Category Archives: Autonomy

Tretchikoff Boeremeisie

Afrikaners will perish without legal autonomy

We publish the following opinion-piece by South African anthropologist Cor Ehlers, a multi-talented Free State cattle-farmer who chairs the OASE organisation: its goal: to legally re-establish – through the international community – an independent Afrikaner State on 6,5% of the total land-surface of South Africa – the territory where the Boers were settled permanently as independent republicans ever since the Great Trek. We also run advertisements on our pages encouraging people to sign up for the Volksraadverkiesingskommittee – which is electing a negotiation-commission to start negotiating with the ANC-regime about the establishment of an independent republic inside South Africa. Ehlers’ plan is very different from the VVK plan – yet they both have the same ideals. We hope that the two groups will be able to come to an agreement so that these efforts can be combined. We will continue to present all these various viewpoints from Boer- and Afrikaner-Republicans who all strive for a small autonomous homeland: a place where their people can be safe from increasingly violent genocidal hatespeech and the widespread campaign of aggression now being experienced by Afrikaners under ANC-rule. We chose no sides: we also will always continue to support the attempts to charge the ruling African National Congress leaders in the International Criminal Court in The Hague for genocide: two organisations, the Pro-Afrikaans-Action Group and the Verkenners, lodged formal charges in The Hague in April and May 2011 in this regard.

Cor Ehlers

Cor Ehlers

Mr Ehlers is a seventh generation Afrikaner of German and Dutch descent both on his father’s and mother’s side. Paternal great grandfather Christiaan Ehlers fought in the Boers’ freedom wars in 1881 and1899-1902 against the invading colonial forces of Great Britain. Maternal great grandfather Ben Vorster, was a prisoner of war in Ceylon in 1902 and his wife was in a British concentration camp survivor: losing two children due to the horrendous conditions in those British death-camps 1901-1902. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Anthropology and Indigenous Law from the University of Pretoria. He ran a private security firm for 25 years, moving to the countryside to develop a guest farm in 2007 – Dutch-born Wife Dineke arrived as a young immigrant in SA with her parents and siblings in 1974. She holds a master’s degree in Afrikaans and Dutch from the University of South Africa; and is a lecturer there. The couple have one daughter, Marieke, who graduated in International Law (LLB)at the University of The Hague. Marieke was born and raised as an Afrikaner in South Africa, but decided to pursue her tertiary studies in The Netherlands, particularly after employment opportunities for whites (especially Afrikaners) were blocked by the ANC government’s anti-white black-economic-empowerment laws. Marieke continues her studies in LLM (International Law) from September at the University of Kent in the UK.

Self-determination for Afrikaners and Boers is essential if they are to survive physically on the African continent…




Mr Ehlers writes:

“Due to my patriotic feelings for my own people and due to Marieke’s studies in International Law in The Hague, I have come to the conclusion that the only way in which Afrikaners will ever survive both culturally and physically in Africa will be through external self-determination and territorial sovereignty.

The concept of self-determination has always been seen as belonging to ‘a far-right minority’ amongst Afrikaners and the media — and ANC propaganda has always succeeded in labelling any gesture in this direction as being ‘extreme rightwing’. The vast majority of Afrikaners, both in South Africa and abroad, are however yearning for a solution and with the correct approach we believe territorial sovereignty for Afrikaners can be achieved in the medium to long term. We have established an independent organisation, OASE (Onafhanklike Afrikaner-selfbeskikkingsekspedisie or: Independent Afrikaner self-determination expedition) which is not linked in any direct or indirect way to any political and/or cultural organisation. We have involved a number of academics and persons across a broad spectrum of Afrikaner society and this has resulted in some excellent research. We believe our endeavours will ultimately pay off since we carry no ‘right- or leftwing political baggage’.

We base our claims on the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Section 1.1 (and other relevant declarations and resolutions) which clearly states:

  • ‘All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’

There are no specific criteria in International Law defining the process which ought to be followed to obtain external self-determination — however, an international law expert – David Raic – conducted an in-depth study of processes pertaining to external self-determination. His findings, together with the Montevideo Convention (1933) criteria for statehood have formed the legal basis of our claims thus far. The Montevideo Convention’s requirements for statehood are:

1. A clearly defined territory.
2. A permanent population of the group within the defined territory wishing to succeed from the unitary state.
3. An effective government.
4. The ability to enter into agreements with other sovereign states.

