Eugene "ET" Terreblanche's violent life came to a brutal end last night . He was hacked and bludgeoned to death on his farm near Ventersdorp, in the North West province, allegedly by farmworkers during an argument over R600.

In 1970 Terre Blanche founded the fringe right-wing Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB), "with 6 other kindred souls", and spent three decades championing white supremacy.

His murder sparked outrage - with many saying racially charged struggle songs such as "Shoot the Boer" should no longer be tolerated - while the right wing has vowed to avenge his death.

Afrikaans singer Steve Hofmeyr said his "heart was broken".

The Sunday Times has established that the incident happened between 5pm and 6pm.

The two farm workers claim that Terre Blanche refused to pay them their monthly salaries of R300 each. The AWB say the "blacks" smashed open a window to gain access to Terre Blanche's home and attacked him in his bed.

One of the two farm workers, aged 16 and 21, phoned the Ventersdorp police station to report that they had killed Terreblanche during a fight over their salaries.

A police source said the two suspects allege that Terre Blanche had threatened to kill them when they went to his Villanna Farm to demand their salaries.

The police officer said: "They claim that they killed him in self defence."

When police arrived at the farm, they found the suspects armed with a knobkerrie and a panga, which they allegedly used to kill Terre Blanche.

Terre Blanche's bloodied body was found on his bed.

The police officer added: "The suspects didn't run away after they killed him, they waited for the police to arrive at the farm as they alleged that he was killed in self defence.

"They also alleged that Terre Blanche was a bad boss who used to physically and verbally abuse them. They claim that he pushed them too far."

Police spokeswoman Captain Adelle Myburgh said: "The two suspects were arrested and will appear in court on Tuesday in Ventersdorp. The 16-year-old is from a nearby village called Tsing, the 21-year-old is from Itsoseng."

The AWB has vowed to avenge Terre Blanche's death, but has called for its supporters to remain calm.

Spokesman Andre Visagie said: "The only comment we can make is that we will try to do the best to keep our people under control... en dat ons wil volstaan met die komentaar dat sy dood gewreek sal word (and that we want to stand by the statement that his death will be avenged)."
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article385669.ece/Terre-Blanche-killed

ET was a racist pig yes, and probably deserved what he had coming, but he is also head of the racist right wing AWB, a large "boer" political force in South Africa mostly made up of white Afrikaners in SA.

Im almost pretty sure that this could start a civil war in South Africa. It all depends how the rest of the AWB respond to this attack... directly after Malema (huge South African ANC political figure) was calling on all black people to shoot whites and the boer.

Most of those AWB guys have seriously good military training.

I figured this day was coming.

He was killed the day after Malema sang "kill the boer" (after a court said he could not sing it)... in neighboring Zimbabwe yesterday.

This will also turn a white racist idiot into a martyr and a hero. You should see the online buzz in SA right now, everyone is talking about. Normally moderate peaceful people are scared and are starting to become polarized very quickly.

From wiki:

8 steps to genocide

1. Classification - "People are divided into "us and them"

2. Symbolization - "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."

3. Dehumanization - "One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases."

4. Organization - "Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."

5. Polarization - "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."

6. Preparation - "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."

7. Extermination - "It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human."

8. Denial - "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."

We are at step 5.

This is now the top story on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8602347.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk

I was going to post this myself.
Slow response so far, which is typical on SF of issues to do with Africa.

Read this blog:

There are 40,000 white farmers in South Africa. Over 1200 have been brutally murdered since 1994 - the year the Marxist African National Congress, backed by the United Nations, European Union, Russia, China and the U.S. State Department, took power.

Add to this another 6,000 attacks and the white Boer Afrikaner farmer is easily the highest at-risk murder group on Earth. The ANC has responded to this crisis by blaming whites and putting a ban on crime statistics because they scare off foreign investment.


http://www.rense.com/general25/wfrm.htm

40,000 Farmers in a whole country. A good political enemy, especially if there are large patches of land to be gained. It's ethnic cleansing really.

