the ruler or the opposition. This character defect, reflected thankfully for the propagandists’ since 1994 by only a minority of Afrikaners/Whites, will only be healed by their comprehension of what racism is. Constructive education, it seems for the propagandists, has become an absolute. The solution to the problem – which will bring an end to the misleading and suspicion-mongering against the person and leadership of Ramaphosa – lies in Mkhondo’s¹⁴⁵ simple guideline when he posits^145:25:

As parents, we must teach our children the different definitions of racism as contained in many dictionaries: the negative benefits, attitudes, actions, or behaviours that are based upon phenotypic characteristics or ethnic affiliations; the beliefs in inherent superiority or inferiority upon the basis of perceived group attributes, often conceptualised as including beliefs and attitudes (racial prejudice) and actions and practices (racial discrimination), and that it can occur on individual, internal, or structural (institutional) levels, and be either subtle or obvious.

The Afrikaners/Whites as individuals, but especially the hostile leadership of the so-called Afrikaner/White rescuers and saviours, will all benefit to note Mkhondo’s simple guideline: they are not too old or too rigid to change positively.¹⁴⁵
The good advice of an outsider to politics, Roy T. Bennett, can also guide the hostile Afrikaners/Whites as individuals and leaders, together with their Afrikaner/White rescuers and saviors, when he says: “It’s only after you’ve stepped outside your comfort zone that you begin to change, grow, and transform.”
The many false outcomes for Ramaphosa — started up deliberately with bad intentions by the antagonists, bringing nightmares to the mindsets of the ordinary Afrikaners/Whites — are not part at all of the intended land expropriation of which so many Whites are deeply afraid. The end result is going to look totally different in a very good way, as emphasized by the propagandists. They maintain that it is not Ramaphosa’s intention to move from an existing exclusive capitalism to a solely inclusive or social capitalism, while Communism is and was never on the cards for South Africa under the ANC. The economy will be for him a parallel economy between exclusive capitalism and inclusive capitalism, so as to steer land redistribution. This immediately made the antagonists’ allegation of a Chinese economic and political “occupation” null and void (Ramaphosa already showed the Russians the door under the Putin-Zuma-nuclear deal).
Ramaphosa’s present good standing on the issue of land is totally masked by the antagonists for the general public. The antagonists have so far wantonly frequently and successfully created negative impressions of him and his regime. Examples are the potential full-scale land grabbing, the irresponsible allocation of immediate full title-deeds to the new Black land owners without precise pre-limitations on the reselling of the given land or other limitations on the future trading of the so-called “free land” received by the poor and landless Blacks, and the alleged irresponsible handing over of other assets and expropriation of riches from Whites (which is of course not part of Ramaphosa’s land expropriation plan!). The financial journalist Chris Barron¹⁴⁸ warns the uninformed ordinary public about the false belief of the worst to come created by the antagonists. It is far-fetched mind capture, and mostly action impossible to introduce by any regime in present-day South Africa (This outcome was indeed created and fully obtained by the Afrikaner/White regimes, but only after more than 300 years of their political domination of the Black South Africans). Barron¹⁴⁸ reflects a mild change coming around the intended land reform of Ramaphosa: an action spread out over a long time, to be executed inside an orderly process, and free from political radicalism. It is for the propagandists clear that Ramaphosa has, after his assumption of the presidency, successfully counteracted the delinquent intentions and planning of land grabbing by certain radicals’ inside the ANC who were still associated with Jacob Zuma.^59,148,149
Ramaphosa knows very well that the short and long term processes around land redistribution are complicated and sensitive and he is steering it very responsibly.
Ramaphosa’s legal foundation and approach to obtain an orderly and just land reform, taking the interests of White land owners into consideration, can be read in Barack Obama’s¹⁵⁰ speech at the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in Johannesburg on the 17th July 2018 when he said^150:11: “Mandela taught us the power of action, but he also taught us the power of ideas; the importance of reason and arguments; the need to study not only those who you agree with, but also those you don’t agree with…Mandela [also] demonstrated that action and ideas are not enough. No matter how right, they must be chiseled into law and institutions.” For the propagandists it is time that the antagonists study without subjectivity the reasons and arguments of Ramaphosa on land reform, and how it is going to be executed: only then will they start to understand the meaning of Obama’s remark150:11: chiseled into law and institutions. Ramaphosa’s whole exercise on land expropriation will be driven within the Constitution: it will be executed in terms of democratic principles and overseen by law respected institutions such as the country’s courts and various parliamentary bodies.¹⁵⁰
This balanced intention on future human rights and economics for South Africans by Ramaphosa, erasing the antagonists’ misleading of his intention to impoverish Whites and to strip them of their civil rights, is also echoed by Jonas¹⁴⁷ when he posits^147:15-15:

Building a more inclusive economy must be at the centre of our national development agenda. But transformation is not simply about replacing the white elite with a new black elite. A fundamental restructuring of the economy is instead required in which rent-seeking is incrementally replaced with the development of new productive capabilities in which black South Africans have an increasing share. The current dichotomy between growth and transformation is false. We need to transform to grow, and we need to grow to transform.

