Pages

20130619

Afrikaner self-determination: Legitimacy

by J.G. Zandberg, treasurer of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples' Organization in The Hague -

' A people can only call on the right to self-determination if it is excluded from political participation, seriously oppressed and its survival is threatened '

Afrikaners under threat:

Julius Malema: “We are agitating for a revolution. We want a radical policy shift. The ANC can only be forced into it by the masses.”
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-06-14-julius-malema-unplugged-talking-bout-a-revolution/#.Ub_2pfmnprA

"The Legitimacy of Afrikaner self-determination"

" Diversity is Not Apartheid " -- Discrimination versus racism :

The Hague. June 16 2013 The article is an edited version of a chapter in the book Freedom in Self-determination by J.G. Zandberg

-- Discrimination versus racism

According to the Oxford dictionary the word ‘discrimination’ means “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another”. People make distinctions because they value one choice over the other. Freedom does not exist when there is no opportunity to choose between different options.

The ban on discrimination cannot mean that people are not allowed to make distinctions...

In light of the fact that freedom is an essential element of the Western Enlightenment, the ban on discrimination cannot mean that people are not allowed to make distinctions. The ban on discrimination concerns the nature of a particular discrimination and not the principle itself. The Western Enlightenment considers it as just to make distinctions when one’s own interests are served and success is not based on the oppression of others.

  • Is a Jew racist because he is Jewish? Judaism is first and foremost a religion based on ethnicity and descent whereby everyone who is of different descent is excluded. Exclusion is in Judaism then discrimination on ethnic grounds. Despite this, Judaism is not illegal. Is it for people allowed to determine with what group they identify or should it be imposed by government? And what identity should people have? Is it racist to exclude others when they also have the ability to form their own group? Every form of association necessarily involves excluding others who do not fit certain criteria.
  • If a society accepts freedom of association it needs to accept that people form associations with people they identify and exclude those they don’t.

Diversity is not Apartheid

Discrimination should be illegitimate when people deliberately disadvantage others based on race, religion or sexual orientation. Something should only be outlawed if it is directed at intentionally harming others and not when people decide to choose to be independent of the other.

  • It is often incorrectly assumed that making distinctions based on ethnicity is a major threat to a free and multicultural world. However, a multicultural environment is based on the existence of groups that organise themselves based on descent and affinity.
  • A multicultural environment cannot exist without making distinctions based on ethnic criteria. The principle of making distinctions based on ethnicity can therefore never be bad in a multicultural environment because it is the foundation of that system, thereby labeling it as ‘good’. In light of the fact that the term ‘discrimination’ is used as a moral judgment to say that the exclusion and prejudices of others based on ethnicity is evil, we can conclude that to make distinctions based on ethnicity in a multicultural environment is not discrimination or racism.

The world is multicultural but an individual country can choose not to be...

It is also important to mention that although the world is multicultural, an individual country can choose not to be. It is legitimate to choose to be a monocultural country as long as other countries also have the ability to develop their culture. In fact, a country that is highly monocultural actually increases the degree of multiculturalism if you take a global perspective. This is due to the fact that when all countries have the same degree of ‘multiculturalism’ every country starts to look the same ending up with a world that has less diversity.

Afrikaner groups are accused of 'apartheid' when promoting their own culture:

KLEINFONTEINdemocraticAllianceShowedUpInThousandsAtKleinfonteinProtestNOT Above: " No objections are raised by the presence of the 56 Zulu- and Pedi Ethnic Enclaves in greater Pretoria:

but Afrikaners are accused of 'practicing apartheid' when promoting their own culture "

Afrikaner membership at UNPO:
http://www.unpo.org/members/8148

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He writes:

"When Afrikaner groups try to promote their culture and support their people, opponents often attack this activity by claiming that this is a form of Apartheid. Diversity is however not Apartheid. The former implies freedom while the latter is based on oppression.

  • The political system of Apartheid is seen as illegitimate because success of one group is based on the loss of another.
  • The struggle for a strong and successful Afrikaner culture and people is not Apartheid since it is based on promoting the success of one group (the Afrikaners) without it being based on the loss of others.

Self-determination protects against neo-racism

Undermining of people’s own culture is not left- or right-wing, populist or elitist, but criminal. Liberal multiculturalism often does not revolve around appreciating other cultures, but instead around the undermining of the dominant culture in order to weaken potential competitors and win a privileged position in society. Normative multiculturalism can therefore often be seen as neo-racism whereby this racism is anti-white, anti-Western and anti-European. The multicultural society is a descriptive term, since it is a choice on whether you want to have a public domain consisting of one dominant culture or of several distinct cultures. It is a normative concept and implies political choices. Undermining the Afrikaner culture is therefore a form of neo-racism that can only be countered through a form of self-determination whereby pride in the culture is restored.