* A fifth requirement has subsequently developed in International Law, i.e. the new state should underwrite and promote basic human rights.

In the past until June 2010, this uti possidetis iuris principle was a serious obstacle for Afrikaners who desired external self-determination, since secession could only take place if former colonial borders remained intact — which would have meant that Afrikaners would have ended up as yet another minority in one or both of the former Boer Republics (Freestate and Transvaal) which were colonized in 1902 after a vicious scorched-earth war by colonial invader Great Britain. However this changed after the outcome of the Kosovo case in the ICJ in the Hague in June 2010 – and also, due to tremendous pressure from legal advisers since the crumbling of East European states, the uti possidetis rule has become less important.

  • This means Afrikaners can now claim territory where they form the majority within a specific region by drawing borders in a way which will exclude millions of blacks – many of whom are migrants from borders north of present-day South Africa. The territory which OASE has identified, based on anthropoligical, archaeological, historical and economic research formed integral parts of the former Boer Republics and is commonly known as the Highveld region of South Africa, linked with a corridor to the Northern Natal coast to include the harbour of Richards Bay and the World Heritage coastal enclave of St Lucia Bay.

Afrikaners will have to make certain harsh sacrifices in the process in order to minimise economic and administrative disruption in the process of seceeding from the unitary state. In accordance with International Law the process of secession must take place in a peaceful manner through negotiations. We doubt whether the ANC and its two political partners (SA Communist Party and Cosatu Trade Union Federation) will accept Afrikaners’ claims for territorial sovereignty. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we appoint a team of International Law experts consisting of lawyers both from South Africa and abroad, since we might ultimately have to go the same route as Kosovo did. Should negotiations with the ANC fail, we shall have no alternative but to declare unilateral independence and this may result in the ANC referring the case to the UN who will in turn refer it to the ICJ – as Serbia did in the case of Kosovo. Afrikaners will have to make sure that they have a watertight case if the process ends up in The Hague.

International support

The only way through wich a people can obtain external self-determination which will successfuly result in territorial sovereignty, is if such a new state is recognised by the international community.

  • Afrikaners’ endeavours will therefore have to run in tandem with diplomatic processes so that international partners can recognise the new state’s sovereignty, whether it is obtained through peaceful negotiations or through an Unilateral Declaration of Independence.

Recognition by the UN is not a legal requirement since sovereignty is gained even if only one other sovereign state recognizes the new state. However, for purposes of economic and physical survival Afrikaners would obviously have to try and get as many international supporters as possible.

During apartheid the state of Israel was always a strong international partner of Afrikaners and we believe this may well be the case again should Afrikaners gain sovereignty. An Afrikaner agricultural union (TLU SA) has also managed to build excellent relations with Georgia and we have hope that that country will recognise eventual Afrikaner sovereignty.

Moreover, Afrikaners have always maintained strong cultural ties with the Flemish in Belgium which could result in that country also recognising our new state.

The winds of change currently blowing over Western Europe where support for nationalism is growing daily, could result in countries such as The Netherlands and Germany also ultimately recognising Afrikaner sovereignty. Ultimate recognition would obviously come if the USA recognizes our sovereignty and this will probably only happen under Republican rule.

ANC-regime is alienating its Western partners

The ANC government is slowly alienating its western partners by embracing China, as well as rogue states such as North Korea and Libya and Zimbabwe. We believe the strategic location of a western ally (especially with harbour facilities) in Southern Africa would certainly raise the West’s consideration for recognition of an independent Afrikaner state.

International Law clearly prohibits violence as a method to obtain external self-determination, unless the unitary state becomes the aggressor and the minority wishing to secede acts in self-defence – another reason why our endeavours will not result in any success without international support.

Where else could Afrikaners – who now face physical annihilation — survive culturally and physically?

Afrikaners have only one ‘heimat’ and that is South Africa; should the international community not recognise Afrikaners’ right to external self-determination, then they should tell us where else we can survive culturally and physically and issue us with the necessary passports so that we can emigrate to such a country on a mass scale.