3.2.11.2. Ramaphosa’s economic goodwill to every South African and his sincere underwriting of a capitalist democracy

With regard to the constant criticisms by the antagonists of Ramaphosa and his regime as failures, is it important to take a perspective on Ramaphosa’s outputs. Ramaphosa, in contrast to Jacob Zuma, after his selection as president, immediately launched various initiatives to improve the ANC regime’s relationship with the private business and financial sectors. These initiatives include industrial development, training and the shoring up of public enterprise. Substantial changes were made in the top tiers of the government, SOEs and other vital institutions, according toUmraw.^50,136,137
In this context, most prominent is his focus upon two areas: activation of the economy and the fighting of corruption. Regarding the economy he identified five key pillars which he activated and is steering to a high level: an investment drive; youth employment; state-owned enterprises as economy vehicles for growth creation, improvement of competition and land redistribution. Eight direct interventions have already taken place on certain state owned enterprises which were previously exposed to state capture. There enterprises changed their boards. Furthermore, Ramaphosa tasked Gwede Mantashe, Jeremy Cronin and Ronald Lamola to find solutions for the prominent problems around the areas of mineral resources and public works, and he also put the issue of land redistribution and inequality between the races under direct investigation. Ramaphosa’s restructuring and re-steering of the country’s various public enterprises assures that these bodies will remain economic drivers to bring about growth, skills development and business competition. These interventions avoid a forced selling off or an untimely privatisation of these public bodies.^50,136,137
Ramaphosa fully recognises that the corruption and capture issue during the Zuma regime must not recur and is geared not only to prevent this happening in his regime, but acknowledges that the crooks must be erased from the regime if he wants to steer the country onto a winning path. Fikile Mbalula¹⁵² describes this crooked and deep rooted setup under Zuma as an in-depth cancerous infection which needs an in-depth treatment^152:4: “… you can’t clean a sore without going deep into it – just dressing the wound won’t help”. The intention of Ramphosa is to go deep into the state capture under Jacob Zuma and his cronies.¹⁵²
Ramaphosa knows that in his addressing of the disabled South Africa left behind by Jacob Zuma and his cronies, the immediate requirement is to form a post-2018 South African identity solidly based upon the cooperation of the public and private enterprises and the individual citizens. Integrity and ethics are imperative here. With such a strong consensus and mandate to back his reformation of the ownership of land, it will be a great success. Ramaphosa knows that without an absolute unitary consensus and mandate, his best intentions and actions for a better South Africa will be fruitless.¹⁵³
Thombothi¹⁵⁴ is not wrong when he, in reflecting upon Ramphosa’s intentions, postulates^154:17: “One cannot, for instance, launch into battle with a disjointed army or without the support of the entire populace. The coherence or the agreement needs to first come from inside.”
In this context the propagandists show Ramaphosa’s economic goodwill to every South African and his underwriting of a broad-spectrum of a capitalistic democracy with his appointments of prominent capitalist economic leaders. Prominent here is the appointment of the economist Trudi Makhaya, a Rhodes scholar, and an alumnus of Wits and Oxford universities, as his special economic adviser. Included in his supportive circle are four special envoys and eminent South Africans under Trudi Makhaya’s oversight. These are the ex-Minister, Trevor Manuel, the ex-Deputy-Minister of Finance, Mcebisi Jonas, the Liberty Holding Chairman, Jacko Maree and the Executive Chair of Afropulse, Phumzile Langeni. The main aim of this team is to uplift the South African economy and to obtain $100 billion (R1.2 trillion) plus in foreign investments (an aim which they have already fulfilled to a great extent). These appointments and intentions by Ramaphosa are seen by the propagandists as a sign that extreme RET and the leftish Zuma politics, which include the promotion of extreme political actions like land grabbing, the nationalising of the assets of Whites, and the kicking out of foreigners as land, property and other asset owners, are erased from the ANC’s future politics.^60,144,145
In this new business initiative is it clear that Ramaphosa has, with sound business leadership, steered the ANC elite’s mindset away from a Mugabe-Zimbabwe land grab as a solution to our land issue, showing to them that the consequences are just too overwhelming and too destructive for South Africa. Herewith were the doctrines of ex-Minister of Finance, Malusi Gigaba and his economic adviser, a said Professor Chris Malikane, which called from inside the ANC, with Jacob Zuma’s permission, for radical RET like the nationalisation of mines and banks to cure the country’s economic ills, also killed for ever by Ramaphosa.^60,144,145
To challenge the many obstructions, especially to get the private sector engaged, Professor Mills Soko⁷⁵ sees Ramaphosa as the ideal leader to pull it off. He writes^75:9: “He’s been a union leader, a business leader, he knows what’s happening in the economy. He must start these uncomfortable conversations. He has the tactical language to speak to business”.
This, as mentioned byProfessor Soko, is according to the propogandists exactly what Ramaphosa has doing from day one in the presidency!
Ramaphosa’s economical goodwill to every South African and his sincere support of a capitalistic democracy are unchallengeable realities, and the world must know it.
Ramaphosa is not an Nkandla Crooner (a Jacob Zuma looting the public monies of South Africa). He was primarily involved in the birth of the New South Africa and is today still part of that elite leadership who assured our peaceful transition. The transition was not a miracle^155:9: “It’s a choice made by [good] leaders and the [good] people they lead. Countries that succeed make tough choices”, posits Malala¹⁵⁵. Ramaphosa is leading wisely by making tough choices to let South Africa succeed; choices that do not fit into the selfish and opportunistic plans of the antagonists. The disfunction in certain segments of the present South Africa have nothing to do with Ramaphosa leadership, as the antagonists try to reflect, but it has a centuries old history. His present role is to again bring about a peaceful land transformation, as the dispensation of 25 years ago did.
The advent of Ramaphosa and the rebirth of South Africa, states Malala¹⁵⁵ can be equated to the enormous reform that was activated from April 2018 in problematic Ethiopia which was also drowing in a sea of mediocrity, until its salvation by a leader in the class of Ramaphosa. Malala¹⁵⁵ writes^155:9:

It can be done, though. In Ethiopia in April 2018 we saw the arrival of a young new leader, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, and the swift and resolute implementation of a wide range of confidence-boosting measures. Opposition parties have been unbanned and invited to participate in ensuring a free and fair election next year [2020]; exiles have been welcomed back without fear of reprisals; borders are opening; women are taking up leadership positions. Journalists have been freed from jails.

The ANC regime since 1994 has mercifully been free from the incarceration of the opposition, persons banned, borders closed or the jailing of journalists and discrimination against women. Neither were the antagonists even banned or prosecuted,due to their racial incitement and false rumours on Ramaphosa and the ANC. But the rehabilitation and rebuilding of a country and its people subjected to hundreds of years of suppression and exploitation, asks the same input from President Ramaphosa as Ethiopia asks from its Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