My feelings are mixed on this, as the guy himself as totally detestable.

What goes around, comes around...It is their time now....

The murder wasn't racially motivated if he was slaughtered over withholding worker wages.

"The two farm workers claim that Terre Blanche refused to pay them their monthly salaries of R300 each. The AWB say the "blacks" smashed open a window to gain access to Terre Blanche's home and attacked him in his bed.

One of the two farm workers, aged 16 and 21, phoned the Ventersdorp police station to report that they had killed Terreblanche during a fight over their salaries.A police source said the two suspects allege that Terre Blanche had threatened to kill them when they went to his Villanna Farm to demand their salaries."

"They also alleged that Terre Blanche was a bad boss who used to physically and verbally abuse them. They claim that he pushed them too far."


The fact that he was a white supremacist or what have you is incidental.

Apparently South Africa isn't safe for anyone. Being that they have one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world.

Apparently South Africa isn't safe for anyone. Being that they have one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world.

I think you mean southern africa, as in the region not the country:


Intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population by region and subregion, 2004 Rate:

Southern Africa 37.3
Central America 29.3
South America 25.9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


Five countries constitute Southern Africa:

Botswana
Lesotho
Namibia
South Africa
Swaziland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Africa


Homicide rates per 100,000 inhabitants according to the most recent rates at the time this chart was copied from Wikipedia (May 4, 2009).

Murder rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants:

Iraq 89

Honduras 57.9

Sierra Leone 50

El Salvador 49.1

Jamaica 49

Venezuela 48

Guatemala 45.2

Angola 40

South Africa 38.6

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm


Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country


# 1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
# 2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

I think you mean southern africa, as in the region not the country:


Intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population by region and subregion, 2004 Rate:

Southern Africa 37.3
Central America 29.3
South America 25.9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


Five countries constitute Southern Africa:

Botswana
Lesotho
Namibia
South Africa
Swaziland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Africa


Homicide rates per 100,000 inhabitants according to the most recent rates at the time this chart was copied from Wikipedia (May 4, 2009).

Murder rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants:

Iraq 89

Honduras 57.9

Sierra Leone 50

El Salvador 49.1

Jamaica 49

Venezuela 48

Guatemala 45.2

Angola 40

South Africa 38.6

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm


Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country


# 1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
# 2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

South Africa has one of the highest per capita murder rates. Far exceeding any of the other Southern African nations. Including those under repressive tyranny like Zimbabwe.

Ganymede`s statement is correct, you even confirm it.

I really dont think you know whats happening here Lucy, it looks like you are trying to defend a point without actually knowing the back story. Do yourself a favor, google google news for "Julius Malema". Thats all, read a couple of the news results then come back and post in this thread.

Yes, an idiot racist farmer was killed by his farm workers, but there is a whole back story you are completely missing.

Like what? What am I defending? I gave stats and the comment I made is that the murder is based on unpaid wages not simply because he was a white supremacist.

Like what? What am I defending? I gave stats and the comment I made is that the murder is based on unpaid wages not simply because he was a white supremacist.

:thumbsup:

did he withold wages for racist reasons...

The murder wasn't racially motivated if he was slaughtered over withholding worker wages.


I think maybe that's what the government wants everyone to think, then. If they can spin the story in that direction, they might be able to avoid lighting off the powder keg, and I'm sure they desperately want to avoid it.

Since governments usually lie whenever it is in their best interests to do so, it stands to reason that the attack might not have had anything at all to do with wages, just racism. The wages story would just be a ruse.

After reading this i think my comment in the other thread was incorect for a few reasons

Rage\emotional disterbance killers dont generally think coldly (ie they run, they dont call the cops)
The age of the alleged killers also suggests that rationally thinking through and planning a crime wouldnt be likly
His background suggests that the actions they are alleging would be fitting his personality

Basically i belive them, unless there is other evidence the police have that isnt in that story i would be inclined to suggest it DID go down exactly as they say it did, ie they went to him to get there wages, they argued, he threatened them and they defended themselves.

