Afrikaan-"Americans" Now

The new face of "Africa."

History repeats itself, but since most people don’t know history they think everything is new. It’s not, it’s just new to them. Go back and study the history of European colonization of the Americas, or Africa, or India, or anywhere else, and one will find a certain pattern. It’s the same with immigration. Throughout history this “tool” has been utilized to “do a lot of dirt.” The latest tool in the toolbox appears to be the descendants of the Europeans and Dutch who migrated to Africa over 300, almost 400 years ago.

Let’s not be simple minded and naive. Like EVERYWHERE ELSE the colonizers came in with extreme violence and imposed their will on the peoples of whatever lands and wealth they desired. I mean, that’s what it is. All of the phony excuses, reasons, anthems, pledges, and slogans all go back “to that.” Period.

So now the descendants of “those people” want to come here, the states united? In over 300 hundred years they never assimilated into “Africa,” and most RIGHT NOW, don’t even speak ENGLISH. Are they going to “blend in” here? It’s almost laughable, because they aren’t coming here to work, they are coming here to mooch. Period. Call it by whatever program, It’s a “mooch.” A mooch that Americans pay for through their taxed labor. It’s also openly hypocritical and disrespectful to “White Americans” here financially struggling. The aid is taken from brown migrants, and “not” given to OUR WHITE FOLKS, but other white folks, a kind of “double racism.”

“Yeah, them Wiggers, they can get in line with the rest of ‘em,” they snicker, “We done taking care of them, they won’t follow the program.”

“The Episcopal Church on Monday announced it would terminate its partnership with the government to resettle refugees, citing moral opposition to resettling white Afrikaners. Episcopal Migration Ministries said it had been notified by the federal government that it was expected to resettle some of the refugees.”

"It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years," wrote Most Rev. Sean Rowe, the presiding bishop of the church, adding that others including the Afghans and Christians fleeing persecution have been denied refuge.”

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/12/g-s1-65984/south-african-afrikaner-refugee-us

The Episcopal Church’s letter, in pertinent part, is here:

May 12, 2025

Dear People of God in The Episcopal Church:

I am writing today with some significant news about Episcopal Migration Ministries, the organization that leads The Episcopal Church’s refugee resettlement ministry.

Since January, the previously bipartisan U.S. Refugee Admissions Program in which we participate has essentially shut down. Virtually no new refugees have arrived, hundreds of staff in resettlement agencies around the country have been laid off, and funding for resettling refugees who have already arrived has been uncertain. Then, just over two weeks ago, the federal government informed Episcopal Migration Ministries that under the terms of our federal grant, we are expected to resettle white Afrikaners from South Africa whom the U.S. government has classified as refugees.”

“In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step. Accordingly, we have determined that, by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the U.S. federal government. I want to be very clear about why we made this decision—and what we believe lies ahead for Episcopal Migration Ministries’ vital work.”

“It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years. I am saddened and ashamed that many of the refugees who are being denied entrance to the United States are brave people who worked alongside our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and now face danger at home because of their service to our country. I also grieve that victims of religious persecution, including Christians, have not been granted refuge in recent months.”

“As Christians, we must be guided not by political vagaries, but by the sure and certain knowledge that the kingdom of God is revealed to us in the struggles of those on the margins. Jesus tells us to care for the poor and vulnerable as we would care for him, and we must follow that command…”

https://www.episcopalchurch.org/publicaffairs/letter-from-presiding-bishop-sean-rowe-on-episcopal-migration-ministries/

Disclaimer: I would like to preface this musing of nothingness by stating, “I don’t know what I don’t know.” I mean, I get no secret briefings, or counsel under a cloak. I get nothing except what is publicly available to me. This musing is based upon that. There is a possibility, “based upon what I, nor the public know, that I could be wrong. I do not believe I am, “But I could possibly be.” I will let the reader decide.

Over the years I have read a thing or two about Afrikaners, however I wanted to know more, so I asked, “their machine,” to elaborate and fill in some blanks. That exchange is here:

You said:

Who are the Afrikaners?

