Land ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 1 (7)

Title: Landownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 1 (7)
Gabriel P Louw
iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093
Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).
Corresponding Author:
Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PU for CHE), DPhil (PU for CHE), PhD (NWU)
Email: profgplouw@gmail.com
Keywords: Age-old custom, colonist, frontiersman, humanity, impoverishment, indigenous people, land grabbing, landless, landownership, land redistribution, political history, radicalism, terrorism, unemployment
Ensovoort, volume 40 (2019), number 6: 1

1. Background

1.1.   Introduction

Our entry into this world may be arbitrary, but the world that greets us is not. Numerous forces vie for our attention and loyalty. Our minds are a battleground for competing ideas. The outcome of this battle determines who we become and the society we create. But the forces that win out are not necessarily the ones that serve us best. Over the course of human history, countless people have been conditioned to defend oppressive ideologies, support destructive regimes and believe downright lies.
Although the ideological, cultural and religious labels that divide us are not inherent in our nature, history suggests that the capacity to identify with them for arbitrary reasons is. This capacity enables the easy transmission of bias, prejudice and ignorance from one generation to the next. If we are to expand our freedom, we need to question our beliefs and values and the forces that brought them about. Why do we hold the beliefs that we do? Why have we formed the habits that we possess? And, crucially, whose interests do they serve? Questioning the religious, economic, social and political paradigms of our time is as urgent as it has ever been. To shape identities is to fashion the future — but what future are we creating? Today the world is scarred by war, extreme inequality and environmental devastation. If we are to create an alternative future, we can’t just reproduce the thinking that shaped the past.^1:26

Seen in perspective, the matter of expropriation of land (with or without compensation) from Whites in South Africa, as presently driven by the ANC regime, seems to be fully enveloped in a history of White-Black conflict in which the racial factor is prominent. In this history, as already analysed in depth in the published articles 1 to 6 of the project on land-ownership and expropriation, bad behaviour-conditioning — to serve and to uphold exclusively oppressive ideologies and to support destructive regimes, as well as to believe downright lies and myths on the matter — stand out pertinently. The dividing forces of bad ideology, culture and religion, stretching over years, enable the inculcation of bias, prejudice and ignorance in many South Africans’ mindsets.  Prominent is the role played by such negative ideology, culture and religion that still inform our current beliefs, habits and values as active forces in seeking to mislead and to abuse us with one single object: to make us serve the interests of a delinquent master. The 1994 South African Political Dispensation and its Constitution are viewed more and more by the large mass of poor and landless Blacks to be serving only the disguised, self-centred and selfish aims and interests of the opportunistic religious, juridical and political masters of the country. It does not matter if these masters are Black or White.
The pertinent use and role of religion, law and politics, especially from 1913 until today, in an effort to bring a so-called “final solution” to the South African land-ownership dispute, need to be elucidated.
1.1.1. The failed divinely-ordained approach
From the beginning, Christianity played a very decisive role in South African efforts to solve or to address major problems when its people arrived at personal, political, social and economic obstacles and crises which seemed unsolvable to them. Prominent were also the immense personal, political, social and economic obstacles and crises central to the Blacks’ reconciliation process with Whites when the 1994 Political Dispensation arrived. Side-by-side, with the creation of juridical and political foundations for activating reconciliation and to start the new post-1994 democracy, stood the Christian religion and its message of forgiveness for the immense human and political sins of the past in a direct effort to heal and to solve especially the distrust, suspicion and hatred of Blacks for Whites and their Apartheid. The role of Christian religious ministers, from all the races and denominations, played a prominent role after the 1994 Political Dispensation to institute the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), totally outside the traditional juridical and political frameworks, in an effort to heal the emotional and spiritual wounds of Apartheid and to bring personal, psychological and spiritual reconciliation between Blacks and Whites. A religious salvation was seen as a kind of anointed solution by the leaders of the various religious denominations. Two prominent ministers of religion (one Black and one White) took the lead here, namely Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu as chairman, with Dr Alex Borraine as deputy chair of the TRC.²
But this religious inclination to solve personal, group and national hindrances and crises (and politics) was not limited to the direct impact of reverends, but also part of the opportunistic thinking and actions of South African political leaders in 1994; although indirect and faceless, they were active from a distance in an effort to sidestep their own guilt and responsibilities, as well as to prolong their wrongdoing. The long political history of South Africa shows that much (if not all) of these so-called “god-anointed” outcomes of salvation, as those that the TRC religious leaders prayed for, stayed unanswered. Very striking is the phenomenon that most of South Africans’ “religious interactions” with “their Christian God”, stretching from the early years until today, were mostly not successful, leaving many of these “anointed role-players” dead in the end or at least highly aggravated “their God” had not answered their prayers. The examples are manifold, such as Jacob Zuma’s slogan “ruling safely till Jesus comes”.^2-7
Prominent here regarding such anointed-outcomes-going-bad is Chief Kgosi Mamphoku Makgoba of Limpopo, who, filled with “god-anointing” in the maintenance of his tribal land in the old Boer Transvaal, summarily lost his head in the end at the hands of another “blessed servant” of the seemingly same “Christian God”, General Piet Joubert of the ZAR. Joubert himself, notwithstanding his so-called initial “god-anointed, divinely-ordained, god-willed and god-favoured” status, was also politically eliminated when the British forces demolished the ZAR in 1902,  grabbing his fatherland, and left more than 30 000 Transvaal’s burghers dead, seemingly because “their God had changed his mind on them”.⁵
HF Verwoerd, in his heyday of the practitioner of Apartheid and land grabbing from non-Whites, also believed on the 6th September 1966 that “his God” was solely on his side in the practice of racism, missing out on the reality that “his God” also in the meantime had changed his mind, allowing an assassin to freely put a knife to his heart.^2,3,6
Even one of the two prominent ministers who founded the TRC (with duration April 1996 to October 1998) was not so sure if “his God” was really always with the TRC and the victims of Apartheid. Pertinent stands out here the doubt of the reverend Dr Alex Borraine. In this context Chris Barron⁷ writes on Borraine’s gut feeling, reflecting the absence of the supposed “ever-present of his God to steer justice and godlike honesty”, as follows^7:17:

He felt the TRC failed to uncover the full truth about the violations committed during apartheid, particularly by the security forces in the 1980s. The generals were “evasive and smart” and treated the TRC with “disdain and contempt.”
He said the TRC did not secure even a minimal amount of justice for those who drew up the policies of apartheid that resulted in death squads, torture, detention without trial and assassinations.
Because many of the incriminating documents were destroyed in the run-up to negotiations there was no paper trail linking senior politicians and generals to their crimes.
He said the TRC had failed to persuade the ANC government to grant swift and adequate reparations to the victims.
He thought the TRC’s demands for action against apartheid perpetrators should have been stronger.