The other senarios go either, they are the calmest people in history and as soon as they killed him, they calmed down, realised what they did, thought up a story and logically thought through all the ways to get out of it (unlikly)

Or

a 16 year old and a 21 year old methodically planned to murder him in cold blood, this is only probable if they were sociopaths because if the money was the reason then they wouldnt really be cold and logical in there planning. Very few people have the nerve to kill like this (crimes of passion are much more common)

Poverty breeds Sociopaths.
The number of poor people in the world prepared to kill you for a few pence, or nothing at all? Millions.

Poverty breeds Sociopaths.
The number of poor people in the world prepared to kill you for a few pence, or nothing at all? Millions.

thats not a sociopath, thats just someone desprate. Sociopath\= killer and killer\= sciopath. Someone who kills to eat, for drugs, because they found there partner cheating, because there dog crapped on the lawn AGAIN ect are not sociopaths, they are just people who have killed someone

Yes, you are right.
Sociopath is the wrong term for the type of person I am describing. I confused Psychopath with Sociopath.
I'm not quite sure of the distinction really.

A psychopath is generally someone brought up in deprivation, who is treated cruelly, and has a lack of empathy as a result.

Which is more common do you think?

no, wrong again. They are the same thing, to be specific they both refer to someone with antisocial personality disorder. Nither fits with either your adverage "gang banger", someone who is desprate enough to kill for food or someone who snaps at the guy next door for letting his dog shit on the lawn. In fact they dont even fit the profile of a hitman because the definition is quite specific that they cant be kills for gain

But do they fit in with someone who kills a farmer because they believe thy have been cheated over wages?
I think that they do.


My belief on Psychopaths is that they are vastly more common than people believe. Quite often they are socially successful. Take half the bosses you have ever had.
I think I've read, but I'd have to search pretty deeply to confirm it, that tests for board level look for ruthless intelligent loners.

Question.
Are most people sub-clinically Psychopathic?
Most people are screwed up by their upbringing aren't they?

But do they fit in with someone who kills a farmer because they believe thy have been cheated over wages?
I think that they do.


My belief on Psychopaths is that they are vastly more common than people believe. Quite often they are socially successful. Take half the bosses you have ever had.
I think I've read, but I'd have to search pretty deeply to confirm it, that tests for board level look for ruthless intelligent loners.

Question.
Are most people sub-clinically Psychopathic?
Most people are screwed up by their upbringing aren't they?

No, actually they dont fit. "that bastad has pushed me around for ever and now he doesnt even PAY ME!!!!!" is not the attitude of a sociopath, "hey im going to kill you because it would be fun to see you scream" is

Yeah. A psychopath is usually very un-emotional, at least when it comes to killing. It's not that they necessarily want to go around killing everybody. It's that, if they did kill you, they wouldn't feel very bad about it. The most successful psychopaths are probably the ones who live by a moral code of some kind, so they'll only kill you if you cross certain lines.

My point is: psychopaths are very unlikely to kill out of passion. It's a very logical decision.

Sociopaths, on the other hand, are slightly different. They have no moral code. Stalin would be an example of a classic sociopath. Here's a question that often gets asked on tests to determine whether you're a sociopath, or whatever:

You're attending a funeral for a near relative, and you meet an attractive woman at the funeral who is present because she's a friend of the family, but you don't get her number. You want to meet her again. What can you do? --- Often a sociopath will answer that you could kill one of your other relatives. (I think that answer usually wouldn't occur to most people, but sociopaths tend to think outside the moral box.)

However, that isn't the answer a psychopath would give. A psychopath usually has incredibly strong love/hate attachments. The idea of killing anyone close to them is unthinkable to a psychopath. Most psychopaths would rather die than lose their emotional connection to a loved one. Doc Holiday would be a classic example of a psychopath.

