The piece below was written by FW de Klerk, former State President of South Africa and the traitor of it. He was also the Nobel Peace Prize winner with Mandela. It was him and his cohorts who decided to hand the country over to the Marxist liberation terrorist organisation, the ANC. The ANC who is backed by Russia, China and Cuba – all communist regimes. The ANC have recently started making noises about changing the Constitution – the same Constitution which was heralded all over the world as being the most democratic and forward thinking Constitution on the planet. Today the ANC are no longer happy with what it contains and are wanting to change certain sections, much to Mr de Klerk’s dismay (!). Now one can speculate as to the reasons why they want these changes, but I think we can all agree it would only be to benefit the ANC and no one else. The ANC has also announced their ‘second transition’ in a document. Just what is this ‘second transition’? Today the ANC enjoys full control of the country unopposed at all levels so this second transition can only mean communism full on. I can only thank my lucky stars that we sit in Australia and not in South Africa – however, my thoughts are with the Whites who remain there as this next transition will mean full control of the media; full control of the courts; the destruction of the Afrikaner culture, history and language; drive farmers off their land and further exclude Whites and other minorities from the job market. In the article below, Mr de Klerk admits that his government knew that the ANC were a bunch of lying pigs not to be trusted, yet they still chose to form government with them and to give them our heads on a platter. He can dress it up as much as he likes, but the sad truth is that his government chose to negotiate with terrorists instead of with the less radical Blacks in the country who were willing to resolve the country’s problems. Today the country is in chaos. Mr de Klerk can try to justify and excuse all his decisions at the time with pretty articles today, but the truth is that no contingencies were made to look after the Whites and the other minorities in the country. He could have done this easily, but he chose to believe traitorous Blacks knowing their past history over the reality. Well Mr de Klerk, you can go and fly a kite. The reality is that many White South Africans – and other minorities – have had to flee the country of their birth because of your poor decision making. Whilst you were committing adultery with your now wife, the ANC were laughing in their cups at your gullibility and stupidity at giving them carte blanche to do as they please. Mr de Klerk is a classic liberal – they think they are clever but at the end of the day they are just useful idiots. Mr de Klerk and his foundation can release as many articles as they like but it’s not going to change his wrong to a right. Mr de Klerk should rather retire from addressing the South African public and enjoy his 30 pieces of silver and his trophy wife without a backward glance, because were he to really look backwards he’d see South Africa going up in flames and his fellow Afrikaners trying to put out the fires. Mr de Klerk deserves a snot klap (helluva smack) and I would love to be the one to give it to him.
|Traitor FW de Klerk
THE ANC PLANS TO END SOUTH AFRICA’S HISTORIC CONSTITUTIONAL CONSENSUS
Eighteen years ago we South Africans reached agreement on the kind of country we wanted to become. After three years of difficult negotiations we agreed that we wanted a society in which the Constitution – and not the majority of the day – would be sovereign. We agreed that that Constitution should make full provision for the protection of all our fundamental rights; that we would have free and independent courts; and that we would establish a truly democratic system of government subject to the rule of law.
We all agreed on the need for transformation – on the rapid development of our people toward equality, human dignity and the full enjoyment of rights. We also agreed on the need to protect our languages and cultures and to ensure that no-one could be arbitrarily deprived of their property.
Parties representing some 90% of our people – and substantial majorities of all our communities – endorsed the constitutional accord. We reached agreement despite our deeply divided and traumatic history. We succeeded despite all the crises, the walk-outs, the violence and the reality that we all had to make painful concessions.
Our achievement was rightly regarded by the whole world as one of the crowning glories of the latter part of the 20th century. It was seen everywhere as an example to all divided societies of what could be achieved by rational debate, compromise and goodwill. I believe that whatever party we belonged to, it was our finest hour.
It was on this basis that the National Party under my leadership surrendered sovereign power – not to another political party – but to the constitution.
Earlier this week, in discussion papers for its upcoming policy conference, the ANC announced that it wants to sweep all this away. It believes that the balance of power nationally and globally has shifted sufficiently for it to dispense with the compromises that it had made in 1993 and 1996.
According to Jeff Radebe, the ANC’s Policy Chief, “our first transition embodied a framework and a national consensus that may have been appropriate for political emancipation, a political transition, but has proven inadequate and inappropriate for our social and economic transformation phase.”
Radebe also announced that the ANC plans to dispense with some of the cornerstones on which our new society has been established, including the present role and powers of the provinces. In line with the controversial Green Paper on Land Reform property rights would also be at risk. Other cornerstones of the constitutional accord that are already under threat include language rights, the right to education in the language of one’s choice; the freedom of expression and the right to access information. Most seriously, the government is maneuvering to limit the role of the courts.
None of this should come as a surprise, since the ANC is simply implementing the next steps in its long-announced National Democratic Revolution.
The National Party did not agree to the transition naively or with its eyes closed to the ideological nature of the tripartite alliance. It realised full well that the ANC might one day reconsider its solemn undertakings. However, it believed that in addition to the guarantees that we had negotiated into the constitution there were other powerful forces that would help to ensure that all parties would honour our accord:
- the collapse of the Soviet Union had swept the ideological ground from under the feet of communists all over the world;
- a new global consensus had developed on the fundamentals of democratic governance and responsible fiscal and economic policy. In our globalising world, no government could afford to ignore these new international norms;
- we also hoped that as the ANC became used to the complexities of government it would quietly abandon its outmoded ideologies;
- finally, we realised that just as we could not govern the country against the will of the majority, a majority government would not be able to rule effectively if it violated the fundamental rights of our minorities. Our symbiotic relationship dictated that whether we liked it or not we would have to work together to achieve success.
We would have been foolish not to seize this unique opportunity for a just and honorable settlement.
The subsequent eighteen years have proved that this was the right decision. As the ANC points out, South Africa has made substantial progress in so many areas. Our country is respected in Africa and throughout the world as an inspiring example of non-racial democracy. With all its faults it is a far better and a far more just country than it was in the past.
We have indeed not made nearly enough progress in addressing unacceptable levels of inequality, poverty and unemployment. However, these transformation failures cannot be ascribed to our constitution. They are primarily the consequence of inappropriate policies.
Evidently, the ANC now wants to jeopardise all of this. It imagines that it can write off the influence of free market democracies and align itself instead with China, Russia and its friends in Cuba.
It thinks that it can invent a new approach to economic development that will free it from the need for the fiscal responsibility that it practised with such good effect for the first seventeen years of its rule.
It thinks, most dangerously, that it can treat minorities as it pleases and impose new forms of discrimination against them in line with its ideology of the National Democratic Revolution.
It is wrong.
Any move to abandon the solemn national consensus that we reached during the constitutional negotiations would destroy irreparably the brave foundations for national unity, democracy and transformation that we have developed since 1994. It would slash open once again the divisions of the past and divide the country along racial lines. Once the powers of independent courts have been sufficiently diluted – it would end the prospect of a society based on democratic values and fundamental human rights.
There are many other matters in the discussion papers that are problematic, but I have dealt here only with some of the key issues. As Mr Radebe points out, the discussion papers are intended to be the basis for a vigorous national debate. He invites “all sectors of South African Society and our people at large to engage with these discussion documents” because they “will have a profound bearing on the future development of this nation.”
In this spirit, I would like to renew my request to the government to hold genuine discussions on these issues with those elements of our society – from all our communities – who continue to support the constitutional consensus that the ANC now wishes to discard.