OASE will be embarking on a marketing and fundraising campaign within the next few months in order to raise support for external self-determination under the majority of Afrikaners who already reside in the defined territory, but also under those who fall outside the said territory including the more than half a million Afrikaners who have already settled abroad due to the ever-increasing crime rate since 1994 and because they are being deliberately barred from public life, including the job market, by the ANC-regime’s anti-white black-economic empowerment laws. There are currently only two other options for Afrikaner self-determination on the table, namely:

Orania in the Northern Cape desert: will never be self-sustainable for Afrikaner self-determination…


* Orania is a small Afrikaner settlement in a semi-desert area of the Northern Cape but in our view will never become an economically sustainable area for Afrikaner self-determination. In spite of efforts to establish an Afrikaner homeland in Orania over the past two decades, only 900 Afrikaners have moved there since 1990 whilst more than half a million have already left the country since 1994.

The Afrikaners will claim 6,5% of the total land surface – as a minority group they are 6% of the total population…


The option which OASE will be offering Afrikaners comprises approximately 6,5% of the country’s total land surface; Afrikaners as a minority group constitute 6% of the total population of South Africa.

  • Afrikaners have lived in that specific territory continuously since the Great Trek in 1836
  • The area which we have identified was tamed by Afrikaners who settled there in large numbers since the Great Trek in 1836 and which will include the Afrikaner suburbs of the two predominantly Afrikaner cities of Bloemfontein and Pretoria as well as several other Afrikaner towns of cultural and historical value to Afrikaners. The area is economically sustainable and could be developed further into a wealthy independent state where all Afrikaners (approximately 3 million) can ultimately survive, should this ever become necessary.

‘Volksraad Verkiesings Kommissie campaign is flawed: they want to exclude homosexuals from electoral processes’ : Ehlers…

* Secondly, a group of Afrikaners (the Volksraad Verkiesingskommissie or VVK) have recently embarked on a campaign to have an Afrikaner Council (Volksraad) elected with the purpose of negotiating with the ruling African National Congress for self-determination; we fear that this could damage Afrikaners’ attempts to gain independence within the parammeters of International Law and due to non-recognition of the international community, – especially as a result of the VVK’s approach on basic human rights where homosexuals are excluded from any participation in the electoral processes.

  • The VVK also believes that Afrikaners will ultimately succeed in establishing an Afrikaner state based on racial discrimination. This movement has no specific territorial area in mind moreover: which is the most basic shortcoming of their approach, since the bottom line of negotiations with the ANC as per international law will have to be about territory and nothing else.
  • The VVK does however lean towards the Orania area in the semi-desert of the Northern Cape where there is absolutely no infrastructure and where so called ‘Coloured people’– who are direct descendants of the first nation of South Africa, the Khoisan (they are also referred to rather disparagingly as ‘Hottentot and Bushmen’) are living scattered throughout the region but are in the majority – these peoples, in particular the Griquas, as the first nations of Southern Africa; and they will certainly have a much stronger claim on the Northern Cape territory than white Afrikaners will ever have in terms of international law — and more so in terms of the UN’s Declaration regarding Indigenous Peoples. Moreover, the present northern Cape where Orania is located,was annexed from the independent Boer Republic of the Free State by the British Cape-colonial government when diamonds were discovered in Kimberley.

Afrikaners/Boers have also never enjoyed sovereignty in the so called Cape Colony or any part thereof prior to British colonization.



Afrikaner autonomy rights: Valid international laws – Afrikaners have firmly-established legal autonomy rights under International Law: Marieke Ehlers, LLB, University of The Hague…

Ehlers Marieke

Ehlers Marieke

International rights have established that all (ethnic) nations have the right to an autonomous, self-ruling territory, writes an expert in International Law (LLB), a graduate from the University of The Hague, Marieke Ehlers. Until recently she worked for Solidarity trade union’s research department. We reproduce this important Afrikaans article, which explores the legal rights of Afrikaners to their own autonomous homeland, after Ms Ehlers fell out of grace and her articles on Afrikaner autonomy were removed from the Solidarity Research Institute’s . We will soon publish the English interpretation. Her support for Afrikaner autonomy was learned at her father’s knee: anthropologist/farmer Cor Ehlers launched her on this quest through the organisation OASE of which he is president.