ChatGPT said:

The Afrikaners are a South African ethnic group descended primarily from Dutch settlers who arrived at the Cape of Good Hope in the 17th and 18th centuries, along with smaller numbers of French Huguenots, Germans, and other Europeans. They speak Afrikaans, a language that evolved from 17th-century Dutch and includes influences from Malay, Portuguese, Khoisan languages, and Bantu languages.

Key aspects of Afrikaner identity:

• Origins: The Afrikaners trace their ancestry mainly to Dutch colonists who settled in the Cape Colony beginning in 1652 under the Dutch East India Company.

• Language: Afrikaans, derived from Dutch, became a distinct language by the 19th century and is one of South Africa’s 11 official languages today.

• Religion: Traditionally, most Afrikaners are members of the Dutch Reformed Church or related Protestant denominations.

• History: Afrikaners played a dominant political and economic role in South Africa during the 20th century, especially under the system of apartheid (1948–1994), which they largely instituted and maintained through the National Party.

• Post-apartheid: After the end of apartheid, Afrikaners became one of South Africa’s many minority groups, with ongoing debates about cultural preservation, identity, and political representation.

Would you like more detail on their history, culture, or role in modern South Africa?

You said:

So they are colonizers not from Africa?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that's correct — the Afrikaners are descendants of European colonizers, not indigenous to Africa.

Their ancestors — mainly Dutch, with some German and French Huguenot origins — settled in southern Africa in the 17th and 18th centuries during European colonial expansion. Over generations, they developed a distinct identity, language (Afrikaans), and culture rooted in South Africa, and many now consider themselves African by birth and heritage, though their ethnic origins are European.

So while Afrikaners are not indigenous Africans, they have lived in southern Africa for centuries and often see themselves as native to the region by long-term settlement — a point that can be politically and emotionally charged in the context of colonial history, land rights, and post-apartheid transformation.

Would you like a timeline of their history or more on their impact in South Africa?

You said:

What is Colonization?

ChatGPT said:

Colonization is the process by which a country or group of people takes control of another territory, often by settling there and establishing political, economic, and cultural dominance over the local population.

Key features of colonization include:

• Invasion or settlement: Foreign powers move into a land already inhabited by others.

• Control and exploitation: The colonizers often take control of land, resources, and labor for their own benefit.

• Cultural imposition: Local languages, religions, and traditions are frequently suppressed or replaced by those of the colonizers.

• Lasting impacts: Colonization can lead to long-term changes in society, such as economic inequality, racial hierarchies, and struggles over land and identity.

Examples:

• European colonization of Africa (e.g., British, French, and Dutch rule).

• Colonization of the Americas by Spain, Britain, and others.

• Colonization of Australia by the British.

In simple terms, colonization is when one group moves into another group's land, takes control, and reshapes it according to its own interests — often at great cost to the original inhabitants.

Would you like an example specific to African colonization?

You said:

So, based upon the aforementioned, it means taking the land of others over 300 years ago?

ChatGPT said:

Yes — that's exactly it.

In the case of South Africa, European settlers (mainly Dutch, later joined by British and others) arrived in the 1600s and began taking land that was already inhabited by indigenous African peoples such as the Khoikhoi, San, Xhosa, and later Zulu. Over time, these settlers established control, built farms and towns, and created political systems that excluded or oppressed the original inhabitants.

Even though this began over 300 years ago, the impact of that land seizure and the systems it created — including apartheid — still affects South African society today, particularly in terms of land ownership, wealth inequality, and racial tensions.

Would you like to know more about how land was taken or how it’s being addressed in modern South Africa?

You said:

How was the land taken?

ChatGPT said:

The land in South Africa was taken through a combination of force, treaties (often unfair or coerced), and laws over several centuries. Here's a breakdown of how this happened:

1. Initial Settlements (1652 onward)

• The Dutch East India Company established a supply station at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652.

• Settlers (later called Boers or Afrikaners) began farming and gradually expanded inland.

• They pushed out or clashed with Khoikhoi and San peoples, often using violence and taking over grazing lands.