3.2.11.3. Political and personal hostilities focused upon Ramaphosa

The propagandists’ emphasise that South Africans must not ignore the hostility and manipulation of the political environment which Ramaphosa has to face in his presidency – from inside and outside the ANC regime. This brings him constant unusual stress and places him under attack. The political analyst and journalist Peter Bruce⁶² warns in this context that “it is easy in light of our present politics to become dismayed by the complexity of almost every single issue and the reality that Cyril Ramaphosa is sincerely trying to rehabilitate and to reform the ANC as a regime and political party after the corruption of Jacob Zuma. This rehabilitation is an enormous process”. Ramaphosa is simultaneously in a battle to resist and to eliminate the strong Zuma-ANC-NEC-powerbase, which is trying to derail his leadership and to put the country again directly into a Zuma project of stealing. On this immense constructive action and rehabilitation by Ramaphosa (mostly unseen and observed by the ordinary South African), not only of the ANC but also of the total administration of the country, Bruce⁶² writes^62:16: “But simply because we cannot foresee the outcomes of events already in motion does not mean Ramaphosa is failing. Look, he may well be failing, but the evidence isn’t there. What is there is evidence of a painstaking setting to rights of issues as they come up”.
Ramaphosa’s political clean-up of the present day South African politics is also confirmed by the writing of the editor of the Sunday Times¹¹⁷ when he highlights the positive outcome of the Ramaphosa regime^117:16: “But the tide has turned. Ramaphosa, in the understated yet quietly determined way that has become his hallmark, is picking off bad apples one by one. Slowly but surely, Ramaphosa’s “New Dawn” is shining a light into the darkest recesses of the Zuma era.” ¹¹⁷
Ramaphosa himself is under no illusions about the immense mess which South Africa is in and that it will take some time to recalibrate and realign every part before good governance is being reached. The May Report (2016-2017) of the Office of the Auditor-General is sobering and depressing reading, making the immense task of Ramaphosa ahead understandable, and fillingthe reader with great sympathy. The report shows that only 33 out 257 municipalities received clean audits, while irregular expenditure at local government level amounts to R28.37 billion. It must also be acknowledged That South Africa has a weak growth rate from as far back as before 1994, far behind that which characterised the global world’s recovery (and which was one of the reasons to force the NP to hand over the politics to the ANC). Attached to this stands the significant gap between the country’s needs versus its aspirations and capacity, making it, notwithstanding it being the best developed economy in Africa, a slow growing country. South Africa’s remote location, in combination with its history of economic isolation, makes it an all-over outsider in the global economy. Furthermore, the mass unemployment of the youth and poor basic and tertiary education, are direct results of the spatial pattern of Apartheid’s economic inequality. The propagandists note, specific to the criticism by the antagonists of the so-called poor general performance by the Ramaphosa regime so far, that notwithstanding the epic swindles and under-performance at various state institutions which are immensely comprehensive and deep seated, Ramaphosa’s men already demonstrate excellent improvement in their functioning, and are progressing well in their clean up.^{50,117,136,156}
The cry for the immediate correction of the South Africa official political system, for instance by action such as the firing and taking to court of political and government officials previously active inside the Zupta-setup, has been heard from especially the antagonists in their senseless labelling of Ramaphosa as a failure as President. What the antagonists, mostly inexperienced themselves in serious and advanced politics, missed out in their arrogante criticism, is that Zuma’s empowerment inside the ANC elite (prominently the ANC NEC) is still there. Ramaphosa is not a “blind, impulsive politician”. He knows the odds and is aware of Zuma’s corrupt political mindset.Ramaphosa is forced to follow prescribed legal (and sound political) ways to bring the many culprits to book. This process takes time and is to a certain extent outside Ramaphosa’s control: he cannot takes premature action and have it later questioned, criticised or recalled by the judiciary.^35,68
The comprehensiveness of the above infighting and extreme undermining of President Ramaphosa’s leadership and good regime is well illustrated by Munusamy³⁴ when she warned already in April 2018 about the underminers in the ANC as follows^34:22:

Ramaphosa might have great plans for South Africa’s recovery, but it would appear that his own organisation is weighting him down. Instead of focusing on stabilising the state and creating an optimum climate for the investment and economic growth that would hopefully result in job creation, he must fight the ANC’s internal problems.
Meanwhile, other ANC leaders are ineffective, dogged by scandal or engaged in sideshows.
While Ramaphosa is able to send his lions on the hunt for investment, it is a pity he does not have beasts at his disposal to deal with the nuisances in the ANC.

Nyatsumba³⁵ politically educates the naïve antagonists of a direct and immediate “revenge-taking” by Ramaphosa on the criminals associated with Zuma still in the ANC regime when he writes^35:18: “Only a president with a political death wish would succumb to the deafening public calls to dispense with due process and take immediate and precipitous action against individuals who face allegations”. Patience is the key, as Ramaphosa plays by the rules before he can oust the delinquent Zuma-faction from the ANC NER. About this temporary, but immense hold-up of Ramaphosa’s political reforms by the delinquents in the ANC party and ANC elite, Munusamy³³ states^33:18: “…South Africa can only leave the Zuma era behind when the corruption networks are completely broken, the criminals are brought to book and there is a re-orientation of the state.”
This immense challenge for Ramaphosa cleanse, is also well demonstrated by Barron¹⁵¹ when he writes^151:10: “The claws have gone very deep into these institutions, corruption has become pervasive. So it is not going to be smooth sailing”.
There is no doubt for the propagandists that Ramaphosa will act fast and comprehensively when his mechanism of ruling is in place. But, as the propagandists’ emphasise, South Africans will have to learn to be patient and realistic with the present style of Ramaphosa-reign and rid from their mindsets the antagonists’ implants of a Ramaphoria or Ramaphosa-mania. This criticism is also a finger-pointing to the antagonists’ unjustified profiling of Ramaphosa as a person of doubtful character and an sub- standard executive political leader: many of the antagonists’ objections, moans and accusations on Ramaphosa’s so-called failures to rectify so far all the wrongs of the Zuma-era, have a purely racial foundation and originate from the pre-1994 racial politics practiced by the nationalist Afrikaners. For the propagandists is it now the time for the antagonists to do self-introspection, to rectify their delinquent politics to the poor and landless Blacks Their scapegoating of Ramaphosa as a so-called “Black racist”, is the utmost mischief-making and will cost them dearly in the end.³⁵
The balancing act at present by Ramaphosa to get the populace on his side, in avery limited time, and to at the same time effect land redistribution while keeping the country unified, is a challenge that has never before, since 1652, been undertaken by an executive political leader in South Africa. What Ramaphosa now needs is immense moral and political support from the populace, not the aimless and noisy warbling of the many antagonistic political songbirds who are missing out on today’s forced realities such as the immediate need for land redistribution.¹⁵⁷
It is important to reflect again upon the immense conspiracies activated by the Zupta-cronies to unseat him. Jacob Zuma and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma are the prominent leaders here, referred to as the “Brutus’ in waiting”. Such an ousting will undoubtedly activate a full blooded land grabbing and extreme RET wherein every member of the White tribe will figure prominently as the victims.^{34,103,105,106,158,159}
This political complexity and “blood-battling”, with the possibility of focused murder inside the present day ANC, clarifies for the propagandists why Ramaphosa has so far been unable to make dramatic changes to the still “Zuma-ridden” South African political setup, and thus to challenge directly the Zuma part in the ANC. Other than during the Zuptiod-reigning up to 2018 of South Africa, which had lacked responsibility, insight and integrity, Ramaphosa acknowledges publically that there is an enormous balancing task awaiting him as president, namely^145:4: “…to balance business friendly policies with pent-up demand for social and economic justice”, and that his present timely response is^145:4: “… people’s ‘yearning for land’ would insure against ‘policy mishaps’ in future”.. These are tasks he does not fear to take on and he knows he can solve the issues with full justice inside the democracy, as he stateswith confidence^154:4: “Addressing the “gaping and bleeding” wound caused by land hunger need not threaten either business or white minority”.
Although there is a belief that the struggle for the soul of the ANC to be a regime is far from over, it must be emphasised that a possible Zupta-derailing of the Ramaphosa presidency in the near future seems to be limited. Although the KwaZulu-Natal Youth League Chair Mshengu still refers to the pro-Zuma formations like the Mazibuye African Congress and the African Transformation Movement in KwaZulu-Natal as “enemies” of Ramaphosa, and Jacob Zuma through his Zulu-ticket stays the most popular figure in KwaZulu-Natal, the anti-Ramaphosia is busy passing away. The ending of Zuma’ populistic and unrealistic hand-outs to the Zulus, as shown by Jonas, is now already one of Ramaphosa’s intentions to limit the unrealistic expectations that a fiscally constrained and hollowed out the state presents. Ramaphosa knows that financially the country can simply not further meet the years’ of populist handouts as occured under Jacob Zuma. This, of course, is going to put strain (and masked, well-planned attacks) on his regime, especially from the Zuma-gang not as yet in retirement.^{34,37,38,147,158-162}
Mcebisi Jonas¹⁴⁷, a former Deputy Minister of Finance, and now an investment envoy to Ramaphosa, writes that there is in every government a fighting back by crooks when a political delinquent such as Zuma and his men are ousted with force^147:15-16: “… future assaults on the constitution and on the rule of law as obstacles to so-called transformation are to be expected”, but the evidence is there that Cyril Ramaphosa has slowly overcome the Zuma orientated resistance and hostility against him as a person and leader inside the ANC, especially the hostility of the ethnicity of the Zulu tribe and their doctrine by Jacob Zuma’s Zulu ethnic-nationalism against his ethnic Venda-Tshivenda connection.^{34,37,147,153,158-162}
The internal hostility in the ANC, as shown by Hunter¹⁶⁰, especially in KwaZulu-Natal, was fired up by the undermentioned threatening war songs by Zuma supporters against Ramaphosa, when he visited KwaZulu-Natal in April 2018. However, this is mostly a thing of the past^160:17:

Phansi ngoCyril Ramaphosa phansi! [Down with Cyril Ramaphosa, down!],
That NEC of the ANC is rotten. Those are not ANC leaders. They are the agents of [Johann Rupert] and Opperheimer…Thuma mina Cyril Ramaphosa”.

Where Jacob Zuma deserves to be blacklisted as a political scoundrel, Ramaphosa innocently attracts negative news, unfortunately for the wrong reasons. The present political and personal hostility focused upon Ramaphosa, is mostly driven by the antagonists in their foolish “smash-and-grab” politics in their hope to make some gains. The antagonists failed over many years to bring solutions to conflicts and problems which they, by their rule had created, making it now for the ANC to address this through their. The facts are there, not only to contradict the false allegations of the antagonists against Ramaphosa, but also that they are going to be the losers in their fight with Ramaphosa.^{144,145,152,163}

3.2.11.4. The Zuma reference within the Ramaphosa CV

Prominent in the criticism against Ramaphosa by the antagonists is their calling him a “Zuma-collaborator” in state capture and the country’s mismanagement. In this accusationthey constantly refer to his so-called “passivity” as an ANC member and later Vice-President in the Zuma regime upon Zuma’s wrongdoings. They attempt to portray him to bring only further misery to South Africans in general and to Whites specifically, with what the antagonists like to call “all out land-grabbing”. In response the propagandists, after comprehensive research and evaluation of the matter, show that there is no evidence offered by the antagonists to assure their allegations. The propagandists’ opinion is that these allegations are unjustified and clearly delusional thinking by the antagonists.^{28,29,31-36,42,64,75,117,134,136,141-144}
In specific defense of the above allegations on the person and the leader Cyril Ramaphosa, the propagandists note that although he was part of the Zuma setup, it was an executive position forced upon him officially by his membership of the ANC party, the ANC elite and the ANC NEC. The propagandists offer clear evidence showing that he publically objected to Zuma’s delinquent actions. Furthermore, it is well known that in private he fought Zuma and the Guptas. Limiting Ramaphosa’s hostile actions against him, evidence is there that it was undoubtedly Zuma’s intention to silence him if he continued to block Zuma’s plans: there were plans by Zuma to axe him as Deputy-President and even to arrest him, in order to silence and to totally erase his influence as a party and executive member of the ANC if he resisted with continued fighting with Zuma. There was in the darkness behind curtains the fear of an assassination. Any direct or indirect ousting of Ramaphosa would give the majority Zuma ANC NEC at Luthuli House the ideal opportunity to “blacken” his career for ever, as Zuma did with others like Thabo Mbeki, in his capture of the presidency from him. For Ramaphosa, there were thus two choices: to be erased summarily as a politician from the active South African politics, or to stay on as Vice-President and with some form of constructive criticism to wrentch away at a later time Zuma’s empowerment. The propagandists contend that there was very little else for Ramaphosa to do, besides to resign, which, as said, would have given Zuma, without Ramaphosa’s direct blocking, far stronger leverage to activate more state capture with the Guptas and the Zuma cronies. For Ramaphosa there was only one way to go: stay on, stand up against Zuma in a less aggressive way, activate support against Zuma and wait for the right moment to get him out of his power base. There is no doubt for the propagandists that if Ramaphosa exited a decade ago from the ANC elite and the ANC regime, Jacob Zuma would most possibly still in power, with a much larger state-capturing and a Gupta-Zuma-family-circle to support him in wrongdoing.^{28,29,31-36,42,64,75,117,134,136,141-144}
Ramaphosa is indeed willing to appear before the Zondo Commission (and even to apologise as ANC leader and State-President for Zuma and his cronies’ immense wrongdoings to South Africans), confirming again his innocence of a direct or an indirect collaboration with state capture. Fikile Mbalula, a senior ANC executive at Luthuli House, has never denied the committing of state capture under Jacob Zuma, but insists that Ramaphosa was innocent as Vice-President. On a possible presentation by Ramaphosa at the Zondo Commission on his previous position as Vice-President, an ANC spokesperson reflects^152:4: “… the president does not want to present mere hearsay to the commission. ‘We will have to find a way to use cabinet minutes to show that just because he was Deputy-President he was not complicit in these things’.”
Ramaphosa’s honest answer to his critics for staying on in the Zuma setup must be more than an assurance to South Africans that he is not another Jacob Zuma crook. Munusamy³³ reflects upon Ramaphosa’s words, in answering his critics^33:18: “Could I have done anything differently? Possibly, but we are where we are now, where we are all able to take action”.
The Zuma reference within the Ramaphosa CV is an unfortunate inscription, which however much he wants to erase it, was unavoidable in his capacity as an executive member of the ANC. In the end it serves as a positive reference to the world to understand the person and the leader Cyril Ramaphosa.

3.2.11.5. Leadership characteristics

With regard to the outstanding characteristics of Ramaphosa, when specifically reflecting upon his integrity as an executive political leader, is that Ramaphosa does not run away from responsibility. Noteworthy here is the fact that he takes the blame for the police wrongdoing in the Marikana massacre, notwithstanding the he was in no way directly involved as a mine boss in the whole situation. This “not to blame other persons when things go wrong”, but to take the full blow alone, is the characteristic of a great executive leader, a so-called Level-5-Leader (ultra-exceptional great leader), who the Collins study164 identified to only be reflected by eleven leaders (0.7%) out of a total of 1 435 identified good leaders within American business society.¹⁶⁴
Some of the other extraordinary characteristics of excellence unique to these Level-5-leaders, which are all associated with Cyril Ramaphosa, are the following¹⁶⁴: they build enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will; they are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce results; they make productive contributions through talent, knowledge, skills, and good work habits; they contribute individual capabilities to the achievement of the group’s objectives and work effectively with others in a group setting; they organise people and resources towards the effective and efficient pursuit of pre-determined objectives; they catalyse commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and compelling vision; and they stimulate higher performance standards. These manifold examples of “goodness”, are all characteristics which Ramaphosa has shown from his beginning as an ANC member until today as President of South Africa. Very few executive political leaders in the political history of South Africa, from 1652 until the present, reflect this characteristics.¹⁶⁴
There is undoubtedly a new enthusiasm in the Ramaphosa regime on all political, social and economic levels of society.^{28-36,42,64,75,117,136,141-144,165,166}
In the emotional overwhelming hostility for Ramaphosa, the antagonists, in their ongoing daily criticism of him, are also completely missing out on Ramaphosa’s enormously successful business career after he left politics for a while in the 1990s. In this business setup he showed outstanding personal and business wisdom, again said to be exclusive characteristics of a Collins Leader-5 or a great leader.¹⁶⁴ His undermentioned business “wise man” guideline to ordinary citizens, as well as seasoned politicians, spells an orderly land transfer and the allocation of land to the poor and landless Blacks without hurting the country’s internal and external economics, when he says^145:4:

When I was in the private sector, you built a book and that’s how I’m approaching it.
I want to build a book of investment. We are not going to go for a smash-grab-grab. We are seeking to create a very good, solid and durable environment for investment.

For the propagandists, there is no other leader inside or outside the ANC like Ramaphosa at the moment, who can be trusted to activate land redistribution in an orderly manner, and who can guarantee a high success rate in the placement of new sufficient-producing Black farmers in the next two decades to come. The editor¹¹⁷ of the Sunday Times reflects upon the positive characteristics of Ramaphosa as an executive political leader to get South Africa out of its mess when he says^117:16:

The new South Africa, now a month into its 25th year, needs a “new dawn” only because the lights have been off – metaphorically and sometimes literally – for so long. Ramaphosa has always played the long game, so he will not be fazed either by the magnitude of the task or the sniping of critics within the ANC and on opposition benches.
His achievements in 100 days have already begun to overwrite memories of his predecessor’s calamitous 3 145-day administration.

In the context of the mischief-making of Ramaphosa as a person and a leader by the antagonists, still catching up in their short term selfish and exclusive benefits of White land holding instead of supporting the long term benefits of balanced land redistribution wherein the poor and landless can after 25 years of democracy become economically, socially and politically empowered, Kariuki¹⁶⁷ gives the antagonists a simple, but effective cognitive guide when he writes^167:18:

Nation building in the context of South Africa cannot be a perpetuation of hierarchies of the past based upon imposed divisions and rooted in prejudice, discrimination and exclusion.
It calls for a rethinking, in South African terms [an inclination so far, even after 25 years of Black rule, is missing many Whites, especially their politicians], of what democracy and tolerance mean in terms of lived experiences, where every citizen promotes peaceful co-existence in the spaces they inhabit and the communities they live in.

Ramaphosa has done enough to give a beleaguered, cynical and jaded electorate a glimpse of light at the end of a horribly long tunnel.¹¹⁷
The propagandists posit Ramaphosa is at the moment the only bright candle light in South Africa’s darkest night. If an organised land transformation programme is not activated in 2019 and steered in an orderly manner, to erase South Africa’s all-encompassing poverty, unemployment and inequality, the mass of poor and landless Blacks are going to do it themselfves, outside any political association, bringing to South Africa an accompanying racial and ethnic bloodshed and a long term socio-economic and political disorder under the leadership of extreme radicals. Ramaphosa’s expropriation without compensation, as shown in this research by the propagandists, means in most cases limited but balanced compensation, instead of without compensation: it will not hurt the economy and the panacea unlocking the country’s potential to create wealth to every citizen. Ramaphosa does have the backbone to do this.^{14,64,168-170}

4. Conclusions

The many arguments, opinions and viewpoints as positioned by the antagonists against any change to Section 25 be able to completely reject the expropriation of land without any compensation or market related prices, are for the propagandists complete falsehoods and myths. The propagandists have shown in detail the dysfunctioning of the corrupt age-old White political and socio-economic system of South Africa and how the antagonists are misusing remnants thereof effectively, to be able to uphold exclusively White interests, such as immense White land ownership and a closed, exclusive White farming community. Prominently imbedded in the antagonists’ fighting and obstruction of a change to Section 25 to effect much needed land expropriation without compensation, is for the propagandists the presence of well planned delinquency by the antagonists to make the ANC’s new political and socio-economic system of South Africa dysfunctional.
Studies of the pre- and post-1994 political history of South Africa show that the many arguments, opinions and viewpoints positioned by the antagonists, besides it being fake news and reporting, are also very emotion laden and mostly lack depth. Furthermore, a critical evaluation in general shows that the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists are lacking the support of the total White or Afrikaner population. The antagonists mostly come from the contingent of White farm- and land owners, White capitalist business groups with immense direct and indirect interests in land economics, as well the so-called “saviours and rescuers” of Afrikaners/ Whites, reflecting themselves as “unselfish fighters” for the interests of the White farming community and for the upholding of the Constitution and dispensation of 1994. This group’s opportunistic and delinquent aims and intentions seem not always to be sincere to benefit especially the White farmers’ community.
The antagonists as a specific minority group are undoubtedly extremely motivated by and fearful of any socio-economic and political changes, away from exclusive White democratic capitalism. Their resistance to the full handover of the country’s economics and politics to the constantly growing Black majority is reflected in their wanton thinking, planning and action to prevent it. The antagonists are a shrinking minority group inside another shrinking minority group, estimated to represent less than 10% of the White population and ± 0.5% of the total South African population. For the propagandists, the antagonists are nothing less than a political resistance group, a remnant from the proto-Afrikaners’ terroristand racial past, which refuses blindly any constructive participation in the ANC regime. In perspective, the antagonists are insignificant in South African politics and s it is clear that their political and economic delinquent opportunism is being unmasked. The propagandists have no doubt that the antagonists’ present obstruction of the land expropriation initiative is temporary, unfounded and doomed to failure. Profiling them in the future politics and economics of the country, their survival duration is at most ten years. As fast as the land expropriation plan is implemented next year, as fast will the antagonists disappear from the public stage. For the propagandists this will mercifully finally end the antagonists’ destructive impact upon the non-racial nation building initiative of the ANC regime and the repositioning of the socio-economics and politics. The propagandists believe that this will lay the land expropriation conflict to rest.
The antagonists are aware that they are reaching a watershed in the South African political history and that their racism and exploitation of the Blacks have come to an end. Exclusively unjustified White rights and privileges are in the process of being erased. Land expropriation is going to at last bring some compensation to the victims of Apartheid’s land grabbing, although only a fraction of their total claim. Louw⁵ comprehensively contends^5:175-176:

However, as said, criminal proceedings are not enough for many of the apartheid victims. Many of these victims want financial compensation from those who were directly involved in criminal actions, while others wish for compensation from the Afrikaner community and business sector as a whole, as they have benefitted from favoured business deals, the many other interests and the jobs etc. that apartheid offered them. Prominent are certain Afrikaner and nationalist Afrikaner business leaders and magnates who benefitted greatly from the apartheid system. They were favoured for business deals, contracts and other benefits. The current battle regarding Radical Economical Transformation (RET), seen by many Blacks as the second leg (economical revolution) in continuation of the first leg of the 1994 dispensation (political revolution), are excellent indicators of the Black call for “pay-back” of White capital obtained from apartheid incongruities.