It is clear for the critical observer that God in South African history (in this case the Jewish God/Christian God/South African Christian God) does not always (or ever?) intervene or interfere in people’s political, social and economic crises and sufferings, especially around the unique issue of land grabbing in South Africa. This, notwithstanding their intense “talking to” and their constant public praising of “their own  God”, and their often seemingly “schizophrenic” claim to be his “anointed servants”, blessed to be able to execute certain actions which they see as so-called “anointed actions”. This outcome has been reflected over many years in the so-called Christian communities of South Africa (and which, it seems, for the late reverend Alex Borraine, was also lacking in overseeing a “godsent justice” during the TRC). The false “god-besottedness” of many persons since pre- and post-1994 South Africa to address the country’s political problems as well as theirs through a “divinely-ordained solution” as the only correct one,  was in reality an action which had taken away their own cognitive reasoning and responsibility in finding constructive solutions to their crises and sufferings. On this kind of “solution” of problems the historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari gives a clear guideline on how to target and regain exclusively our “political sanity”, and thus to overcome the many dangers of “religious vanity” (and religious insanity) which lacks trustworthiness and seems never to have solved South Africa’s political problems.^8,9
Michele Magwood⁹ describes in terms of Harari’s philosophy the falsity around the exclusive application of religion as “an only remedy” by people to solve their problems — which gives us insight into how many naive South Africans have messed up their politics and thus may also find it enlightening as regards the present landownership debacle — as follows^9:61:

When you have the power to reengineer life, your views on “right” and “wrong” acquire cosmic importance. But you don’t need religion in order to have a good moral compass. For morality doesn’t mean “obeying God” — morality means “reducing suffering”. In order to act morally, you just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering.
Secular people abstain from murder not because some god forbids it, but because killing inflicts suffering on sentient beings. There is something deeply troubling and dangerous about people who avoid killing just because “God says so”. Such people are motivated by obedience rather than compassion, and what will they do if they come to believe that their god commands them to kill heretics, witches or gays?
And it is noteworthy that secular morality really works. The most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world such as Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands are secular. In contrast, deeply religious countries such as Iraq and Pakistan tend to be violent and poor.

The above warning of Harari⁸ about the danger of a so-called “holy inspiration to obey God just because God says so” must be seen in terms of his own biblical knowledge of the immense murder spree in old Israel under the two Jewish leaders Joshua and Moses (the last-mentioned being a cold-blooded fugitive murderer and savage from Egypt) when they started to occupy early Palestine on behalf of the so-called “Jewish nation” by “order” of their so-called “exclusively Jewish God”. This murdering occupation of the Palestinians by the Jewish leaders Joshua and Moses took place immediately after they became emotionally and cognitively “grabbed by their Jewish God” to “cleanse” Palestine of so-called non-Jews and infidel Arabs.^8,9
On this madness and murder as part of a divinely-ordained “grabbing” in their effort to justify political and personal self-enrichment by the Jews of the Old Testament (and  in modern politics still today), Louw writes as follows^10:2:

The Jews of the Old Testament perpetrated violence tantamount to a rape of humanity, shedding the blood of the innocent. It did not matter if the victims were men, women and children in their own homeland. Their actions were justified as a divine command. Today these murderous biblical acts of ethnic and racial cleansing and land grabbing would be classified as psychopathic and mentally disturbed behaviour on the part of political and religious leaders.

It is this same “Jewish demanding” God who also became the “demanding” God of the Christians worldwide and who, in terms of Harari’s metaphorical example, is asking, it seems, them again by times today to “obey him just because he says so”, for example in their murderous warfare in the Middle East.
In this context of dangerous anointment (and much in line with the TRC “anointed” drive), is also to be found the example of the American ex-president George Bush’s murderous thinking and doing equal to Moses’s and Joshua’s decision-making  on “god-grabbing of others’ land”, which bordered on dangerous hallucinations and delusions. Chomsky¹¹ prominently focussed on Bush’s blind “quasi-political-religious infections”, or better “his holy inspiring to obey God just because God says so”.  In this context, doing the same murdering for his “Jewish God cum Christian God”, as did Moses and Josua for their “Jewish God”, Chomsky¹¹ reports that Bush proclaimed^11:108: “God told him to strike at al Qaida,” which he then did, and then “…again that God instructed him to strike at Saddam,” which he again did. Chomsky¹¹ reports further that Bush said he^11:108: “…received the command of the Lord of Hosts, the War God, to fight the problems of the Middle East.” What is prominent in this case of Bush’s “anointment”, besides possible psychopathological thinking, is that the Iraqi political problems are today more severe than in the times of Bush, with ISIS/al Qaida in a very strong position.^11,12,23
Reading the above, it cannot escape the mind that the same “Jewish God”, as with the American Bush and his men, was transferred to the proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners’ mindsets as their “South African Christian God”, which, it seems they many times “obeyed just because he said so”, resulting as often in their murderous actions beginning in 1652 in South Africa. Louw writes^13:19:

The “goodness” or “badness” of political leaders is often linked to the racial or ethnic tension that accompanies the person’s reign. Such tensions re-awaken people’s sense of belonging to either the majority or the minority group. It also rekindles feelings of revenge. Conflicts that had been over rise again (think for example of the Great Trek and how these ideas were rekindled during the First and Second Anglo-Boer Wars). Past conflicts and ideas are rekindled however inapplicable they may be, because followers want to go back to what worked in the past. This happened in 1948 with the Afrikaner Nationalists. They were guided by outdated and dangerous ideas. The immoral ideas that led to the changes in 1948 dated from 1908. The founding fathers of Afrikanerism felt strong resentment directed at English-speaking White South Africans, dissident Afrikaners and Black South Africans par excellence. Outdated racist ideas with their foundation in the Cape of the 1700s were invigorated by the nationalist Afrikaners’ executive political leaders (persons like DF Malan, HF Verwoerd and BJ Vorster, with a smack of religion and/or Nazism in their political mindsets) and such ideas became engrained in the mindsets of many very naïve Afrikaners. They used these ideas and emotional appeals to gain power.

It is clear that for South Africans, in many ways similar in terms of violence, poverty and extreme religious adherence to those of the deeply religious Iraq and Pakistan, that the TRC and other exercises, wherein religion is used as an instrument to cleanse the country’s “bad past” and to “bring harmony” between Black and White, was an outright failure and a mistake. Other approaches are needed to address the country’s serious constitutional and political-historical problems. Land expropriation is such a demanding problem which needs a lasting solution on future landownership.^14-22

1.1.2.   Failed judicial and political approach

On the other hand, it is clear that a pure juridical foundation to address crises like the ongoing land issue around its exclusive White ownership, has also failed the test of quality, effectiveness, justice and honesty, as the inappropriate present Constitution confirms. The use of court cases, based on an existing faulty Constitution to solve these kinds of troubles, only works in the short term when the political and military power is concentrated in autocratic, dictatorial or fascist regimes, as the NP regime’s behaviour from 1948 to 1994 reflects. When the minority loses political and military power, as the Whites in Magube’s Zimbabwe, the Constitution and the law-enforcement system failed many times, not just in its overall decisions, but also to hear the objecting minority. In this case the process reverses to autocratic, dictatorial or fascist (unconstitutional) ruling, changing a political, cultural and historic matter such as land expropriation into land grabbing.^23-27
In this context we are seeing at the moment the legal conundrum surrounding the banning of displays of the old South African flag as such an outcome, where the law suffers under the pressure of the politics of the majority who do not view the rights of the minority positively (and where revenge sometimes seems to be a prominent driver of behaviour). This flag case, brewing since the late 2017s, has now, besides the involvement of various prominent social and political organisations has now also attracted the minister of justice’s attention. The intense endangering of the legal rights of the minority of Whites is well illustrated by the CEO of the Nelson Mandela Foundation (NMF), a said Sello Hatang, when he blindly and bluntly said that any gratuitous displays of the flag constituted so-called “hate speech against and harassment” of Blacks under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Pepuda). Within this overtly political grouping is also to be found the South African Human Rights Commission, a body which must be impartial but supports the same criminalisation of the flag. This is tantamout to planned legal censorship on any White response to attacks on their role in South African history. For them, the flag has also become a symbol of objection against discriminatory Black rule and the delinquent acts of the ANC. In response to the flag which Whites see their constitutional right to object and to exercise free speech, and thus as equal to the judicial right of Whites to their present land, we find the one-sided argumentation of the NMF^28:9:

“On its face, the 1928 flag itself was a vivid symbol of white supremacy and black disenfranchisement. Displaying the flag of apartheid South Africa represents support for that crime… a total rejection of tolerance, reconciliation and all of the values underlying the constitution.”