  • For a people to have self-determination it is necessary that there is solidarity between the members of that people, because otherwise a people cannot exist. This solidarity rises by definition above the solidarity they have with people of another group. Such a distinction does not mean that one is racist. It is up to anyone themselves to decide the group to which one wishes to belong and on the basis of which characteristics this group is defined. These characteristics can include cultural, social and heritable factors. As long as the success of the group that is formed in such a way is not the result of the oppression and exclusion of other persons and groups then such a classification is legitimate. When a tribe in the Amazon claims rights by invoking their ethnicity and the fact that they have lived in the area for many centuries, they are not racist. It is not up to someone else to decide on what characteristics you want to form a group, because that would deny the principle of self-determination and is therefore a colonial attitude that causes many indigenous groups to be unable to legally organize themselves against their marginalization.

For example, 'race' is not a social construction but a biological construction that is deliberately interpreted incorrectly according to the interests of those in power. The 19th century scientific classification of humanity in different races was aimed at legitimizing the positions of power whereby Europeans stood at the top. Activists have tried to undermine this reasoning by presenting race as a social construction.

  • The past is hereby ridiculed by pointing out that there are no pure races and that the entire concept was thus wrong.

    However, purity is not applicable to a biological organism and therefore not to humans nor to nature, but that does not mean that race is a social construct. The hierarchical classification of the world on the basis of ethnicity was a social construction, not the idea of race itself.
  • In recent decades, the scientific community, however, has gone too far in their activism and the current position is as unscientific as that of the 19th century to a level where the position is again a form of colonialism.

Solidarity is the removal of injustice

Solidarity between people is only possible if the success of one does not come at the expense of the other. Solidarity depends on justice. Solidarity cannot be imposed because then it is oppression. Genuine solidarity is the removal of injustice. Such injustice consists of obstructions that disadvantage people in pursuing their survival. When people are hindered in their pursuit to survive they will be unable to get a respected position in society which causes them to become vindictive whereby distance between people is created. People will then work against each other which leads to an increasingly rapid disintegration. This makes the community less prosperous and therefore less able to provide success. If you cannot become successful, then you are a loser and no-one wants to be a loser or part of a losing team. "Being successful" should be understood as the ability to ensure your chances of survival (and that of your children, and so on). When people get the feeling that the group they belong to is a losing team then they will switch their loyalty instantly and try to become part of another, winning group. Only if the individual interests for survival are deemed equivalent for all members of the group, can there be genuine and true solidarity. Such an alignment of interests does not mean that everyone in all respects needs to make the same choices. Western culture has the concept of tolerance that is based on the insight that people belonging to a particular group have different capabilities from each other and that this can be to the benefit of everyone. There is thus a win-win situation.

When a call for self-determination is present there is by definition, a lack of solidarity within (that) society:

When a call for self-determination is present then there is by definition a lack of solidarity within society. People's interests are then violated by those in power and by others exposed to a similar oppression. As a result, the survival of people is in jeopardy. In response, people try to create solidarity where it has disappeared. To have freedom, it is always necessary to have solidarity between people.

A people can only call on the right to self-determination is it is excluded from political participation, seriously oppressed and its survival is threatened

"Today, the right to self-determination is interpreted as a right to determine one’s own political future whereby in exceptional situations this could lead to an independent state. Self-determination therefore does not automatically mean that one has a right to full independence.

  • The exceptional situations in which the right to self-determination does lead to a right to independence include situations where there are gross human rights violations and whereby the future survival of the population is threatened. A people can only call on the right to independence if it is excluded from political participation, seriously oppressed and its survival is threatened. "

_______________

- The article is an edited version of a chapter in the book "Freedom in Self-determination"-  by J.G. Zandberg, treasurer at UNPO

 

ZandbergJunpoFreedomInSelfDeterminationBook

available on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Self-determination-J-Zandberg/dp/1484997727/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371384516&sr=8-1&keywords=freedom+in+selfdetermination+zandberg

56 Zulu and Pedi ethnic-enclaves in Greater Pretoria Identified:

http://www.censorbugbear.org/farmitracker/reports/view/1029

More than 80 'white' refugee camps for Afrikaners identified in Pretoria area alone:

AfrikanerWhatFutureForWhiteSouthAfricansUNPOmay222013

http://www.unpo.org/article/15942

Afrikaners under threat:

Julius Malema: “We are agitating for a revolution. We want a radical policy shift. The ANC can only be forced into it by the masses.”
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-06-14-julius-malema-unplugged-talking-bout-a-revolution/#.Ub_2pfmnprA

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.