Afrikanerselfbeskikking en -afskeiding binne die konteks van die Internasionale Reg – deur Marieke Ehlers

12 Jul 2011 Hierdie artikel is die tweede een wat handel oor die internasionale regsimplikasies wat van toepassing is op moontlike Afrikanerselfbeskikking en -afskeiding. Ek beoog ’n verdere artikel oor dieselfde onderwerp wat sal handel oor die praktiese haalbaarheid asook die regsimplikasies daarvan binne ons huidige Grondwet.

Daar is groepe binne bepaalde minderhede in Suid-Afrika wat van mening is dat hulle regte nie voldoende beskerming geniet binne die bepalings van die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika nie. Sowel die Vendas as die Afrikaners het as uitvloeisel hiervan byvoorbeeld gaan registreer by die Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO). Die mening bestaan dat die meerderheidsregering onregmatig teen hierdie mindersheidsgroepe diskrimineer op grond van taal, etnisiteit en kultuur, en dat die huidige Grondwet nie voorsiening maak vir doel-treffende minderheids¬verteenwoordiging binne bestaande regeringstrukture nie. Hierdie groepe is verder van mening dat afskeiding van die Suid-Afrikaanse eenheidstaat (eksterne selfbeskikking) die enigste blywende oplossing bied vir hulle strewe na selfbeskikking.

Etniese selfbeskikking

In die internasionale gemeenskap bestaan daar allerlei teenstrydighede rondom die legaliteit van eksterne selfbeskikking vir volke of etniese groepe. In terme van die eng betekenis-toepassing van die term “selfbeskikking” argumenteer skrywers dat die reg op selfbeskikking slegs geld in ’n koloniale konteks.

In die breër betekenistoepassing van die woord beweer sekere kenners dat die reg op selfbeskikking ook geld vir minderhede wat wil afskei van ‘n bestaande soewereine eenheidstaat. Steven Ratner bespreek hierdie teenstrydighede in Drawing a better line: uti possidetis and the borders of new states (1996) en wys daarop dat die menings van besluitnemers in die internasionale gemeenskap met betrekking tot afskeiding dubbelsinnig en inkonsekwent is.

Hy wys daarop dat lidstate van die Verenigde Nasies die belangrikheid van die handhawing van eenheidstate beklemtoon, maar dat hulle daarteenoor wel die soewereiniteit erken van sekere state wat afgeskei het van die eenheid-staat en dat die lidstate boonop aandring op die beskerming van minderheidsregte binne eenheidstate.

’n Belangrike regsreël wat dikwels hier ter sprake gebring word, staan bekend as uti possidetis iuris.

  • Die volledige Romeinse regsreël lui: Uti possidetis iuris, ita possideatis, oftewel “Soos wat jy in die reg besit gehad het, so sal jy (in die toekoms) besit hê”. Hierdie regsreël sou deurslaggewend kon wees by die argumentering oor die regsgeldigheid van eksterne selfbeskikking en afskeiding, omdat dit in die verlede die regsbasis gevorm het vir die handhawing van eenheidstate en hul grense binne ‘n (post)koloniale konteks.

Sowel Ratner as Helen Ghebrewet (in Identifying units of statehood and determining international boundaries: a revised look at the doctrine of uti possidetis and the principle of self-determination, 2006) bespreek die toepassing van die regsbeginsel van uti possidetis iuris binne ‘n (post)koloniale konteks.

  • In die relevante saak van Burkina-Faso v Mali (1986) plaas die Internasionale Geregshof in Den Haag die toepassing van hierdie regsbeginsel in dieselfde konteks.

Myns insiens is dit dus duidelik dat hierdie regsbeginsel deurgaans toegepas word in die (post)koloniale konteks. Waar gemelde regsbeginsel tot op hede van toepassing gemaak is binne so ’n konteks, word die nuwe staat se landsgrense vasgestel soos wat dit was onder koloniale besetting.