Concomitant to this kind of juridical failure to safeguard the minority’s interests, is the failing of the South African Parliament and its lawmakers when a political party such as the ANC, notwithstanding its majority legal mandate, becomes ineffective through its criminal delinquency to rule properly. Its elite lacks the abilities and skills of statesmen to steer land expropriation in an orderly and legal way with the single aim to benefit every citizen, including the correct decisions on landownership.
Judging from the current insufficient tackling of land transformation and the continuing failed and conflicting approach by the antagonists and the propagandists, the present land matter can and will never be justly and successfully solved by the present-day Constitution, nor by its lawmakers in the Parliament. The South African courts may play at the outset a certain role to solve the matter but, as seen above in the flag issue, never really bring an acceptable and lasting solution. As with the religious approach, it is doomed to failure, leaving South Africa even in a worse situation at present in 2019, with the ANC regime unable to address and to solve the issue of landownership.

1.1.3.    King Solomon’s wisdom approach

A totally new approach is needed to address the South African landownership matter and to bring a lasting solution, free from the negative impact of racism or contaminated religious, judicial  and political solutions. The primary need here is an in-depth reflection on the facts and truths, and separating the emotive from the cognitive, in order to arrive at at reasoned solution. An evaluation of the present-day situation, freed from any remnants of the past, is required.
In reflecting on the past and its negativism in order to completely overcome it, an overview of articles 1 to 6 would suffice to gain a perspective on a cognitive approach to finding a lasting solution to the South African land-ownership matter. Articles 3 to 4 reflect in-depth on the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists versus the counter arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the propagandists in articles 5 and 6, pointing specifically to the impact of the contamination of the truth by myths and lies. This offers an applicable and appropriate approach to screening the lies and myths (the rootedness of which is shown in articles 3 to 6), leaving pure facts and truth at the end in order to reach conclusions and a dictum on the land-ownership matter. It is an absolute pre-requirement that the “judgement” must be guided by compassion and an in-depth understanding of the present suffering of the masses of Blacks plagued by poverty, inequality, landlessness and unemployment. For a correct “judgement” it is essential that it be guided and steered by a good moral compass, as well as logical thinking which may result in a “responsible, human and logical” solution, one which is uncontaminated by the falsities of religion, juridical and political influence and manipulation.^8,9
When taking the contents of articles three to six into account, it seems, to make sound conclusions and to deliver a wise dictum, we need old King Solomon’s wise judgements here: it seems as if one step too much to the left or one step too much to the right, may spell immense conflict and bring utmost failure.  For the “judge” can draw a wrong conclusion and deliver a wrong judgment which would not only mean the end of his “honourable seat on the bench”, but also the end of his “certification” regarding his virtue, wisdom, integrity and trustworthiness. Solomon’s proverbial reputation was unique and is described as follows I Kings 16-27:^29:325-326

“Word of the king’s decision spread quickly throughout the entire nation, and all the people were awed as they realized the great wisdom God had given him”.

The central question is here: what does a “Solomon judgement” mean in real, modern life? This brings two primary questions to the fore: how did Solomon make his judgements of excellence and what were the tools used to reach findings which in the end assured him the characterisation of having great wisdom with his successful judgements? This leads to a further question: Are his “judgements and solutions” not also vested in a religious and/or a juridical foundation? The truth is the opposite when studying Solomon’s so-called “wise” judgements.²⁹
The most prominent example of his many “wise” judgements is how he brought a lasting solution in the re-awarding of a baby to a woman whose motherhood was disputed by a false mother. As prominent tools stand out: his in-depth understanding of the suffering of humanity (in this case motherhood), his good moral compass, his logical thinking and action (who is the true and rightful mother) and his exclusive focus on the present and the future (ignoring the past and its rights).²⁹
The under-mentioned biblical text on how Solomon had, from a pure cognitive viewpoint, addressed the conflict and determined the true parenthood of the boy, offers a good guideline on how South Africans may today, outside the contaminated and corrupted religious, juridical and political ”judgements and solutions” so far used, deal with the intended land expropriation by applying pure cognitive reasoning and wisdom. There is no doubt that a satisfactory, appropriate conclusion and finding may be reached through a cognitive approach on 1) who owns what land, 2) what are the immediate remedial actions needed, 3) what are the consequences if land reform is not introduced. In this context the outcome in 1 Kings 3:16-27 may serve as an excellent example of cognitive reasoning, totally free from the compulsion of religious and judicial contamination when it comes to decision-making. As a guideline for the approach needed to address and to solve our land reform problem logically, freed from past-contaminated influences, it was thought appropriate to quote the text. It reads as follows^29:515-516:

Soon afterwards two young prostitutes came to the king [Solomon] to have an argument settled.
“Sir,” one of them began, “we live in the same house, just the two of us, and recently I had a baby. When it was three days old, this woman’s baby was born too. But her baby died during the night when she rolled over on it in her sleep and smothered it. Then she got up in the night and took my son from beside me while I was asleep, and laid her dead child in my arms and took mine to sleep beside her. And in the morning when I tried to feed my baby it was dead! But when it became light outside, I saw that it wasn’t my son at all.”
Then the other woman interrupted, “It certainly was her son, and the living child is mine.”
“No,” the first woman said, “the dead one is yours and the living one is mine.” And so they argued back and forth before the king.
Then the king said, “Let’s get the facts straight: both of you claim the living child, and each says that the dead child belongs to the other. All right, bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought to the king. Then he said, “Divide the living child in two and give half to each of these women!”
Then the woman who really was the mother of the child, and who loved him very much, cried out, “Oh, no, sir! Give her the child—don’t kill him!”
But the other woman said, “All right, it will be neither yours nor mine; divide it between us!”
Then the king said, “Give the baby to the woman who wants him to live, for she is the mother!”

Critics of Harari’s so-called “agnostic” view can now argue that the above “Solomon approach” is a return to the outdated and failed religious approach (and a “Hand from Above” to help again!), as was used previously by the TRC’s Bishop Tutu and the reverend Dr. Borraine; or that it is a legally-coded and guided device in an effort to solve the land issue, but the truth is far from it.
When reading critically the biblical text showing Solomon’s approach to drawing his conclusions and offering a solution, it is at most only a biblical-historical story. Although the remark is there that God gave him great wisdom, the text lacks any reference to Solomon having prayed even a single time to his God and asked for “divine insight” or asked his God to “divinely guide” him in his conclusion and solution in determining who is the true mother. The determining of the true motherhood by Solomon was an exclusively personal, logical and human decision, free from partisanship, as well as blurring emotions and lies. His cognitive mindset leads Solomon to the reaching of a personal conclusion, totally in line with the philosophy of Harari: a decision lacking the dangerous and blind principles of “obeying God” and “just because God says so” in his judgement. In practice, as said, it was an action solely based on his cognitive and pure human abilities, steered by a good morality, a sound insight and observation of people in their strife. He also had the ability, after the applicable information was offered to him by the two fighting parties, to separate the single truth and fact from many lies and myths, which contaminate the whole picture and which mislead the average observer.^8,9,29,30
Looking further back on his above “judgement and solution”, Solomon was free at that time (making his decision easier) from the complications brought by the progress of modern-day medical science where a child can legally and biologically have two mothers by way of a donor mother and a surrogate mother. But on the other hand, lacking modern-day medical science, which can easily and quickly determine, using very specific and precise blood and DNA testing, the legal maternity of a child,  and thus reach a legal conclusion on who the true biological mother was, it was undoubtedly far more difficult for Solomon in his decision-making. In the timeframe and case-setup in which Solomon found him self, he overcomes the use, or more precisely, ignores fully any legal guidelines or prescriptions by a Constitution and a religious mandate to reach or not to reach a conclusion. He handles the problem purely in terms of his common sense and empowerment as a tribal leader who must make decisions for his subjects. Indeed, looking again at the contents of the text 1 Kings 3:16-27, Salomon²⁹ did not, as said, use any legal code to support his finding, but, as already indicated, relies on his cognitive and moral abilities (free from contaminated emotional, religious and statutory influences and partiality) to make an excellent division between truth and many lies. Central is his intention to reduce the present suffering of the innocent victim (the true mother who was in the process of losing her child to a crook).^8,9,29
From the literature, the so-called divinely-ordained and god-supported approach, in an effort to find a solution to the present land expropriation matter is greatly side-stepped by the antagonists. It is clear that an outright legal approach, namely to challenge the ANC regime’s intended land redistribution through the law-makers of the Parliament, the Constitution and the South African courts, up to the Constitutional Court, has been followed by the antagonists. This “legal” approach, similarly to the failed “religious” approach, is also viewed with a high degree of skepticism by many South Africans as to its capacity to bring a lasting success. In Zimbabwe the land issue was extremely successfully fought initially in courts there by the antagonists (mostly White landowners), but proved to be a total failure in the end. The present so-called court-case orientation here in South Africa, as driven by the antagonists — although at the moment only in a start-up process — also seems destined for outright failure. The advice from the White farmers in present-day Zimbabwe to the South African antagonists is to ignore the court solution, and instead to look at their present condition in a cognitive, open-minded, friendly and unemotional manner. They should also look in the same way at the condition of the other people in South Africa, their needs and demands, evaluate our political history and find through such an approach find, informed by facts (free from the past’s rights, etc.), a constructive, practical working solution to the land-ownership matter.^23-27