Yeah. A psychopath is usually very un-emotional, at least when it comes to killing. It's not that they necessarily want to go around killing everybody. It's that, if they did kill you, they wouldn't feel very bad about it. The most successful psychopaths are probably the ones who live by a moral code of some kind, so they'll only kill you if you cross certain lines.

My point is: psychopaths are very unlikely to kill out of passion. It's a very logical decision.

Sociopaths, on the other hand, are slightly different. They have no moral code. Stalin would be an example of a classic sociopath. Here's a question that often gets asked on tests to determine whether you're a sociopath, or whatever:

You're attending a funeral for a near relative, and you meet an attractive woman at the funeral who is present because she's a friend of the family, but you don't get her number. You want to meet her again. What can you do? --- Often a sociopath will answer that you could kill one of your other relatives. (I think that answer usually wouldn't occur to most people, but sociopaths tend to think outside the moral box.)

However, that isn't the answer a psychopath would give. A psychopath usually has incredibly strong love/hate attachments. The idea of killing anyone close to them is unthinkable to a psychopath. Most psychopaths would rather die than lose their emotional connection to a loved one. Doc Holiday would be a classic example of a psychopath.

Again incorect. Psycopath and sociopath MEAN THE SAME THING, they refer to someone who has the condition "AntiSocial Personality Disorder" as defined in the DMS-IV. The name was changed from psycopath to sociopath because psycopath was often confused with PSYCOTIC and psycotic break which have a compleatly different meaning (ie the mean a delusional break from reality caused by a mental illness such as skizophrenia, though the causes can be chemical (for instance LSD) or organic (a brain tumor) as well). So the term was changed to sociopath which was then redefined as someone suffering from Antisocial personality disorder (side note:there are 4 different types of personality disorder from memory, Borderline personality disorder, Nassaistic personality disorder, one more which i cant rember and the worst, antisocial personality disorder). Most serial killers (not all because the lable "serial killer" is often missused for hitmen and people who commit mass murder as well) tend to have this disorder but as has already been stated, not all people with antisocial personality disorder actually kill, some do get into buiness though buinesses now spend alot of time trying to rought these people OUT because current thinking is that they do more harm than good. If anyone in this situation was to fit this profile it would be the guy they killed, NOT the killers

This is one of those things we could debate all day long, because the psychologist community debates it too, without arriving at any final conclusions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Psychopathy_vs._sociopathy

From that article:


David T. Lykken proposes psychopathy and sociopathy are two distinct kinds of antisocial personality disorder. He believes psychopaths are born with temperamental differences such as impulsivity, cortical underarousal, and fearlessness that lead them to risk-seeking behavior and an inability to internalize social norms. On the other hand, he claims sociopaths have relatively normal temperaments; their personality disorder being more an effect of negative sociological factors like parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and extremely low or extremely high intelligence.


I don't agree with either of those definitions.:p

Example of person I would call a Psychopath.

Type 1 (Seen on a TV Programme) A South African criminal talks about what he does.
Scenario 1. In the street, he asks you to hand over money. You hesitate, so he kills you and takes it.
Scenario 2. He breaks into your house. You don't want to tell him where your money is. He has brought a small blowtorch with him, and tortures you.

Talking about this to a TV reporter he does not show any remorse.
He doesn't even look back on it with pleasure.
It's what he has to do to get nice clothes, women, and drugs.

An example of brave journalism,
because this character would certainly have killed the reporter and his lone cameraman if he thought he could get away with it.
Absolutely no doubt of that.

Take a second type.
This person with a psychopathic personality may not commit crimes at all.
They would commit crimes, if the prize was great enough, and they knew they could get away with it.
But they have enough intelligence and social standing to realise that they can more securely get what they want acting within the law.

For scenarios just think of some of the people you have met at work.

The common factor is that their behaviour is totally self centred.