The change to Section 25 to effect land expropriation without compensation is for the propagandists an unchangeable fact. For the propagandists, the intended land expropriation without compensation is going to at last bring about the “pay-back” of White land and other capital obtained through Apartheid incongruities. The land expropriation initiative is going to with time bring an end to the poverty, inequality, unemployment and landlessness of the mass of Blacks; all negative outcomes of centuries of Apartheid and its’ exploitation of Black the population.
For the propagandists, it is undoubtedly clear that for most poor and landless Blacks an anointed solution to bring justified landownership to them is wishful thinking: constructive political action, based upon sound cognitive reasoning, thinking, planning and action is the only way to proceed; no further unanchored prayers, promises and hopes. This course of action must now be activated by Cyril Ramaphosa.
Post-1994 South Africa brought democracy to every South African and immense changes to improve the country. But democracy can never be complete and neither can the Constitution which is driving and overseeing this democracy be complete and comprehensive enough. The year 2019 brings a fresh input to democracy with orderly and justified land expropriation through the improved Constitution. For Ramaphosa and his regime, the land expropriation matter is a command to do what is right, not what is easy nor what is popular (RT Bennett Proverb).
In closing down the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists (Articles 3 and 4) and the counter arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the propagandists (Articles 5 and 6) as offered in this research project, the stage is at last set for an objective and seasoned judgment to be able to draw conclusions and to offer a dictum as to whether the planned land expropriation of the ANC regime is correct or incorrect, and thus can be implemented with great speed. These conclusions and dictum will be delivered in the next and final article (Number 7) of the project.