Suid-Afrika was lankal nie meer onder koloniale besetting teen 1994 nie

Suid-Afrika was teen 1994, toe die huidige Grondwet onderhandel en deurgevoer is, lankal nie meer onder koloniale besetting nie. Daadwerklike koloniale besetting in die Kaap het vir die eerste keer in 1795 plaasgevind; tussen 1652 en 1795 was die Kaap ‘n verversingspos onder beheer van die VOC, ‘n handelsmaatskappy. (nie ‘n koloniale mag nie)

Die Britse koloniale besetting van die Kaap in 1795 en, na ‘n kortstondige Nederlandse regeringsperiode (1803-1806), weer in 1806 was een van die oorsake vir die Groot Trek in 1835. Teen daardie tyd was die samehorigheidsgevoel onder ‘n groot groep Europese afstammelinge sonder twyfel sterk gevestig. Na die totstandkoming van die Republiek van Natal het Brittanje in 1843 Natal geannekseer, maar in 1852 (Sandrivierkonvensie) en in 1854 (Bloemfonteinkonvensie) wel erkenning gegee aan die soewereiniteit van Transvaal en die Oranje-Vrystaat, net om dit in 1877 ten opsigte van Transvaal te skend deur dit te annekseer.

Transvaal Republiek se volle onhanklikheid herstel deur Konvensie van Londen 1884

Hierdie anneksasie het op die Eerste Vryheidsoorlog uitgeloop wat deur die Boere gewen is en waardeur Transvaal se volle onafhanklikheid uiteindelik deur die Konvensie van Londen in 1884 herstel is. Daarna is die Vrystaat en Transvaal vir die eerste keer werklik gekoloniseer in 1902 na afloop van die Tweede Vryheidsoorlog, toe dit onder direkte Britse beheer gekom het. Die mate van self-regering wat in 1910 aan die Unie van Suid-Afrika toegeken is, was egter van so ‘n omvattende aard dat Suid-Afrika beskou is as ‘n volwaardige stigterslid van die destydse Volkebond in 1919. In 1961 het Suid-Afrika ‘n republiek geword wat as sulks erken is deur die internasionale gemeenskap.

Boere-Afrikaners kan nie beskou word as koloniale besetters nie: is is nooit so beskou deur die internasionale gemeenskap nie

Die besetting van die binneland van Natal, die Vrystaat en Transvaal deur gemelde groep in die 19e eeu waarna vir die doel van hierdie artikel verwys kan word as Boere-Afrikaners, kan nie beskou word as kolonisering nie en is ook nooit so beskou deur die internasionale gemeenskap nie.

  • Die afleiding kan dus gemaak word dat, indien die beginsel van uti possidetis iuris van toepassing sou wees op Suid-Afrika, die grenslyne getrek sal moet word soos wat dit gelyk het voordat Brittanje bogemelde gebiede geannekseer en dus gekoloniseer het.

Patrick Muwanguzi skryf in sy artikel Reconciling Uti Possidetis and Self Determination: The Concept of Interstate Boundary Disputes (2007)

  • ‘n Volk se reg tot selfbeskikking is ‘n onvervreembare en universele reg. Daar bestaan geen verbod in die internasionale reg op eksterne selfbeskikking of afskeiding nie. In die algemeen word in die internasionale reg aanvaar dat aksies wat nie eksplisiet verbode is nie, regsgeldig is en dus toegestaan word. Die enigste regsreël in die internasionale reg wat afskeiding moontlik indirek verbied, is die beginsel van territoriale soewereiniteit. Ghebrewebet (sien hierbo) erken ook dat daar spanning in die internasionale reg bestaan tussen territoriale integriteit of soewereiniteit en die reg van volke op selfbeskikking.

Desnieteenstaande neem sy resente staatspraktyk in ag, soos in die geval van die voormalige Joegoeslawië, USSR en Tsjeggo-Slowakye, asook die nuutste verwikkelinge in menseregte.

In die onlangse Kosovo-uitspraak (soos uiteengesit in my voorafgaande artikel The independence of Kosovo and the links with South Africa) word dit egter duidelik gemaak dat die kwessie van territoriale integriteit en soewereiniteit slegs van toepassing is op die verhouding tussen State en dat die reg tot eksterne selfbeskikking van ‘n volk binne ‘n eenheidstaat nie daarop inbreuk maak nie.