1.2. Aims of articles 7 and 8

In this research project on the matter of land expropriation, introduced to the reader by six previously-published articles, the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists against it, as well as those of the propagandists for it, were described in depth. It is clear, in comparing and analysing the information, that facts and truths versus lies and myths on the intended land expropriation by the ANC regime have led to positioning by all the role-players. Although the present land expropriation, specifically without compensation, is reflected as a complex problem, one which requires extreme wisdom, divine and legal intervention and interference to steer and to solve it, this conclusion is far from the truth. On the contrary, it is a simple process to close the dispute on landownership when guided primarily by facts and the truth, and if sound cognitions outside, personal, emotional, political, judicial and religious influenes, are in place. Balancing the facts against lies and myths (see article 3 to 6), show that the facts indeed form a very small, central nucleus. A prerequisite is the outright disregard and refutation of unfounded and foolish arguments, opinions and viewpoints of both the antagonists and propagandists, to project a profile on the facts that must only serve as an instrument to drive the process of land reform in all its facets, from land expropriation with compensation to expropriation without compensation.  Central should be the use of the King Solomon’s wisdom approach in the selection of the facts and the disregard for fallacies.
We do not need more Desmond Tutus, Alex Borraines, TRCs, Constitutional Courts and Constitutions, or the court interventions of AfriForum and Solidarity to put a well-founded land redistribution program and landownership in place. We have more than enough persons of sound cognitive and objective minds, political maturity, free from religious, emotional, political and legal contaminations, to solve the present land-ownership matter with great success, applying the King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach .

2. Method

The research has been done by means of a literature review. This method aims to construct a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research develops. This approach has been used in modern political-historical research where there is often not an established body of research, as is the case with the ownership of South African soil for the period 1652 to 2018. The sources included articles from 2018, books for the period 1944 to 2018 and newspapers for the period 2017 to 2019. These sources have been consulted to evaluate and to describe the facts that must guide us to steer successful land-reform from 2019 in South Africa.
The research findings are being presented in narrative format.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Overview

The current conflict and uncertainty on landownership has been seen by many political analysts as  a result of the so-called “racial curse of revenge and counter-revenge” of South Africa, which is stemming from the disturbing of the earlier political and socioeconomic positions of its various migrating peoples. The current hostility for instance of some Blacks towards Whites and their unfounded rejection of them as an indigenous tribe, is a predictable political, psychological and pathological responses within the framework of the Herodotus philosophy, how much inappropriate and unrelated this hostility is. This kind of wanton socio-political setup makes a dramatic land-redistribution policy and programme many times an inevitable outcome as the one in Zimbabwe under Mugabe.^23-27,30,31
South Africa’s present-day land reform is therefore no longer an innocent national conversation to be naively solved by foolish public utterances and delinquent intentions from either the right or the left in our politics. South Africans, especially the government as executor of just landownership, must follow a different methodology to the blunder created by Zimbabwe’s nationalism in the dispute around the future ownership of land.
The big temptations are still there to solve the botched South African landownership by criminal prosecutions and civil action against the culprits of apartheid, or by reconciliation between Whites and Blacks with respect to Apartheid crimes. These are political approaches which have in practice nothing whatsoever to do with the present topic of landownership and the redistribution of land in terms of a historical and humanely just system. There is neither sense nor reason to address South Africa’s complex past politics, racism, discrimination, indigenousness, Black and White colonialism, or the many Black persons’ unsolved personal, emotional and psychological issues and their enormous financial difficulties which are rooted in the racial discrimination that began in 1652, to activate a just land redistribution. These issues need to be addressed apart and independent from the issue of land transfer and redistribution by initiatives such as an Individual Citizen’s Land Reconciliation Commission, a South Africans Poverty Obliteration Commission and a South African Court for Apartheid Crimes.

3.2. Myth and lies busting: a retrospective

In the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) show-cased the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists for a change to or against a change to Section 25 of the Constitution to effect land expropriation with or without compensation. These opposing arguments, opinions and viewpoints presented by the antagonists as well as the propagandists represent many lies and myths, and reflect an approach to falsify the truth. The myths and lies will be revisited in this subdivision (see under 3.2.1 to 3.2.11) with a retrospective to bust this contamination in addressing the present-day land expropriation matter appropriately and correctly, as guided by the King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach.  In the under-mentioned subdivisions 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists were weighed to reveal many of their misleading arguments and opinions and manipulation of information in their effort to steer the matter of land expropriation opportunistically and often mischievously, exclusively in their own interest.
It is clear from studying the under-mentioned subdivisions 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 of the discussion 3.2. Myth and lies busting: a short retrospective, that only a limited number of the arguments, opinions and viewpoints, as reflected in the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, may be taken seriously.
It must be noted that the discussion on the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists, as reflected in the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, will be continued in subdivisions 3.2.13 to 3.2.23 of the next article (Article 8, titled: “Land-ownership and -grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8).

3.2.1. The all-over presence of acquired indigenousness in South African landownership

Neither of the races nor groups living presently in South Africa are natural indigenous people to it. Landownership was in the past and is still today based on a vicious circle of land grabbing, coming over centuries and effected by various early migrating strangers from each other, making all South Africans from 1652 up to today a lot of land thieves. Landownership in South Africa is not an issue of indigenousness versus colonialism as many political radicals falsely claim today. The so-called African/South African indigenousness of Blacks, Coloureds, Asians, Indians, KhoiKhois, KhoiSans and Whites is acquired with time by their own and their ancestors’ stay in South Africa.^25,32-39
Natural indigenousness to South Africa is absent from all present-day South Africans, including Julius Malema and cannot play a role in the exclusive allocation of land.⁶⁵

3.2.2. Biological assimilation of Blacks and Whites in nation-building impossible

The postulation that biological assimilation of Black and White in South Africa is impossible is a myth. The Whites as the minority and as an increasingly weaker one, are culturally, racially, politically and biologically slowly being overpowered by the stronger Blacks. Although this process of integration has been taking place very slowly and insignificantly from the beginning of the 1830s, it is becoming comprehensive in our time. South Africa’s complex multiracial society reflects clearly the four intertwined steps: firstly cultural assimilation; secondly economic assimilation; thirdly social assimilation coupled with political assimilation; fourthly biological assimilation.^25,32-39
At present the Afrikaners are inside biological assimilation with the Black population. This finalizing of a new South African Nation, wherein the Afrikaners are going to be dissolved by intermixing with the Blacks and by their natural extinction as a specific group, has now been activated.²⁵
The belief that biological assimilation between Blacks and Whites is impossible is a myth.