SAIRR Today : Press Release : Statement by the South African Institute of Race Relations on the ramifications of the killing of Eugène Terre'Blanche - 6th April 2010
The Institute desisted from issuing a formal statement in the immediate aftermath of the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche in order to first gauge the broader social, political, and international reaction to the killing. The Institute is now in a position to make the following points.


The Institute desisted from issuing a formal statement in the immediate aftermath of the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche in order to first gauge the broader social, political, and international reaction to the killing. The Institute is now in a position to make the following points.
Racial tensions in the country appear to have increased significantly in recent weeks. This appears to be chiefly as a result of incitement by the ruling African National Congress to ‘shoot and kill’ the Afrikaner ethnic minority in the country. The anxiety around this incitement may well have influenced opinions across the broader white community. What appears to be the case is that much of the racial rapprochement that characterised the first 15 years of South Africa’s democracy is being undone. This rapprochement saw both black and white South Africans come to occupy a middle ground on race relations upon which the maintenance of future stable race relations depends.


Since 1994 the number of white farmers and their families murdered in South Africa is conservatively put at around 1 000. It may very well be much higher. There are currently an estimated 40 000 commercial farmers in the country. Over this same period in the region 250 000 South Africans out of a total current population of approximately 47 million have been murdered. Criminal violence can therefore be described as ‘rampant’ and has done considerable damage to the social fabric of the country. However, this is not to say that all murders in the country are a function of simple criminal banditry. In an environment where law and order has largely collapsed the consequences of incitement by political leaders to commit murder must be taken seriously.

Over the same period the policy measures put in place by the Government to raise the living standards of the black majority have failed to meet expectations. The key interventions of affirmative action and black economic empowerment have been exploited by the African National Congress to build a network of patronage that has made elements of its leadership extremely wealthy. The party also appears to have been so overwhelmed by corrupt tendencies that it is no longer able to act decisively against corrupt behaviour.

It has also through incompetence and poor policy been unable to address failures in the education system which are now the primary factor retarding the economic advancement of black South Africans.

At the same time the party is acutely aware that its support base of poor black South Africans has begun to turn against it. Violent protest action against the ruling party is now commonplace around the country.

In order to shore up support in the black community the ANC increasingly appears to be seeking to shift the blame for its delivery failures onto the small white ethnic minority, which today comprises well under 10% of the total population of South Africa. Here parallels may be read to the behaviour of Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe when that party realised that its political future was in peril. The ANC Youth League’s recent visit to Zanu-PF which saw it endorse that party’s ruinous polices are pertinent here.

In such an environment it is plausible to consider that the ANC’s exhortations to violence may be a contributing factor to the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche. Certainly the ANC’s protestations to the contrary seem ridiculous as the party is in effect saying that its followers pay no attention to what it says - this from a party that routinely claims that it is the manifestation of the will of all black South Africans. This is not to say that a labour dispute or some other matter could not have inflamed tensions on the Terre'Blanche farm. Rather it is to say that a number of different matters should be considered in determining the motivation for the crime.

Certainly the ANC’s exhortations to violence have created a context where the killings of white people will see a degree of suspicion falling around the party and its supporters.

It is of concern therefore that the police’s senior management are on record as saying that they will not consider a political motive or partial motive for the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche. This suggests an early effort to cover up the ANC’s possible culpability for inciting the crime.

Should any allegations of a political cover-up arise in the pending murder trial of the two young men accused of the Terre'Blanche murder the political consequences could be significant. Should evidence be led that the two young men acted with what they understood to be the tacit backing of the ANC, and a causal link between their actions and incitement by the ANC be established, then the possibility of charging the ANC’s senior leadership in connection to the murder arises. Equally plausible is that the Terre'Blanche family and the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging could bring a civil suit against the ANC and the Government.

It is possible that the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche will greatly strengthen the hand of a new hardened right wing in South Africa. In life Mr Terre'Blanche attracted a small, uninfluential, and extremist following. He will not be mourned for what he stood for. However, in death he may come to represent the experiences of scores of minority groups in the country who perceive themselves as being on the receiving end of racist and now also violent abuse from the ANC. In effect therefore Mr Terre'Blanche may be seen as having been martyred for a minority cause in the country.