• Diseases brought by Europeans also devastated local populations.

2. Frontier Wars (1779–1879)

• A series of violent conflicts between settlers and Xhosa peoples over land in the Eastern Cape.

• British forces joined later, siding with settlers.

• These wars ended with major land dispossession for African communities.

3. The Zulu and Other Kingdoms

• British and Afrikaners also fought powerful African kingdoms like the Zulu, Ndebele, and Basotho, using military campaigns to break resistance and take territory.

4. Laws and Policies (19th–20th Century)

• As the colonial state grew, so did legal systems that excluded Black Africans from land ownership:

  • 1913 Natives Land Act: Reserved only 7% of South Africa’s land for Black people (increased to 13% later), despite them being the majority.

  • Africans were forcibly removed from fertile land and pushed into "homelands" or reserves.

  • These policies intensified under apartheid (1948–1994), reinforcing racial segregation and land inequality.

5. Forceful Removals

• Entire communities were displaced under apartheid laws like the Group Areas Act, which designated where each race could live.

• Famous example: District Six in Cape Town, cleared of non-White residents.

Summary:

Land was taken through conquest, coercive treaties, discriminatory laws, and forced removals, creating a land ownership system that still favors a minority (mostly white) population.

Would you like to learn about land reform efforts in post-apartheid South Africa?

You said:

So, based upon the aforementioned the Afrikaners took land by force, and other means from people who were the rightful owners, and retain that land to this day?

ChatGPT said:

Yes — that is a historically accurate summary.

The Afrikaners, along with other European settlers (later including the British), took land by force, coercion, and discriminatory laws from indigenous African peoples who were the original and rightful inhabitants. Over time, through wars, unfair treaties, and state-backed land policies, these settlers and their descendants consolidated land ownership and wealth.

By the time apartheid formally began in 1948, most of South Africa's land was in the hands of the white minority, with the Black majority dispossessed and forced into overcrowded reserves or labor roles on white-owned farms and in cities.

Even after apartheid ended in 1994, land ownership has remained highly unequal:

• A large portion of commercial farmland is still owned by white South Africans, many of whom are Afrikaners.

• Land reform in democratic South Africa has been slow, complex, and controversial, often criticized for being too cautious or poorly implemented.

• There are ongoing debates about land expropriation without compensation as a way to address these deep-rooted inequalities.

So yes, while formal colonial rule and apartheid have ended, the effects of land dispossession continue, and much of that land remains under the control of descendants of settlers, including Afrikaners.

Would you like to explore how modern South Africa is trying to resolve this legacy through land reform?

You said:

Much of that land has been farmed, how much revenue could the land possessions generate in 300 years?

ChatGPT said:

That's a powerful and complex question. Estimating how much revenue could have been generated from the land seized and farmed over 300 years requires some broad assumptions, but we can provide a rough conceptual model to help understand the scale of wealth involved.

Approach to Estimate (Simplified Model):

1. Land area: Let’s assume around 80 million hectares of South Africa’s land area is suitable for agriculture. About 70–80% of that has been historically in white (largely Afrikaner) hands.

2. Average farm productivity: Modern commercial farms in South Africa vary greatly, but let's assume an average net profit of $100 (USD) per hectare per year over 300 years (a conservative figure, especially for the earlier centuries, which had lower productivity but higher margins due to unpaid/cheap labor).

3. Years farmed: Assume 200 years of consistent productivity (the first 100 years were more about expansion than profit).

---

Rough Calculation:

• Land: 50 million hectares (conservatively assuming this much was used at some point)

• Profit per hectare: $100/year

• Years: 200

Total profit:
50,000,000 ha × $100 × 200 years = $1 trillion USD (very rough estimate)

---

Notes:

• This figure doesn't include mining profits, real estate value, state subsidies, or labor savings from slavery, indentured labor, or apartheid-era exploitation.

• It also doesn’t account for wealth reinvestment and compounding (profits used to build businesses, political power, etc.).

• The value would be even greater when adjusted for inflation, opportunity costs to dispossessed communities, and intergenerational wealth effects.