3.2.3. There is not a demand and an urge for rural land by Blacks

The present domination by White farmers of the agricultural sector and opportunities, limited the opportunities for Blacks in this sector. Prominent is the low compensation of Blacks as labour-employees on farms and the poor treatment of them in the past by their White land-owners, a direct reason why the poor and landless Blacks moved to the cities, and not so much a real eagerness to become city-dwellers. The present so-called low interest of 8% Blacks to farm or to own land is an outcome the perilous setup into which poor Blacks in South Africa found themsleves within the post-1994 dispensation after the disastrous centuries of economic exploitation by Whites.  There is no doubt if the process of the 1994 land-redistribution should be rerun correctly today in terms of justice and the improved economic and political positions of Blacks, the repossession of Blacks of their so-called “stolen land” by Whites since 1652 may be 50% and higher.^{5,2141-43,45-47}
The hard fact is that the cities cannot accommodate all the poor and jobless Blacks. The lack of employment in urban areas today is forcing many back to the countryside. Prominent is the immense contingent of the unemployed Black population. Immediate Black economic empowerment is a prerequisite to institute a mass of Black landownership as farmers and the creation of optimal working conditions for the Black labourers on Black or White farms.^{5,2141-43,45-47}
The two postulations that 1) only 8% of Blacks want land or want to stay in the rural areas or 2) that Blacks are not interested in farming or land and that they want only urban jobs, are patently false. ^{5,2141-43,45-47}
There is an urgent demand and an urge for rural land by Blacks to farm on.

3.2.4. There is not a place for a contingent mass of independent sufficient-producing farmers and farm labourers

The constant decline in South African commercial farmers from 116 000 in 1950 to more or less 35 000 in 2018, is incorrectly used to claim that more than the present ±35 000 commercial farmers in South Africa are not financially viable and sustainable.  There is no evidence that the bringing in of a contingent mass of different types of Black self-sufficient farmers will be a failure.^{10,13,25,48,50-57}
Statistics on the so-called “commercial” 35 000 farmers in South Africa reflect that only ±3 600 of them contribute between 90% and 95% to the country’s food security. The other more or less 31 400 farmers are so-called sufficient-producing farmers. This means that these farmers produce enough food and other agricultural produce to make them and their immediate families financially independent from social grants, as well to steer themselves successfully albeit slowly into the status of financially independent landowners and active farmers. This is the intended path to follow with the contingent of incoming Black farmers. Data from present-day Zimbabwe, Botswana, Israel, Belgium and Britain reflect well on the successes of these sufficient-producing farmers and their financial independence and contributions, especially locally as to essential products.^{10,13,25,48,50-57}
Evidence shows present-day sufficient-producing farming is working well for most of the 32 400 White farmers with a turnover of less than R5 million per annum, to stay viable and sustainable for years totally outside the small circle of ±3 600  so-called “food-security producing” farms.^{10,13,25,48,50-57}
For the present unemployed mass of Blacks, living in shacks in cities under parlous conditions, the development at last of a contingent of land-owning Black petty bourgeoisie, may be launched. There is a place for them; no evidence exists to contradict it, except racial and political prejudice. In terms of the ratio of ±1:10 between White farmers and Black farmers, the Black farming sector has the potential to be extended to 350 000 farmers and the present Black labourers working on farms from ± 800 000 to 8 000 000.^{10,13,25,48,50-57}
Within this Black farming sector the intention is also to create a better marketing system for the sufficient-producing Black farmers’ products through their own chain shops to bring their products directly at a good but affordable price to consumers. This will be away from the White business bullies’ present monopolistic chain shops and comprehensive local and international markets wherein all the farmers receive in general a low, limited price for their produce.^{10,13,25,48,50-57}
There is a place for a contingent of mass, independent sufficient-producing Black farmers and farm labourers.

3.1.5. There is an absolute need for the future existence of an Afrikaner/White farming sector

The so-called importance and need of White landownership and farmers — especially the Afrikaner farmers — to maintain the present-day economics of the South African farming sector and to guarantee food security, is more and more being erased by their dwindling numbers as a so-called “tribe” within the total population. This places their future position as an absolute financial asset for the country in jeopardy.^{10,21,25,47,50,58-71}
The ratio between the ±35 000 mostly Afrikaner commercial farmers to the rest of the Afrikaner population is 13:1000 or 1.3% of the group, while for the 35 000 farmers the ratio to the White population is 7:1 000 or 0.7%. This reflects an almost insignificant correlation between the broader Afrikaner/White population and the Afrikaner/White farming population in terms of financial interest, such as ownership of land or direct income from farming. This fact makes the direct impact of lost farmland through the planned land expropriation on most Afrikaners/Whites outside the farming sector minimal. Evidence also shows that many of the ordinary Afrikaners have started to cut their cultural cord with the so-called “Afrikanervolk” after 1994, indicating that most of the emotive rhetoric on so-called land grabbing come from a small band of Afrikaner/White individuals and groups with direct financial interests in agriculture. This exclusive farming sector represents at most 10% of Afrikaners/Whites, making the present so-called all-out “Afrikaner fight for their Afrikaner soil”, together with the exclusive need for them by the broad South African population, a myth.  Also, the ±90% Whites and neo-Afrikaners outside the farming sector accept that a new generation of South African farmers, not associated with Afrikaners/Whites, has to be born as quickly as possible to ensure food security.^{10,21,25,47,50,58-71}
The postulation of the absolute need for an Afrikaner/White farming sector “because only they can ensure food security” is false.  It is an over-estimation of Afrikaner/White farmers as a special group in South Africa.^{10,21,25,47,50,58-71}
On a group-count basis the White farmers are irrelevant and are part of the bigger White population’s natural dying-out.

3.2.6. The so-called 90% failure of the 1994-2019 farm-redistributions program is true

The determination that 90% of farms redistributed to Blacks in the 1994 – 2019 land-redistribution programme, were failures, is very controversial and one-sided. It must be noted that the criteria used to decide on the “success” of the so-called “functioning Black farms”, seem to be very vague and undefined. There is an indication that the whole argumentation is arbitrary.^{5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74}
Hard evidence erases the postulate of a 90% failure-rate since 1994. The truth is that today’s farming as an enterprise and a career can be tough, ignoring the fact that it must be equally applied to the established White farmers or incoming Black farmers:.The large financial loans by the Land Bank and other commercial banks to finance the White farmers’ daily activities, is an excellent example of this struggle even by Whites.^{5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74}
The recent request in January 2019 by the formal farmers’ sector, specifically the White ones, for R3-billion drought emergency from the government, confirms this overall struggle. The multi-year drought of 2018 left five of South Africa’s nine provinces critically parched and two others extremely vulnerable, writes Strydom.⁷⁵ In this context, seven out of 10 farmers are struggling. This contradicts the antagonists’ and White politicians’ arguments that the so-called “Black 1994 to 2019 land-redistribution programme”, to establish exclusively Black farmers, was a failure. The definition of “farmers’ failure” is applicable fully to the formal (mostly) White farmers with a need of R3 billion to rescue them.⁷⁵
In this ratio of 7:10 of mostly White farmers seeking rescue, it must further be noted that this represents ±24 000 (out of the total of 35 000 formal farmers) affected who are not truly part of the 3 600 farmers supplying 90% of the county’s food, but the so-called “sufficient-producing farmers” who only contribute between 5% and 10% of the food stock. The question is: if the so-called White sufficient-producing farmers are being kept alive in the farming community, notwithstanding their failure, why could this not also be done with the incoming Black farmers and their so-called failures since 1994?⁷⁵
Further evidence from the country’s negative political history shows that the same kind of failures, as the alleged 1994-2019 farm-redistributions program, had happened, even on a more extreme level, under the White SAP regime and the White NP regime over many years under the government of the Union of South Africa as well as the “Verwoerdian republic”. In these White cases, long-term development corrections were allowed and constant financial governmental assistance offered. Hereto must it be noted that the NP-regime in 1994 overloaded the incoming ANC-regime with many serious political, economical and social problems, like poverty, inequality, unemployment and landless of the Blacks, which the ANC has to address with an effort of a fast driven farm-redistributions program and a Black population unknown with the formal agricultural culture.^{5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74}
For the ANC regime to rectify in the short period of 25 years this immense South African socio-economic and political chaos, created by the various White regimes over hundreds of years, was totally impossible. To claim that the 1994–2019 farm-redistributions program was a failure, is inappropriate and reflects political opportunism.^{5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74}
The so-called 90% failure of the 1994-2019 farm-redistributions program is false.

