VVK, what is your nation? PDF Print E-mail
Friday, 12 August 2011 09:00

VVK: what is your nation?

The members of the nation, know which is their nation. They know its name, its flag, and its boundaries, in particular biological and spiritual.
Southern Africa, 2011. The Volksraad Verkiesing Kommissie (VVK), the Electoral Commission of white Afrikaners, who supports the so-called “white Afrikaner nationalism” (promoted by the Union of South Africa – the British dominion forged by international capitalism - in order to consolidate itself against the Boer nationalism), asked a simple question to its own candidates: to announce the name of “nation” to which they belong. Contradictory and conflicting responses of the same candidates, of what should be the future “Parliament” of the “white Afrikaner nation”, are the best testimony that doesn’t exist (and never has existed) an Afrikaner nation. Such responses (summarized below, in blue), often grotesque, testify - unfortunately - even the deep identity crisis of many biological descendants of the Boers. A crisis of identity promoted by international capitalism, through people, organizations and States that have taken place in southern Africa. Citing some of them: the Union of South Africa; the Republic of South Africa (RSA); the Afrikaner Broederbond; the Nasionale Party (NP); the Vryheidsfront (VF); and today the VVK.

The VVK is basically a creature of Verkenners. And Verkenners appear as a new form of Afrikaner Broederbond (the “Afrikaner Brotherhood”), a kind of white Afrikaner Freemasonry, which works to confuse the true nationalism (Boer) with a false (white Afrikaner). Just as the Freemasons, usually, work to confuse Evil with Good.

Among the candidates of the VVK there are also good people, probably in good faith, as are surely in good faith so many of its supporters, but this doesn’t change the truth of the things. Identity crisis is the DNA of the VVK, and his diabolical project is a new attack to Boer identity. A new chapter of the Boer genocide, written by non-Boer white Afrikaners.

Who knows his nation, has no doubts about his identity. That is: who is Boer declares himself Boer, and stay on the side of the Boers. Nothing else.

 

What is the name of our nation?

Alwyn de Klerk, Secretary of the Verkenners, says that all names: “Boer”; “Afrikaner” or “Boer-Afrikaner”; are good.
Andries Breytenbach, leader of the Herstigte Nasionale Party (HNP), says that “Afrikaner” and “Boer” are synonymous. According to this outlandish claim (a fundamental of the so-called white Afrikaner “nationalism”) all Afrikaans-speaking whites would be a nation, that it would be like claiming that all Anglophone whites are a nation.
Ben Geldenhuys, President of the Verkenners, says that “Afrikaner” and “Boer” are synonymous, and that disputes about them are made to divide their nation (but which nation?!). To support his argument he cited Christiaan de Wet. A typical behaviour of those who work to confuse Evil with Good. Indeed Christiaan de Wet may be remembered especially as a Boer general who fought for the Boers, even against non-Boer white Afrikaners (mainly “Cape Dutch”) and against the Union of South Africa.
Pieter Aucamp, of the Verkenners, says that “Boer” and “Afrikaner” are not synonymous, that all Boers are Afrikaners, but not all Afrikaners are Boers.
Ferdie Devenier, of the Evangeliese Gereformeerde Kerk (EGK, in English: Evangelical Reformed Church) prefers the term “Boer-Afrikaner”, and with it he seems to mean all white people.
Flip Bruwer, of the Verkenners, prefers the term “Boer”, but also “Afrikaner” and “Boer-Afrikaner” are good for him.
Frans Pieterse, of the HNP, thinks the term “Boer” refers to the period of the Boer republics, whereas today all (Boers and other non-Boer Afrikaans-speaking whites) would be “Afrikaners”.
Franz Jooste, leader of the Kommandokorps (KK), thinks that term “Boer-Afrikaner” is better, now that many people confuse the term “Boer” with “farmer” (in Afrikaans, boer = farmer; Boer = Boer) and “Afrikaner” with “African” (the meaning of “Afrikaner”, in Afrikaans, is just “African” in a geographical sense).
Jaco Steyn, of the HNP, thinks that term “Boer” and “Afrikaner” are good, as were synonymous, so term “Boer” refers to the past (the Boer republics) and “Afrikaner” to the present.
Kleintjie Rabie thinks that is possible to use any name, to not create divisions; but then, why don’t use the name “South Africans”, to not exclude no-one?
Peet Joubert, of the HNP, declares himself Afrikaner, but also says it is good “Boer-Afrikaner” or “Boer”.
Philip Nieman, of the Verkenners, declares himself “Boer-Afrikaner”.
Steyn van Ronge, new leader of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB), says that all terms: “Afrikaner”; “Boer”; and “Boer-Afrikaner”; are good, to not to exclude anyone. The times (1995) in which the AWB was part of the Boere Republikeinse Verkiesingskommissie (BVK, the Boer Republican Electoral Commission, which at the UN declared that Afrikaners were not part of the Boer nation), now seem very distant.
Tiaan Theron, of the Verkenners and Orania Beweging, declares himself “Boer-Afrikaner”, where the term “Boer” seems to be understood as “farmer”.
Abel Malan, Vice-President of the Verkenners, has a lot of “identities”; he prefer declares himself “Boer” or “Afrikaner patriot”; but also “Boer-Afrikaner”; “member of the Covenant People / Covenant-Afrikaners”; “Burger”; and even “Bitterender” (term for Boer fighters who fought till to the end during the Second Boer War of Liberation, and for those who rebelled against the Union of South Africa). He says that isn’t very important the name used (and maybe not even identity, at least for him).
Sakkie van der Merwe declares himself Boer, and remark that there have never been “Afrikaner” wars of liberations nor “Afrikaner” concentration camps. Also Etienne Le Roux declares himself Boer, a member of the Boer nation. But if they are really Boers, what are they doing among these people?