---

Conclusion:

While the exact number is speculative, the wealth generated by land taken during colonization and apartheid likely reaches into the hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars, depending on how broadly or narrowly it's defined. This is why land reform and restitution are such central issues in post-apartheid South Africa.

Would you like help visualizing this in a graph or breakdown by commodity (e.g., crops, livestock, etc.)?

You said:

Yes, create a image

ChatGPT said:

You said:

Do not the elements involved in Colonization equate the elements of crime?

ChatGPT said:

Yes — many elements involved in colonization do overlap significantly with actions considered criminal under modern moral and legal standards. These include:

• Theft: Seizing land and resources from indigenous peoples without consent.

• Violence and murder: Through wars, massacres, and suppression of resistance.

• Enslavement and forced labor: Millions were enslaved or forced to work under brutal conditions.

• Deception and coercion: Unfair treaties, manipulation of laws, and forced removals.

• Suppression of rights: Denying people basic freedoms, cultural expression, and political representation.

While these acts were legal under colonial laws (which colonizers themselves created), they often violated the human rights and sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Today, many scholars, activists, and even governments recognize colonialism as a systemic injustice, and some have called it a form of historical crime or even crimes against humanity.

Would you like examples of how colonization has been addressed through reparations or legal recognition in modern times?

You said:

So, based upon the aforementioned that's almost a trillion in revenue generated from crime?

ChatGPT said:

Yes — based on the historical analysis and the moral framework we use today, much of the wealth — potentially up to a trillion dollars — was generated through actions that would now be considered criminal or deeply unjust.

Colonial land seizure, forced labor, systemic racial oppression, and economic exploitation formed the foundation for centuries of profit, and those practices overwhelmingly benefited the colonizers and their descendants — often at the direct expense of dispossessed indigenous communities.

While colonialism was "legal" under the laws made by colonizers themselves, by today's ethical standards — and in light of international human rights — many of those acts are understood as:

• Unlawful dispossession (theft)

• Systematic oppression (human rights violations)

• Exploitation (economic crimes and labor abuse)

This is why ongoing discussions about land reform, reparations, and historical justice are not just political — they're rooted in the idea that vast wealth was created through what, today, would clearly be labeled criminal acts.” (finis)

You said:

Is the currently a genocide in South Africa?

ChatGPT said:

As of now, there is no credible evidence or international recognition that a genocide is occurring in South Africa.

The term genocide has a very specific legal definition under international law, referring to acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

There have been claims and political rhetoric, especially around farm attacks or violence in rural areas, but these incidents — while serious — do not meet the legal or factual criteria for genocide according to organizations such as the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and other independent bodies.

South Africa does face high rates of violent crime, and there are real concerns about inequality, corruption, and political tensions, but labeling this as genocide is not supported by current, verified data or legal standards.

If you’re referring to a specific claim or source, I can help analyze it more closely.

You said:

How many farm attacks were reported in the last 3 years?

ChatGPT said:

Accurate and up-to-date statistics on farm attacks in South Africa can be difficult to verify due to discrepancies between government data and civil society groups. However, based on available information from multiple sources, including the South African Police Service (SAPS), Agri SA, and AfriForum, here’s an approximate summary for the last 3 years:

Farm Attacks and Murders: Estimated Numbers

YearFarm AttacksFarm Murders2022~333~502023~332~562024*~290 (est.)~45 (est.)

(*2024 data is provisional, as full year-end figures are not yet publicly available.)

Notes:

• "Farm attacks" include incidents of violent crime on farms or smallholdings, regardless of motive or victim identity.

• "Farm murders" are a subset of these, where victims are killed during attacks.

• The majority of victims are white farmers or farm workers, but black farm workers and residents are also frequently targeted.

• These numbers are not indicative of genocide, but reflect part of South Africa's broader violent crime problem.

If you're interested, I can break down the data by province or by source (e.g., SAPS vs. AfriForum).

You said:

What percentage of the population does that apply to?