3.2.7. The political history of South Africa confirms that in most cases landowners were compensated for dispossessions of their land

The South African White regimes and its White inhabitants from 1652 to 1994 followed mostly a policy of land expropriation without compensation towards the Blacks. Included in this lack of compensation for occupying of Blacks’ land, are serious atrocities committed against Blacks in driving them off their land.^{10,16,25,51,55,76,78-88,91}
The White South Africans’ own RET from 1652 to 1994, specifically that of the nationalist Afrikaners between 1948 and 1994, was so immense and of such broad spectrum that it can never be quantified in a monetary value. In this immense harvesting of wealth we find today 5 million privileged Whites against the devastating poverty of a mass of ±29-million Blacks.^{10,16,25,51,55,76,78-88,91}
It is a myth and a total misconception that during the continued land dispossession in South Africa, starting in 1652, most of the owners had ever been compensated. Most of the cases of so-called “transferring of land” were outright land grabbing, often leaving the dispossessed owners landless and in poverty.

3.2.8. The need for land reform insignificant

The initial outcomes of the parliamentarians’ countrywide testing of the public’s opinion on the change to Section 25 of the Constitution shows that there is a strong public need by Blacks to own land. The emphasis is that land expropriation is an immediate requirement that has to be implemented.^{5,21,41-43,45-47}
The  postulation that there is not a need for more landownership by Blacks was statistically erased on the 4th December 2018 when so much as 209 MPs voted in favour (with only 91 votes against and zero absentees) to amend the Constitution to effect land transfer (without compensation) from Whites to Blacks.^{5,21,41-43,45-47}
The First State Land Audit of 2013 shows that the difference between the total land area and the sum of the state-owned and private land is as follows: 14% state-owned land, 7% unaccounted-owned land and 79% privately-owned land. This shows that the state does not own enough land to satisfy the total need for land by the landless and poor Blacks to farm. The Second State Land Audit of 2017 identified close to 94 million hectares as privately-owned, reports Africa Check. (A breakdown by race was only provided for privately-owned land by individuals and not for land owned by companies, trusts and community-based organisations). Agricultural land owned by individuals made up 30% of the total land area. Farms and agricultural holdings (in hectares) owned by individuals in terms of race, are the following: White: 26 663 144 (72%), Indian: 2 031 790 (5%), Coloured: 5 371 383 (15%), African 1 314 873 (4%), Co-owned 425 537 (1%), and Other: 1 271 562 (3%).⁸⁹
From above is it clear that an absolute imbalance between White landownership and Black ownership exists: Whites: 72%: Blacks: 4%.⁸⁹
The need for land reform is significant and is driven by a mass of Black citizens and Black politicians of status. This makes the notion that the need for land reform is insignificant by opportunistic politicians as well as the antagonists an untrue postulation.
Drastic land reform and an immense need for land by Blacks, is a burning issue.

3.2.9. The doubtful success of a new farming system within land-expropriation planning

The planned founding of a large sector of financially independent Black farmers, strongly based on inclusive capitalism and the introduction of a new sufficient-producing farming system, driven by specific farming models — varying from small-scale subsistence farmers to small-scale commercial farmers and commercial middle-level farmers — have the potential to erase the  vast debt of more than R160 billion of the majority of present-day farmers (possibly as much as 32 000 and mostly White). But at the same time it offers immense opportunities for millions of emerging farmers, specifically Blacks. It has the potential at the same time to assure food security for the country, as well as the improvement of its local food production at far more affordable costs. The incoming and the to-be-established Black farmers have the potential to be on the same level as the existing White farmers’ sector. They can dramatically improve the present 5% to 10 % contribution to the country’s food security by the present ±32 000 sufficient farmers’ sector, to 30% and more.^{41,42,49,92-95}
This planned new farming system, based on new technology, agricultural science, fertilizers and irrigation systems, can rapidly turn much of the present-day barren rural land in South Africa into productive soil and farming areas. The turn-around characterising the modern-day East-Asian farm system (China, Japan and South Korea) is an excellent example. The East-Asian farming reform and progressive management of farming, which was very successful in the uplifting of millions of poor Asians, brought phenomenonal delivery of affordable agricultural products to their local as well as international markets, and has limited the importation of food and lowered food costs. Most of all, the system erased to a great extent the inequalities in wealth with the gradual enrichment of previously landless poor people, after placing them in financially-secure careers as new farmers and farm workers. This outcome is equal to what the ANC planned with their incoming land reform and the creation of a new generation of mass Black farmers, varying from small and commercial to mega farmers, within a comprehensively functioning Black farming community.^9,95,96 In this context, is it important to note that the WIBC-organisation (Wouldn’t It be Cool) of Dr Michael Magondo already established — on unused rooftops of buildings in Johannesburg — 20 farms and six agro-processing sites. Each one of these farms represents three to four jobs, creating an income of between R15 000 and R25 000 a month. How small farming is successfully established already, is illustrated by the 35 farms in the Philippi Horticultural Area (PHA). A 2017 study by the department of agriculture found that the PHA farmland yielded a yearly turnover of between R440 million and R480 million, while creating 3 000 direct jobs and 30 000 indirect jobs. Produce is supplied to Woolworths, Shoprite, Nulaid and Checkers.^9,95,96
The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries plans to create countrywide so-called Aquaculture Development Zones (ADZ) to enlarge at low cost the existing small-scale aquaculture sector. Prominent stands the incoming of new Black farmers. These areas are earmarked for aqua-culture value-chain activities with official support and the upgrading of the existing basic infrastructure, writes Khumalo.  Governmental authorisations for a start-up had been received for place as Saldanha Bay, Western Cape, Qolora, Eastern Cape and for the Coega (Eastern Cape) ADZs. The intention is also to develop infrastructures at the Amatikulu (KwaZulu -Natal) ADZ and the Algoa Bay ADZ. Further is the Department, in cooperation with the provincial departments, piloting aquaculture in the Van der Kloof Dam (Northern Cape) and in Richards Bay (Kwa-Zulu-Natal). The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries also plans to establish multi-species hatcheries in the Eastern and Northern Cape. In these cases the incoming Black farmers will be provided with stock and their skills development. The intention is also to establish communal aquaculture farms.⁹⁸
It must also be noted that the amount of land needed by Blacks is not, as often stated by antagonists against the land redistribution program of the government, a masse of land or a whole farm to make a living on. A 2004/2005 Human Sciences Research Council study including Limpopo, Free State and Eastern Cape found that 75% of those Blacks who needed land, wanted five hectares or less.  Similarly, a 2006-2007 study in five rural Western-Cape towns showed that the majority of households said they wanted a hectare or less. This shows that comprehensive and concentrated farming units do not need to be rural-oriented and can be executed on smallholdings of one to five hectares near city markets.⁸⁹
It is clear that post-2019 government policy will activate the immense development of small-scale farmers.  It is also clear that this development will be government-orientated, free from the so-called “generosity” of the large private businesses’ domination with their agricultural inputs. This development will also be free from the present monopoly dominance of the agricultural-processing industry and food retail of the big businesses. The intention is to radically reconfigure and to expand the agricultural supply chain to make Blacks beneficiaries of it via their farming sectors.⁹⁹
The doubtful success of the new farming system for post-2019 South Africa with the advent of land-expropriation planning is without foundation. It can work efficiently.