5. References

1. Magwood M. Which turn will the 21st Century take? Sunday Times (Review). 2018 Sept. 26; p. 61.
2. Harari YN. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. New York: Jonathan Cape; 2018.
3. Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
4. Friedman B. Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
5. Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
6. Louw GP. Perspectives on the background to the land ownership dispute (2). Ensovoort, 2019; 39: 1(1): 1-61.
7. Louw GP. Who are colonists and who are indigenous people in South Africa? (1). Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 12(1): 1-23.
8. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652-2018. Part 1: Leadership characteristics in perspective. Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 6(1): 1-27.
9. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 2: The entities in government and society that executive political leaders used to aid their political behaviour. Ensovoort, 2018; 8: 6(2): 1-38.
10. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of the South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 3: Factors that influence the development of executive political leaders. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(1): 1-46.
11. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 4: A basic checklist for the appraisal of executive political leaders and regimes. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(2): 1-31.
12. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of the South African: 1652 to 2018. Part 5: Performance profiles of executive political leaders and regimes for the period 1652 to 1795. Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 7(3): 1-30.
13. Boot-Siertsema B, Boot LLG. Praatboek uit Suid-Afrika. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn; 1982.
14. Makgoba T. “Community needs, not politicians, should lead the redistribution debate”. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 23; p. 21.
15. Munusamy R. Zuma forgets his ‘loyal cadre’ mantra to join the wave of evangelical churches in their ambition to direct political currents. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 13; p. 16.
16. Divine intervention in a spooky realm. Sunday Times. 2014 Aug. 24; p. 14.
17. JZ’s own words in black and white. Sunday Times. 2014 May 18; p. 19.
18. Zuma calls for speedy Second Coming. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Feb. 20]. Available from http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Zuma-calls-for-a-speedy-Second-Coming-20141228 /
19. Khumalo A. Land debate the first of many we need to save SA. Sunday Times (Opinion), 2018 Mar. 11; p. 10.
20. Holomisa B. South Africa is in the grip of ‘citizen rage’. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Feb. 4; p. 18.
21. Barron C. Land plans would cost SA on the ground. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Feb. 25; p. 9.
22. Brun B. Africans must be first in line for empowerment. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 22.
23. De Jager T. Grond: Koeël is nog nie deur kerk. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; pp. 4-5.
24. De Jager T. ‘n Mening: Met onteiening is meer as plase op die spel. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 3.
25. Khumalo F. Beloved book, still crying. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Sept. 30; p. 17.
26. Mamphele R. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begin. 2018 Mar. 11; p. 2.
27. Nortje B. Lessons from our close neighbour’s house fire. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
28. February J. Spektakelpolitici haal streke uit. Beeld (Kommentaar). 2018 Apr. 18; p. 16.
29. Eisenberg G. A shadow regime has hijacked control of SA’s borders. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
30. Mokone T, Makinana A & Deklerk A. Cyril takes over North West. Sunday Times (News). 2018 May 13; p. 2.
31. Mthombothi B. Gupta heist was an inside job, but the insiders are about to get away with it. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
32. Mthombothi B. Cyril needs a bit more swagger and a bit less schmoozing to put Julius in his place. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 22; p. 21.
33. Munusamy R. No further delay needed in bringing to book the state capture criminals who plundered with impunity. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 18.
34. Nyatsumba K. Patience is key as Ramaphosa plays by the rules before ousting the lazy and corrupt. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 18.
35. Munusamy R. It’s a pity Ramaphosa’s “investment lions” can’t kill the destructive beast in his own party. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 22.
36. Shoba S. Alarm in ANC over possible 2019 disaster. Sunday Times. 2018 May13; p. 4.
37. Cyril Ramaphosa. [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Jan. 20]. Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Ramaphosa _6/12/2018
38. Ramaphosa not born in Limpopo. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Feb.20]. Available from https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/981959/ramaphosa-not-born-in-limpopo/
39. Zuma style of ethnic nationalism. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Feb.20]. Available from https://www.busineslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2016-10-19-ethnic-nationalism-zuma-style-of/
40. Mangu X. Early Zimbabwe land reform showed the value of small-scale farmers. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 22.
41. Munusamy R. It’s easy to scoff and jeer from the cheap seats as SA stumbles in confusion, but getting invoved would achieve a great deal more. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 22.
42. Opperheimer M. Six myths about land reform that show the folly of meddling with Bill of Rights. Sunday Times. 2018 May 13; p.18.
43. South Africa. Unie van Suid-Afrika. Samevatting van die verslag van die Kommissie vir die Sosio-Ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
44. Steyn P. Zim-boere dink nuut oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 12.
45. Van Rensburgh RJ. Só bereik Kriel, Buys en Van Zyl niks nie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 10.
46. Wyngaard H. Grondkwessie bied die land ‘n tweede kans. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 6.
47. Cele S, Rooi J. 139 plase op ANC-gryplys. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
48. Eybers J. Eerste plase onteien. Rapport. 2018 Aug. 19; pp. 1-2.
49. Eybers J. ‘Boere ly al skade; kopers stap weg’. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Sept. 19; p. 4.
50. Hafffajee F. Judging the ‘Cyril effect’ after 100 days. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 27; p. 8.
51. Haffajee F. Who owns the land? It’s not all black and white, audits reveal. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 6.
52. Hunter Q. ANC ‘test’ farms a route to legal clarity. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 4.
53. Jansen J. ‘Besetting gebeur net te glad en gou’. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 4.
54. Vilakazi HW. The probability of revolution in South Africa. In: M. Albeldas, A. Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
55. Umraw A. State identifies farms for expropriation test cases. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 4.
56. Retief H. Onteiening: Wat presies is die waarheid oor 139 plase? Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug.19; p. 3.
57. Kok A. Lys: AfriForum het volste reg. Beeld (Kommentaar). 2018 Aug. 16; p. 16.
58. Derby R. It’s jobs, not polls, says Cyril. Sunday Times (Business Times). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 1.
59. Koornhof N. Gematigdes moet lei. Beeld (Middelblad). 2018 Apr. 18; p. 17.
60. Derby R. Land reform is a necessary fix for the faultiness in our economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 2.
61. ANC finally wakes up to the fact its grip on power is slipping. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 13; p.16.
62. Bruce P. First 100 days marked in fine style this week. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p.16.
63. De Lange R. Nog taks wink vir SA se rykstes. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Apr. 15; p. 1.
64. Roodt D. Wat gedoen kan word aan ongelykheid in SA. Rapport. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 4.
65. Nair N. Take us or leave us – Cyril on land reform. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 4.
66. Collins F. ‘No vacant land in city is safe from occupation’. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Apr. 1; p. 4.
67. Nombembe P. Cyril’s word seen as land grab go-ahead. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Apr. 1; p. 4.
68. Hunter Q. Cyril to confront ‘divisive’Zuma. Sunday Times . 2019 Jan. 6; pp.1-2.
69. Ferguson N. The War of the World. London: Penguin; 2006.
70. Musyoka J. Ghouls of global nationalism stalk our land question. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May. 6; p. 18.
71. Mthomboth B. Mbeki’s intervention on land collides head-on with the direction of the new greed ANC. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 30; p. 21.
72. Tabane OJJ. Mbeki’s take on land is a necessary provocation. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 7; p. 6.
73. We have squandered the goodwill we enjoyed from voters for the past 24 years. Sunday Times. 2018 May 13; p. 4.
74. Ngcukaitobi T. Land could right so many wrongs. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 8; p. 23.
75. Barron C. Tread carefully on new land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 9.
76. Bruce P. EFF’s Dr Charming pulls a fast one on TV. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 20; p. 16.
77. Corrigan T. There’s madness in the land debate, but not in pointing out the risks. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
78. Derby R. Beware the traps of populism in dealing with land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
79. Fourie J. Herverdeling neem ons oog van die bal af. Rapport (Sake). 2017 Mar. 12; p. 4.
80. Derby R. Sober address should set the tone for ministerial introspection. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 2.
81. Malope L, Van Rensburg D. Presidensie vat nou oor. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
82. Speckman A. Corruption ‘limits SOE contribution’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 8.
83. Bernstein A. Jobs crisis needs new approach. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 30; p. 21.
84. Khumalo A. Once empowered argument may have outlived its history. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 6; p. 10.
85. Bruce P. Integrity and boldness must be Ramaphosa’s strategy. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Apr. 29; p. 16.
86. Pirow O. James Barry Munnik Hertzog. Cape Town: Howard Timmins; 1958.
87. Van der Ross RE. Myths and attititudes. An inside look at the Coloured people. Cape Town: Tafelberg; 1979.
88. De Lange J. ‘Boere ly al skade; kopers stap weg’. Rapport (Nuus). Aug. 19; p. 4.
89. De Lange J. Kleiner partye wil saamstaan oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 4.
90. De Lange J. Nou swaai Gwede om. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 4.
91. Bruce P. Gary Player, your country needs you. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 20.
92. Fuzile B. Soweto bomb threat to US over Trump tweet. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 6.
93. Mchunu S. Agriculture bodies slam ANC’s land expropriation resolution. The Star (Business Report). 2017 Dec. 22; p. 1.