ChatGPT said:

To understand what percentage of South Africa's population is affected by farm attacks, let’s break it down:

1. Total Population of South Africa

• As of 2024: approximately 61 million people.

2. Farming Population

• Commercial farmers: ~32,000 to 40,000 (mostly white farmers, per Agri SA).

• Farm dwellers (including workers and families): Estimates range from 3 to 4 million people (includes black and white individuals living or working on farms or rural holdings).

3. Farm Attacks: Context

Using an average of ~320 attacks per year, across 3 years (2022–2024), that’s about 960 attacks total.

4. Percentage Calculations

a. Based on total population:

• 960 attacks over 3 years / 61 million = ~0.0016% of the total population directly affected by attacks.

b. Based on farm dwellers (3.5 million est.):

• 960 attacks / 3.5 million = ~0.027% of the farm-dwelling population directly affected over 3 years.

Note: Each “attack” may involve multiple people (victims, perpetrators), so the number affected may be somewhat higher, but still a small percentage in population terms.

Conclusion

While farm attacks are a serious concern, especially due to their often brutal nature, they affect a very small percentage of both the general and rural population. They should be understood in the broader context of South Africa’s high violent crime rate, rather than as evidence of widespread targeted violence against a specific group.

Would you like a graph or visual to show this comparison?

You said:

So, based upon the aforementioned crime is not specifically targeting farmers?

ChatGPT said:

Correct — based on available evidence, farm attacks in South Africa are not part of an organized campaign specifically targeting farmers as a group for elimination, nor do they meet the legal definition of genocide.

Key Points:

1. Farm attacks are real and serious, and often involve extreme violence. However, they are:

   • Not exclusively targeting white farmers — black farmers, workers, and rural residents are also victims.

   • Often motivated by criminal intent (theft, robbery), not political or racial ideology.

   • Occurring within a broader context of high violent crime across South Africa.

2. Criminologists and SAPS analyses generally conclude that:

   • These attacks are primarily opportunistic crimes, not racially or ideologically driven campaigns.

   • Rural areas are vulnerable due to isolation, slower police response, and limited security infrastructure.

3. Civil society groups (like AfriForum) have claimed farmers are specifically targeted. While their data highlights serious rural security concerns, these claims are not backed by international human rights bodies, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), or UN definitions of targeted persecution or genocide.

Conclusion:

Farmers are indeed disproportionately vulnerable due to the nature of rural life in South Africa, but current evidence does not support the conclusion that they are being systemically or ideologically targeted for who they are, as would be required to qualify as ethnic persecution or genocide.

If you want, I can share reports from SAHRC, SAPS, or criminology research that dig deeper into this.

You said:

Share reports that support the conclusion.

ChatGPT said:

Here are some key reports and analyses from credible sources that address farm attacks in South Africa and support the conclusion that these crimes are primarily criminal rather than genocidal or ideologically motivated:

---

1. South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) – 2003 & 2017 Reports

• Title: "Safety and Security Challenges in Farming Communities in South Africa" (2017)

• Key Findings:

  • Farm attacks are not racially motivated on a systemic level.

  • Both black and white individuals in rural communities are victims.

  • Root causes include economic inequality, rural isolation, and poor policing, not race-based targeting.

• Link: SAHRC Report 2017 (PDF)

---

2. Institute for Security Studies (ISS)

• Title: "Are South African Farm Attacks Terrorism?" (2011–2020, multiple briefings)

• Key Points:

  • No evidence of farm attacks being coordinated acts of political or racial terrorism.

  • Farm violence is consistent with broader violent crime trends in South Africa.

• Commentary: The ISS repeatedly stresses that racial generalizations are misleading, and that farm crime should be addressed through better rural policing.

• Website:

https://www.issafrica.org

---

3. South African Police Service (SAPS) – Annual Crime Stats

• Stats Reports: SAPS used to publish specific farm attack data until 2007, but resumed providing some data in recent years.

• Findings: While acknowledging the severity of some attacks, SAPS classifies them within general violent crime, rather than racially or politically driven violence.