3.2.10. A sound balance in house ownership in South Africa in terms of racial demographics is in existence

The present-day one-by-one-person racial comparison, which is based on the definition: who are the owners of what property in South Africa, as done by the opponents of land expropriation, ignores the true numbers of the various racial populations’ holding of ownership per person of land. This comparison and reflection of the total White population of ±5-million versus a sub-population of 5 million Blacks, as represented by the official holding of land and property ownership, is an outright manipulatory equalization of the various races, giving the ratio 1:1, which is an outright myth. In reality the comparison must be of the total White population of ±5-million versus the total Black population of ±45 million, being the only correct one, giving the ratio of ±1:10. This means, unmasking the manipulated equalization of the various races regarding, in reality, ±ten Whites owning a property against only one Black owner of a property. In theoretical-statistical terms it means that for the 5 million Whites who owned in some way houses, only 5 million Blacks also own houses, with in reality as much as ±40 million Blacks being homeless or lacking the ownership of houses.^{41,42,49,92-95}
The above selective and manipulative definition of ownership also ignores the low quality of the so-called present-day “other houses” of most of the ±40 million Blacks living everywhere in South Africa. These “other houses” (excluding the low quality RDP houses) theoretically accommodate ±35 million Blacks. In this category we find the comprehensive negative “house environments” wherein millions of the other Blacks are living: the so-called shack-dwellers who lack facilities such as electricity, water, toilet facilities; living in unfavourable areas with poor or no roads and situated in isolated and underdeveloped areas, lacking public transport, shops, public schools and medical facilities. These areas are mostly ridden by crime and not integrated into rich, even middle-class White housing areas; and often located on river banks exposed to constant floods and other life threats.^25,46,100
A trustworthy value guide on the present-day ownership of houses in South Africa, specifically in terms of race, is offered by the Second State Land Audit of 2017. [Note: This audit only provides a breakdown by race on privately-owned erven (houses) and sectional title units by individuals and not for land-owning companies, trusts and community-based organisations]. Africa Check reports in terms of the Second State Land Audit of 2017, focussing on the individual ownership of 1) erven (which includes houses), which make up 0.6% of the total land area, and 2) sectional title units, which make up 0.009% of the total land area, in terms of White, Indian, Coloured and Black, as follows:  A) Erven (hectare): White: 357 507 (49%), Indian: 55 909 (8%); Coloured : 54 522 (8%); African 219 033 (30%), Co-owned 14 322 (2%) and Other 21 365 (3%), and B) Sectional title units (hectare): White 5 118 (45%), Indian 5556 (5%), Coloured 2 375 (21%), African: 1 989 (17%), Co-owned: 655 (6%), Other: 703 (6%).This confirms an absolute disproportial ownership of erven and sectional tile units, favouring exclusively Whites.^90,96,97
In terms of ownership based on race, Whites own 49% of the erven (houses) and 45% (sectional titles), while they represent only ±9% of the total population.
It is an outright lie to say home ownership in South Africa matches the racial demographics.

3.2.11. White socioeconomic and political cooperation with the ANC regime overshadowing White socioeconomic and political resistance against the ANC regime

There is critical thinking, planning and action in present-day South African politics and socioeconomic planning within the greater Afrikaner/White community, especially the White farming community, in relation to Black empowerment in general. The basis for Black empowerment — which often leads to conflict — is that the contingent of privileged South Africans, mostly Whites, can no longer remain comfortable while the majority of the country languishes in squalor and poverty. This inequality must be addressed and the best way is through an official empowerment of the poor, through landownership.^101-107
Many of the constructive changes planned by the ANC regime to better South Africa’s financial, political and racial environment, are just outright unacceptable to and resisted by the White group’s leaders by all means. Especially the issue of land ownership, as part of the Whites’ exclusive financial interests, figure prominently in this resistance. This immense resistance fully overshadows the Whites’ commitment to freely and willingly participate in land reform.^101-107
White socioeconomic and political resistance against the ANC regime’s politics overshadows White socioeconomic and political cooperation with the ANC regime to uplift the poor and landless Blacks.

4. Conclusions

In this article the antagonists’ and the propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints against or for the changing of Section 25(2) of the South African Constitution to enable land expropriation without compensation or not, were brought directly into comparison through the use of King Solomon’s wisdom approach to logically differentiate between truths/facts and the mass of lies/myths.
It is clear from studying subdivisions 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 of the 3.2. Myth and lies busting: a short retrospective, that only a limited number of the arguments, opinions and viewpoints, as reflected in the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, can be taken seriously. Or, better, as Harari describes this mass of untrue information, hanging on in the mindsets of many South Africans: they are mindsets deluged by the positing of immensely irrelevant information by political opportunists, exlusively to gain political power and are in fact fallacies.
In the sequential Article 8 [titled: “Land-ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8)”], subdivisions 3.2.12 to 3.2.23 will further reflect on the truths/facts that are needed to lead the thinking, planning and action on land expropriation after May 2019.
As to the analysis and evaluation of this article, it is at this stage clear, from the studying of subdivision 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 that myths and lies played an enormous role in misleading and misinforming the general South African public on the good intentions of the intended land expropriation and the amendment of Section 25 of the Constitution. It seems so far as if an untrue, distorted picture was created, obstructing the good intentions of land reform. Land reform seems to be an urgent matter which needs immediate implementation. This postulation will be further tested in the sequential article 8.
A full conclusion will be offered at the end of Article 8, titled “Land-ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8)”.