Die internasionale reg is minder gemoeid met grondeise of die verskuiwing van grense en wil eerder vasstel of ‘n nuwe onafhanklike staat tot stand gekom het, aangesien die internasionale reg eerder staatspraktyk reguleer as die optrede van individue of groepe.

Ten spyte van teenstrydige opinies in die internasionale gemeenskap word dit toenemend duidelik dat volke of etniese groepe se onvervreembare reg op selfbeskikking die gees van ons tyd kenmerk.

Myns insiens kan die gedagte van moontlike Afrikaner-selfbeskikking en selfs afskeiding dus nie beskou word as in stryd met die internasionale reg nie. Die vraag wat dan bly staan, is of sodanige strewe prakties haalbaar is binne ons Suid-Afrikaanse konteks. Ek hoop om hierdie vraag in ‘n volgende artikel te behandel.”

Skrywer. Marieke Ehlers, Oase

Stroebel Magda court case ANC Wendy Houses


Afrikaner voters walked away enmasse from the ‘traditional white party’ – the Freedom Front Plus, due to leader Pieter Mulder’s decision to serve on the ANC-cabinet as deputy-agri-minister; but also by the secretive Broederbond-machinations of ex president FW de Klerk

By Adriana Stuijt – In what can be seen as a major coup for the behind-the-scenes Broederbond-style interference by former SA president F W Klerk, the Freedom Front Plus party – which always drew its support from white Afrikaners voters – was left in disarray after its voter-support shrank to less than one percent of the entire electorate in the local-government elections this month.

So in miffed revenge, the FF+ ‘s Gauteng leadership turned on the weakest members of its electorate: immediately withdrawing their financial support to 5,000 desperate Afrikaner squatters who are facing homelessness due to a long-protracted court battle…

The Afrikaners’ only ‘white party’ dropped from its original 79 seats in 2006 to its present 15 seats – less than the African Christian Democratic Party’s 17 seats, the United Democratic Movement’s 25 seats and the Pan Africanist Congress’ seventeen seats. With 37 seats also won by independent candidates, the Freedom Front Plus was given a knock-out blow at the local-election polls.

And this was entirely due to the fact that the best-organised and most activist group of Afrikaners in the Solidarity trade union and its civil-rights movement Afriforum openly withdrew their support from the Freedom Front in favour of the Democratic Alliance – after receiving a huge dollop of ‘official support’ from the F W de Klerk Foundation.

Solidariteit AfriNetwerk Oprichtings FW

Solidarity, Afriforum and De Klerk together recently founded the AfriNetwerk, (right) with an office in Brussels run by Dutch/South African journalist Ingrid Scholtz and her journalist-husband Leopold Scholtz – and in cooperation with the artisan-training scheme Sol-Tech. Afrinetwerk was officially set up to advance the Afrikaans language andall the people who speak it…

Even the Afrikaner squatters in their wendy houses in Pretoria voted for the DA… and now are being punished for it…

So what really happened?

Praag writes that the FF+ was dealt this death-blow mainly by Solidarity trade union and Afriforum’s withdrawal of their previous support. However the Freedom Front leader also was punished for his decision to join the ANC-cabinet as its deputy-agriculture minister. His people were very angry about that: they saw it as Mulder joining the enemy-camp.


In fact, even the desperately poor 5,000 Afrikaner squatters living in their wendy-houses on the Daspoort Estate near Pretoria voted for the Democratic Alliance – despite the fact that the FF+ was actually paying their legal bills in a notorious court battle to have them evicted…

Stroebel Magda delivering donated food

This Afrikaner squatter camp, located at Nr 929 Keyser Street, is on a smallholding run by the formidable Mrs Magda Stroebel’s charity Angels at Work in the Pretoria Moot region. The Freedom Front Plus had been paying for this squatter’ community’s ongoing legal battle with the Pretoria city council since 2009 — to try and stop the local ANC-municipality from demolishing their wendy-houses and dumping these destitute Afrikaners – amongst them are 2,000 children and several dozen frail elderly – out into the the street.