Contd.

The implications of a resurgent right wing will be numerous. It is most unlikely that this right wing will take the form of camouflage clad henchmen on horses in shows of force. The ANC has also often, wrongly, identified groups including the political opposition, Afriforum, agricultural unions, and even this Institute as ‘the right wing’. This silly ‘red under every bed’ attitude in the ANC saw it lose the trust of many civil society and political groups. These groups could all be defined first and foremost by the common belief that they had to act within the bounds of what the Constitution prescribed.

But the ANC belittled and undermined them. It also undermined parliament, the national prosecution service, and the various human rights and other organisations that were established under the Constitution. It may yet usurp the independence of the courts and the judiciary. The result was a shutting down of many of the democratic channels that were created for citizens in the country to make the Government aware of their concerns and circumstances.

The resurgence of a new political consciousness among minorities could drive an altogether different political force. Such a movement will draw its strength chiefly from a hardening attitudes in the white community but perhaps also in the Indian and coloured communities. These will be views that in the main have come to subscribe to some or all of the following points:

That the Government has corrupted and debilitated many of the country’s internal democratic processes for political or civil expression that were established under the Constitution
That cooperation with the current Government of South Africa is therefore fundamentally unfeasible and therefore futile
That the Government is unable to restore law and order in the country
That the Government is therefore unable protect its citizens
That the Government has a hostile agenda against minority groups

However it is equally, if not most likely, that many minorities who subscribe to the five points above may simply get so fed up that those who can will pack up and go. Here they may take the advice of President Zuma to remain calm as they pack up their businesses and their families and calmly board aircraft for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. With the exodus will leave much of the tax and expertise base of the country.

Should the ANC, however, find itself facing increased political resistance it will in many respects have a tiger by the tail. Firstly, the ANC depends greatly on the tax income paid by white South Africans to balance South Africa’s books. Secondly, it depends entirely on the food produced by a small number of white farmers to feed the country. Thirdly, white South Africans still dominate the skills base of the country. Finally, and most importantly, much white opinion since the early 1990s has been moderate. White South Africa has been willing and often eager to cooperate with the Government in building an open, non-racial, and prosperous South Africa. Losing that cooperation will to an extent put an end to any serious chance that the ANC has of leading South Africa to become a successful and prosperous democracy.

While the ANC will be inclined to blame whites for this, and may even take drastic action to confiscate white commercial interests as they are currently doing in agriculture, these actions will be ruinous for the economy. The result of such ruin will be to drive a deeper wedge between the ANC and its traditional support base and thereby hasten the political decay of the party.

When General Constand Viljoen decided to throw his lot in with democracy in the early 1990s the right wing in South Africa was a spent force. So it should and could have remained. The ANC could have taken advantage of white expertise and tax revenue to realise their own vision of a better life for all. Things have however gone badly wrong for the party. Corruption has destroyed its ability to meet the demands of its constituents while racial bigotry has now seen it defending its image against what should have been an insignificant and dying neo-Nazi faction in the country.

The failure of sensible South Africans to take back the racial middle ground in the country will be serious. Polarisation will beget further racial conflict and a hardening of attitudes on all sides. This is perhaps the greatest leadership test that the current Government has faced and it is one that they cannot afford to fail.


Sauce: http://www.sairr.org.za/sairr-today/sairr-today-press-release-statement-by-the-south-african-institute-of-race-relations-on-the-ramifications-of-the-killing-of-eugene-terreblanche-6th-april-2010/

Good to see the SAIRR coming out with the full story.

Comment on the above. So basically the ANC are going to continue raping the country with their corruption and racism and then blame it all on the white people.

Of course the world will believe them, just like they believed or did nothing about Robert Mugabe saying the same things.