94. Seccombe A. ‘It’s not too late to turn corruption around’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 5.
95. Brown J. SA het 45 000 miljoenêrs. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Nov. 27; p. 6.
96. Cronjé J. Arbeidsmark verbeter, maar werksekerheid gaan agteruit. Rapport (Sake). 2016 Nov. 20; p. 4.
97. De Lange R. Heel rykste Afrikane hou van ou Ferrari’s en see-uitsigte. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 Apr. 23; p.9.
98. Schlemmer L. South Africa’s NP Government. In: PL Berger, B Godsell. A future South Africa: Visions, Strategies and Realities. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau; 1988.
99. Eybers J. ‘Veiligheidsdorpe keer die integrasie van rasse.’ Rapport. 2016 June 26; p. 5.
100. Distribution of White South Africans. . [Internet]. [Cited 2017 Feb. 3]. Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_white_South_Africans/
101. South Africa. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Dec. 24]. Available from http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/South_Africa.aspx
102. South Africa population. [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Jan. 12]. Available from http://www://worldometers.info/world-population/South-African-population/
103. Bruce P. Careful moves as the endgame begins. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 31; p. 12.
104. Tshabalala M. Beware, the snake myth be dead but these who share its secrets can still bite. Sunday Times. 2018 Jan. 7; p. 13.
105. Tabane OJJ. Should the media take sides in elections? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 10.
106. Pelser W. EFF-steun verdubbel. Rapport. 2018 Sept. 23; pp. 1-2.
107. Gerber J. Land expropriation: DA vows to go to court if Parliament adopts report [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Jan. 3]. Available from https://www.new24com/SouthAfricaNews/land-expropriation-da-vows-to-go-to-court-if-parliament-adopts-report-20181204/
108. Mkhwanazi S. Parliament adopts land expropriation report/ [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Jan. 3]. Available from https://www.lolco.za/news/politics/parliament-adopts-land-expropriation-report-18380096/
109. Makinana A. Parliament gives go-ahead for land expropriation without compensation. [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Feb. 3]. Available from https://www.timeslive.co.za/2018-12-04-parliament-gives-go-ahead-for-land-expropriation-without-compensation/
110. De Lange J. Grondwet kan op vroegste middel Mei 2019 verander. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
111. Haffajee F. It’s still a long walk to land expropriation. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
112. Mantashe, ANC praat bont oor grond. Rapport (News). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 2.
113. Prince, L. Grond: 18 groepe kry kans vir voorleggings. Beeld (Nuus). 2018 Oct. 12; p. 2.
114. Kok M. Grond: Soek opplossings, nie konflik. Beeld.(Kommentaar). 2018 Mar. 23; p. 14.
115. Haffajee F. I am a proud employment equity candidate. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 2.
116. Leon T. On expropriation, let’s not be glad to settle for half a loaf. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 18.
117. Light is being shone in dark, festering places all over the country. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 16.
118. Ngcobo S: Land rights activist who was snubbed by town hall1969-2018 (Obituaries). Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 20.
119. Grindrod S. What does the DA actually stand for? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 13; p. 14.
120. Bruce P. Mouthwatering prospect of a new Zille or Leon party. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 13; p. 16.
121. Deklerk A. DA’s ‘black caucus’ threatens legal action over deputy pick. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Apr. 15; p. 4.
122. Deklerk A. DA-EFF breakup was about ‘no compromise’. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Apr. 1; p. 2.
123. Helen Zille se bydrae tot politiek duidelik uitgedien. Beeld (Kommentaar). 2018 Mar. 23; p. 14.
124. Mokone T. Five-year term for Maimane divides DA. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Apr. 1; p. 2.
125. Mokone T, Deklerk A. Bid to cement Mmusi’s position fails. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 8; p. 2.
126. Nt’sekhe R. Analysis of the DA teeters on absurd foundations. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 20; p. 18.
127. DA needs to save itself from its own mess. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 16.
128. De Lange J. Diversiteit kelder toe nie DA-kongres. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Apr.15; p. 7.
129. Bruce P. Memo to Mmusi: Cyril is not another Jacob. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 16.
130. Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press; 1996.
131. Giliomee H. Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001. In: A Fisher, M Albeldas (eds). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
132. Chomsky N. Occupy. Parktown: Penguin; 2012.
133. Botha R. SA regering se gevry na China is ‘n verleentheid. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
134. Rantete J. The African National Congress and the Negotiated Settlement in South Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik; 1998.
135. Booysen V. Ramaphosa se plan: Briljante idée, maar… Beeld (Sake). 2018 Apr. 18; p. 18.
136. Haffajee F. Gordhan’s Gornado shakes up public enterprises. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 2.
137. Umraw A. Same old same old likely from ANC manifesto. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 8.
138. Tsotetsi PB. With our country in ferment, let’s stir in some youthful idealism. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 22; p. 21.
139. Prince L. ‘Cr moet wys hy is álmal se president’. Beeld (Nuus). 2019 Jan. 11; p. 4.
140. Matseke P. Private and public health sectors not enemies. The Star (Inside). 2018 July 16; p. 11.
141. Langa M. The reluctant President. Sunday Times (Insight). 2017 Oct, 15; p. 13.
142. Jonas M. We need to act on a systematic and practical basis to generate inclusive economic growth. Only then will South Africa emerge from poverty. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 17.
143. Haffajee F. State capture – it isn’t over. And you’re still paying. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 2.
144. Wa Afrika M. State airline’s R2.4bn fuel con. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 1.
145. Mkhondo R. We need to tell our kids about racism, the heroes and its perpetrators – right back to Adam. Sunday Times. 2018 Sep. 2; p. 25.
146. Maimane M. The DA’s 2019 promise is to bring change that builds one SA for all. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 22.
147. Jonas M. The future state of the nation. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Dec. 2; pp. 15-16.
148. Barron C. Now’s the time for business to open its wallet. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 9.
149. Mokone T, Makinana A & Deklerk A. Cyril takes over North West. Sunday Times (News). 2018 May 13; p. 2.
150. Stremlau JJ. Obama’s Mandela lecture comes at an auspicious time for democracy. The Star (Inside). 2018 July 16; p. 11.
151. Barron C. It’s full steam ahead to derail Transnet graft. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p.10.
152. Hunter Q, Shoba S. Cyril ‘should apologise’ before Zondo. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Dec. 9; p. 4.
153. Mthombothi B. Our double dose of despair: courtesy of Zuma and his cabinet of incompetents. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Oct. 29; p. 25.
154. Mthombothi B. Zuma’s political demise no instant cure for a country caught in the grip of an unreconstructed ANC. Sunday Times (Opinion); 2017 Sept. 10; p. 17.
155. Malala J. Time to decide if we go the way of ’Mr Kigali’ or the way of the Nkandla Crooner. Sunday Times. 2019 Jan. 6; p. 9.
156. Rooi J. Probleme begin by hoe jy leiers kies. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Dec. 3; p. 7.
157. De Klerk-Luttig J. ‘n Tyd dat almal hul plig besef. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Apr. 15; p. 7.
158. De Lange J. Zuma-bende wil ANC takel. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Apr. 29; p. 2.
159. Hunter Q, Shoba S. Secret talks to form new alliance and split ANC’s KwaZulu-Natal votes not only to block Cyril Ramaphosa in his balanced-reforming of land, but to oust him. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 8; pp. 1-2.
160. Hunter Q. Can one man drag KwaZulu-Natal back to the killing fields? Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 15; p. 17.
161. Shoba S, Hunter Q & Matiwane Z. Cyril neutralises Zuma cabal. Sunday Times. 2019 Jan. 13; p.1.
162. Mthombothi B. The ANC is drunk from the alcohol of corruption, and its growing support is bad news for South Africa. Sunday Times. 2018 July 22; p. 3.
163. Smith JP. Sunday Times (Opinion & Answer). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 9.
164. Collins J. Good to Great. London: Random House; 2001.
165. Deklerk A. Soaring approval numbers as Ramaphoria grips citizens. Sunday Times (News). 2018 May 27; p. 4.
166. Mthombothi B. House of Pandemonium: can parliament ever reclaim its dignity and proper function? Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 17.
167. Kariuki P. We can blow whistle on racism and prejudice, but it will take all our efforts. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 18.
168. Kgosana C. ‘Top politicians’ scored at VBS. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 2.
169. Van Rensburg D. R1,5 miljard van munisipaliteire vas in VBS. Rapport (Nuus) . 2018 Apr. 29; p. 2.
170. Mthombothi B. While Ace plays Judas, and Zuma the devil, Ramaphosa pretends backbone is unnecessary. Sunday Times. 2019 Jan. 13; p. 15.

PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author has no competing interests to declare.
FUNDING
The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa.
UNSUITABLE TERMS AND INAPPROPRIATE WORDS
Please note that I, the author, am aware that the words Creole, Bantu, Kaffir, Native, Hottentot and Bushman are no longer suitable terms and are inappropriate (even criminal) for use in general speech and writing in South Africa. (Even the words non-White and White are becoming controversial in the South African context). These terms do appear in dated documents. These terms or translations are used for the sake of historical accuracy in this article. Their use is unavoidable within this context. It is important to retain their use in this article to reflect the racist thought, speech and writings of as recently as sixty years ago. These names form part of a collection of degrading names commonly used in historical writings during the heyday of apartheid and the British imperial time. In reflecting upon the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanisation and distancing involved by showing the language used to suppress and oppress. It also helps us to place leaders and their sentiments on a continuum of racism. These negative names do not represent my views and I distance myself from the use of such language for speaking and writing. In my other research on the South African populations and political history, I use Blacks, Whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaners, Coloureds, KhoiSan (Bushmen), KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and Boers as applicable historically descriptive names.