5. References

1. Martinez R. Creating Freedom. London: Canongate; 2016.
2. Barron C. Alex Borraine: Architect of TRC, but the felt it failed SA. Sunday Times (Obituaries). 2018 Dec. 9; p. 17.
3. Dousemetzis H. Messenger of death. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Nov. 25; pp. 1-2.
4. Dousemetzis H. The man who killed Apartheid. Pretoria: Jacana; 2018.
5. Makgoba T. Community needs, not politicians, should lead the redistribution debate. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 23; p. 21.
6. Smith T. Understanding an assassin: a new look at the man they called insane. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Nov. 25; p. 2.
7. Bright J. A history of Israel. London; SCM Press; 1972.
8. Harari YN. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. New York: Jonathan Cape; 2018.
9. Magwood M. Which turn will the 21st Century take? Sunday Times (Review). 2018 Sept. 26; p. 61.
10. Louw GP. Who are colonists and who are indigenous people in South Africa (1). Ensovoort Volume 38 (2018). Number 12:1: 1-75.
11. Chomsky N. Masters of Mankind. London: Penguin; 2015.
12. Collins J. Good to Great.  London: Random House; 2001.
13. 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; 38: 6(2): 1-38.
14. Du Pisani K. Jan Smuts: Van boerseun tot wêreldverhoog. Pretoria: Protea; 2017.
15. Ferguson N. The War of the World. London: Penguin; 2007.
16. Friedman B. Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
17. Holomisa B. South Africa is in the grip of ‘citizen rage’. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Feb. 4; p. 18.
18. Kenney H. Verwoerd: Architect of Apartheid. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2016.
19. Pirow O. James Barry Munnik Hertzog. Cape Town: Howard Timmins; 1958.
20. Roberts JM. The Penguin History of the World. London: Penguin; 1995.
21. Tomlinson FR. Samevatting van die Verslag van die Kommissie vir Sosio-ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
22. Verwoerd WJ. Verwoerd: Só onthou ons hom. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis; 2001.
23. Du Plessis C. Baie emigrante kom terug na Suid-Afrika. Beeld (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 16; p. 14.
24. Land expropriation talk spreads to Namibia 28 years after independence. [Cited 2018 Apr. 10]. Available from https://www.biznews.com/africa/2018/09/28/namibia-land-grabs-poverty?utm_source= Biznews.com+Main&utm_campaign=e99d7
25. Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
26. Mangu X. Early Zimbabwe land reform showed the value of small-scale farmers. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 22.
27. Steyn P. Zim-boere dink nuut oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 12.
28. Germaner S. Old-flag flutter heads to court. Sunday Times (News). 2019 April 28; p. 9.
29. 1 King 3:16-27; pp. 515-516) In: Life Application Bible. The living Bible. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers; 1988.
30. Joshua 11:14, 11:16 and 11. 23; pp. 325-326. In: Life Application Bible. The living Bible. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers; 1988.
31. Dalrymple W. From the Holy Mountain. London: Harper Perennial; 2005.
32. Kapuściński R. Travels with Herodotus. London: Penguin; 2007.
33. Afrikaners are black. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 July 8]. Available from http://www.news24/Afrikaners-are-black-20130223
34. Afrikaner genes could hold key to diseases. Bioformatics Database.[Internet]. [Cited 2018 Aug 27]. Available from http://ichts.tripod.com/Julyupdate/trJuly9-3.html
35. Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press; 1996.
36. Giliomee H. Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001. In: A Fisher, M Albeldas (eds). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
37. Greeff J. Deconstructing Jaco: Genetic Heritage of one Afrikaner. Annals of Human Genetics: 2007; 71(5), 674-688. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Dec. 5]. Available from https://DOI:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00363.X
38. Population genetics and Huntington Disease. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 May 2]. Available from http://web.stanford.ed/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/population-genetics-and-hd/
39. South African History Online (SAHO). History of Slavery and Early Colonisation in South Africa. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Mar. 4]. Available from http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/histiry-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-africa
40. The purity of Arthur Kemp’s People: The Afrikaner. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Nov. 18]. Available from http://www.geocities.ws/kempcountrymen/afrikaner1.htm
41. Barron C. Tread carefully on new land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 9.
42. Bruce P. EFF’s Dr Charming pulls a fast one on TV. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 20; p. 16.
43. Joffe H. Urgency needed in fixing problems that fed into recession. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 2.
44. Van den Heever CM. Generaal J. B. M. Hertzog. Johannesburg: AP. Boekhandel; 1944.
45. Mamphele R. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begin. 2018 Mar. 11; p. 21.
46. Opperheimer M. Six myths about land reform that show the folly of meddling with Bill of Rights. Sunday Times. 2018 May 13; p.18.
47. Speckman A. Little consumer relief in GDP data. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 3.
48. Bernstein A. Jobs crisis needs new approach. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 30; p. 21.
49. Derby R. Sober address should set the tone for ministerial introspection. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 2.
50. Fourie J. Herverdeling neem ons oog van die bal af. Rapport (Sake). 2017 March. 12; p. 4.
51. Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
52. Khumalo A. Once empowered argument may have outlived its history. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 6; p. 10.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Louw GP. Perspectives on the background to the landownership dispute (2). Ensovoort, 2019; 39: 1(1): 1-61.
56. Malope L, Van Rensburg D. Presidensie vat nou oor. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
57. Speckman A. Corruption ‘limits SOE contribution’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 8.
58. Brun B. Africans must be first in line for empowerment. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 22.
59. Bruce P. EFF’s Dr Charming pulls a fast one on TV. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 20; p. 16.
60. Bulger P. A melting pot in which the flavours refuse to mingle. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 10; p. 20.
61. De Lange J. Grondwet kan op vroegste middel Mei 2019 verander. Rapport (Nuus) 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
62. De Jager T. ‘n Mening: Met onteiening is meer as plase op die spel. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 3.
63. De Jager T. Grond: Koeël is nog nie deur kerk. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; pp. 4-5.
64. Jordan B. Land: first fix state’s own tenant crisis. Sunday Times (Busines). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 10.
65. Malema J. Land restoration began five years ago with the birth of the EFF. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22; p. 3.
66. Khumalo F. Beloved book, still crying. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 September 30; p. 17.
67. Mthombothi B. This week’s protests had faults, but flying the apartheid flag was the least of them. Sunday Times. 2017 Nov. 5; p. 25.
68. Mamphele R. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begin. 2018 March. 11; p. 2.
69. Nortje B. Lessons from our close neighbour’s house fire. Sunday Times. (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
70. Ngcukaitobi T. Land could right so many wrongs. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 8; p. 23.
71. Skenjana S. SA must make most of investor interest. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
72. Speckman A. Treasury rallies to aid of a recovering SARS. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 125.
73. Vilakazi HW. The probability of revolution in South Africa. In: M. Albeldas, A. Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
74. Powell J. Talking toTerrorists. London: Penguin; 2014.
75. Strydom TJ Farmers seek R3bn in drought emergency. Sunday Times. (Business Times). 2019 Jan. 27; p. 1.
76. Barron C. Now’s the time for business to open its wallet. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 9.
77. Bruce P. Careful moves as the endgame begins. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 31; p. 12.
78. Eisenberg G. A shadow regime has hijacked control of SA’s borders. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
79. Haffajee F. State capture – it isn’t over. And you’re still paying. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 2.
80. Jonas M. The future state of the nation. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Dec. 2; pp. 15-16.
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. Mokone T, Makinana A & Deklerk A. Cyril takes over North West. Sunday Times (News). 2018 May 13; p. 2.
85. Stremlau JJ. Obama’s Mandela lecture comes at an auspicious time for democracy. The Star (Inside). 2018 July 16; p. 11.
86. 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.
87. Tshabalala M. Beware, the snake might  be dead but these who share its secrets can still bite. Sunday Times. 2018 Jan. 7; p. 13.
88. Tabane OJJ. Should the media take sides in elections? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 10.
89. African Check. FAQs about land in SA. City Press.2019 April 21; p. 1.
90. African Check. Farming hard and smart. City Press. 2019 April 21; p.13.
91. Wa Afrika M. State airline’s R2.4bn fuel con. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 1.
92. Corrigan T. There’s madness in the land debate, but not in pointing out the risks. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
93. Derby R. Land reform is a necessary fix for the faultiness in our economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 2.
94. Derby R. Beware the traps of populism in dealing with land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
95. Versluis. J. SA bewaringsboere wys grond se gehalte. Rapport (Sake). 2019 March 17; p. 3.
96. Huisman B. Fight to preserve farmland. City Press. 2019 April 21;p.13.
97. Peter Z. No land? No problem. City Press. 2019April 21. ;p.13.
98. Khumalo K. Aquaculture Development Zones in the planning stage. The Star. 2019 April 10; p. 16.
99. Ngcukaitobi T. The Land wars of 2019: Analysing the EFF and ANC manifestos. Mail & Guardian. 2019 Feb. 8-14; pp.10-11.
100. 100.Haffajee F. Who owns the land? It’s not all black and white, audits reveal. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 6.
101. Koornhof N. Gematigdes moet lei. Beeld (Middelblad). 2018 Apr. 18; p. 17.
102. Leon T. On expropriation, let’s not be glad to settle for half a loaf. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 18.
103. Light is being shone in dark, festering places all over the country. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 16.
104. Ngcobo S. Land rights activist who was snubbed by town hall: 1969-2018. Sunday Times (Obituaries). 2018 May 27; p. 20.
105. Grindrod S. What does the DA actually stand for? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 13; p. 14.
106. Umraw A. Same old same old likely from ANC manifesto. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 8.
107. Tsotetsi PB. With our country in ferment, let’s stir in some youthful idealism. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 22; p. 21.

PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; External peer-reviewed.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares that he has no competing interest.
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). The terms do appear in dated documents and are used or translated as such in this article for the sake of historical accuracy. 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 on the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanization 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.