• Latest stats: Check https://www.saps.gov.za/services/crimestats.php

---

4. African Centre for the Study of the United States (ACSUS) at Wits University

• Analysis: Farm attacks are part of rural insecurity and socioeconomic inequality.

• Key Insight: No evidence of state-sponsored or organized attempts to exterminate a group — crucial in defining genocide.

---

5. United Nations / International Genocide Watch

• Gregory Stanton, founder of Genocide Watch, made claims of "early warning signs" around 2003–2010, but Genocide Watch has since not classified South Africa as undergoing genocide.

• Current Status: South Africa is not listed as having active genocide or ethnic cleansing risks on the Genocide Watch website.

---

Summary:

These reports and research bodies consistently find that:

• Farm attacks are a serious criminal issue, not a campaign of racial or political extermination.

• The motives are usually criminal, not ideological.

• Claims of "white genocide" or systematic targeting are not substantiated by data or international legal standards.

Let me know if you'd like summaries or quotes from specific sections of these reports.

You said:

a few quotes

ChatGPT said:

Certainly. Here are a few direct quotes from reputable sources that illustrate the consensus that farm attacks in South Africa are not genocide or racially targeted violence, but part of broader rural insecurity and violent crime:

---

1. South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) – 2017 Report

Title: "Safety and Security Challenges in Farming Communities in South Africa"
Full PDF Report

“The Commission has found no evidence to support the view that there is a concerted campaign, political or otherwise, to commit violent attacks against white farmers.” (p. 56)

“Farm attacks affect all racial groups in rural areas and must be addressed within the broader context of violent crime in South Africa.” (p. 58)

---

2. Institute for Security Studies (ISS)

Author: Johan Burger, former SAPS officer and senior researcher at ISS
Title: “Farm attacks: Reality versus rhetoric” (ISS Today, 2017)
Link to article

“Farm attacks are not genocide. They reflect South Africa’s broader crime patterns — high levels of violence, opportunistic targeting, and poor policing — not race-based targeting.”

“Overemphasizing race in farm attacks distracts from real solutions: rural safety strategies, better policing, and socioeconomic development.”

---

3. SAPS (South African Police Service) – 2018 Parliamentary Briefing

Briefing on rural safety and farm attacks to the Portfolio Committee on Police

“There is no evidence to suggest that farm murders are politically or racially motivated... the motives are largely robbery-related.”

“The demographic analysis of victims includes all race groups — white, black, and coloured individuals.”

(Parliamentary Monitoring Group transcript: www.pmg.org.za)

---

4. Genocide Watch (Dr. Gregory Stanton, 2012 clarification statement)

Although Genocide Watch previously raised concern about early warning signs, it did not classify farm attacks as genocide:

“We do not believe that there is a current genocide in South Africa. We use a model of stages to identify risks, but stages are not evidence of an actual genocide.”
(Source: Public clarification by Dr. Stanton in response to media misinterpretation)

---

These quotes reflect the legal, academic, and policing consensus:

• Farm attacks are real and serious.

• They are part of South Africa’s broader violent crime problem, not evidence of an organized racial or genocidal campaign. (finis)

Now, I don’t know what may or may not be the motivation of someone for doing “anything,” including bringing in people from South Africa. What I do know is that the symbology of this is troubling for WHITE AMERICANS. For those who forget, there is a program afoot, and that posting is here:

This migration of Afrikaners I believe is because “American” Whites have fell out of line. They are transitioning from the old paradigm into something less racist and the evil ones need a new stock of “ingrained racists” to “restock” their current “fast slipping” control matrix. Afrikaners NEVER STOPPED their separation, American Whites have been stopped. That is a problem. This is why racism is pushed so strong, “Most people are just not caring anymore,” it’s just the ones on the internet, media, social media, movies and television, “They care.”

They don’t matter, nor do the Afrikaners. Not really, because they are just “props.” A new generation of squatters with no blood ties to this land, who history will lie for too. A new generation from the old generation of criminals. The internet is “on fire” about this issue with “Americans,” and people of all races chiming in.

It speaks volumes.

Lord have Mercy