Freedom Front withdraws financial support to 5,000 Afrikaner squatters

Stroebel Magda Pretoria MOOT

The Freedom Front became so miffed that they withdrew their financial support to Mrs Stroebel’s court case (above) just twee weeks before she was due to go to court on June 7, with regional FF+ leader Philip van Staden writing to the charity that he’d been asked by Advocate Anton Alberts, its MP for Gauteng, to withdraw their financial support to the charity.

“You are staring prosecution in the face in the absence of our help’…

“We withdraw our financial support due to the fact that the residents of the wendy houses voted in great numbers on Wednesday 18 May 2011 for the Democratic Alliance in the municipal election. We also received calls at our head-office from those residents that they voted for the DA. These residents stated very clearly that they did not want the help of the Freedom Front Plus and thus we now recommend that the residents should seek help from the DA instead’. He also added rather ominously: “We must also advise you to move the residents elsewhere because you are staring prosecution in the face in the absence of our help’. However, he also wrote that ‘we will continue to fight for this case inside the city council’.

  • On Friday, Mr Van Staden reportedly contacted Mrs Stroebel and said he would try to raise funds on his own to help pay for the legal costs of the case.


Mrs Stroebel however now is clearly desperate: she faces having to pay R3,000 in legal bills up front to the lawyer handling the case, Roelof van der Merwe, before the next court date on June 7. The total costs may be as high as R7,000. If anyone would be willing to provide financial sponsorship for this forthcoming court date, Magda Stroebel’s lawyer Roelof Van der Merwe can be reached at:
tel. 012-567-3373
Angels at Work:

Stroebel Magda court case ANC Wendy Houses

PRAAG noted that Dr. Pieter Mulder ‘s participation in the ANC-ruled cabinet as its deputy minister of agriculture has undoubtedly led to this brutal punishment at the polls by his Afrikaner electorate: the deputy-minister was clearly unable to use this platform inside the cabinet to adequately address the approaching land-confiscation programme by the ANC-government, writes PRAAG.

“Mulder also chose not to use this platform inside the ANC-cabinet to conduct ethnic-politics – and his statements in public ‘already were overshadowed by the Democratic Alliance, as were those of Solidarity and Afriforum’.

Those latter two powerful Afrikaner-organisations, Solidaritity and Afriforum, actually forbade their officials and employees from holding membership in the FF+ in the runup to the local-government elections. Instead, Solidarity and Afriforum – with the active support of the FW de Klerk foundation – actively threw its support behind the Democratic Alliance.

Dan Roodt of PRAAG, who stood as a Freedom Front Plus candidate, also pointed out that the Freedom Front Plus wasn’t really convincing about conveying its own stated policy of wanting an independent Afrikaner homeland: that it was downplayng this policy ‘in favour of shortterm political gain’. Yet the Freedom Front Plus also holds membership in the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples’ Organisation (UNPO) in The Hague since 2008 in order to fight for Afrikaner independence.

The Afrikaans mainstream news media is stigmatising and demonising any Afrikaner dreams of an autonomic homeland…

The FF+ were not clear nor firm enough about this policy in their message to their own electorate, writes PRAAG, noting: “Afrikaner independence is an unpopular message amongst the voters who are being stigmatised and demonised by the Afrikaans main-stream news media,’ PRAAG pointed out and “the Afrikaans-language mainstream news media instead has chosen to ‘advance South Africanism and a unity state.’

Mulder told Media24 after the results that the Freedomfronters ‘voted strategically’ and that he ‘had no reply against the Democratic Alliance’s propaganda-message. “The DA took away a lot of our support.” He emphasised however that ‘small parties still have the right to exist because they look after the specific needs of minorities.” It’s not known whether the FF now will resign its UNPO membership.

Its current plans and direction are unknown: there was huge shock and disbelief amongst its supporters about the election results, and the party has been thrown into disarray, noted PRAAG, commenting: ‘although it must have been obvious to its management that they did not have a chance against the DA due to its support by Afriforum and Solidarity..’. PRAAG also made a point of noting that Afriforum and Solidarity ‘also had the support of the FW De Klerk foundation.’

It’s important to point out that it was F W de Klerk who has brought the Afrikaner into its present, desperate plight when he handed over hegemony of the most successful Western-style country on the African continent to an incompetent, highly criminal terrorist organisation on a silver platter.

Afrikaner Broederbond: