Racism the left drools over ?

State sanctioned violence comes to solitude

The South African Parliament began the process of amending the constitution in February of this year to allow the confiscation of white property without compensation. When in 1996, Section 25 of the South African constitution was introduced, it was originally designed to protect the property of the white minority from future government-backed expropriation. It included the ‘willing-buyer, willing-seller’ clause which ensured that the land redistribution process wouldn’t take place without the consent of white farmers. The motion to amend this clause was originally introduced by Julius ‘kill the Boer’ Malema, the leader of the black nationalist Economic Freedom Fighters Party which has in recent years put pressure on the ANC from the racial populist left. Support for the motion and the attitudes that lie behind it are, however, far from limited to the usual anti-white race baiters who have inhabited the fringes of South African politics. The motion was passed with a hefty majority of 241 votes with the opposing votes amounting to only 83. Indeed while the post-Mugabe president of Zimbawe, Emmerson Mnangagwa, has made overtures to the residual white population, the post Jacob Zuma era in South Africa has seen an increasing normalisation of open animus towards whites and their position in the economy. Cyril Ramaphosa the current President of South Africa has made “land reform” (i.e. the economic dispossession of the white minority) a key platform of his administration, primarily to distract attention from the endemic corruption which has been a recurrent feature of ANC governance.

Of course this latest development comes in the wider context of deteriorating race relations in South Africa, and the enduring phenomenon of violent land invasions directed against the predominantly white farming community. South Africa is undergoing a seminal moment in its history in which the post-apartheid structure established to guarantee the interests of racial minorities is rapidly being unravelled in favour of an exclusionary black nationalist politics. There has always been a concern in the post-colonial era amongst settler populations that majority rule in Africa would make white populations liable to being scapegoated by authoritarian rulers. It now seems increasingly likely that South Africa is heading down the road pursued by its northern neighbour where a semi-official policy of ethnic cleansing was conducted against whites by Mugabe’s henchmen in the early 2000s. There is a confluence of factors which point to a dark future for South African whites. A declining demographic influence triggered by emigration and black immigration (while whites were 20% of the population in the 1950s, they are currently 10% of the population and they are projected to decline to 5% in the coming decades) will undoubtedly make whites even more vulnerable as a market dominant minority to racial demagoguery.

When President Trump in a recent tweet shone light on this issue, condemning the racist policy of land expropriation and the widespread violence against farmers, it triggered the mass indignation of bien pensant leftists. An avalanche of articles containing half-truths have been published online by mainstream media organisations with the primary aim of burying as quickly as possible any discussion of the persecution of the white minority. The narrative of the liberal media has veered from denying the reality of racial violence against farmers to accusing Trump of employing a ‘racist’ talking point and of worsening race relations in South Africa. All the pathologies of leftists have been on full display. The Washington Post described Trump’s comments as ‘’white supremacist’’ while Vox described the belief that whites were persecuted as ‘white nationalist propaganda’. There is the strange process by which responsibility is shifted from the aggressors to the victims. Whites, the President of the USA, or indeed anyone who is the victim of, or seeks to prevent the victimisation inherent in the SA government’s policies, is made responsible for worsening race relations. If whites in SA have the audacity to complain about the original aggression against them then they are designating themselves as ‘racists’, and are only vindicating that aggression.

The tenuous claim that there is no racial violence against white farmers is based on the fact that farmers as a profession aren’t disproportionately murdered when compared to the country as a whole. It is true that white farmers don’t have a higher murder rate than other groups in South Africa. However, considering that farmers live in rural areas isolated from major centres of urban crime and belong to a population which is underrepresented in criminal activity as a whole, the homicide rate for farmers is extremely high. In fact the existence of a category known as ‘farm murders’ is indicative itself of racialised violence against white farmers. There should be no recorded phenomena of farm murders. Rural populations don’t have patterns of systematic homicide. White farmers don’t live in townships where they are likely by chance to encounter armed robbers or murderers, nor do they as a group have high rates of intra-racial violence. In 2017/2018 there were 561 farm attacks and 47 murders of farmers according to AgriSA (a South African agricultural union) while there are currently only 34,000 commercial farms. The AfriForum calculated a murder rate of 156 per 100,000 for years 2016 to 2017. For a population not proximate to sources of violent criminal activity that’s an extremely high homicide rate. When talking about farm attacks we are talking about groups of armed, exclusively black men attacking farms exclusively or primarily owned and manned by whites. In these attacks whites are not just murdered – they are often tortured and gang raped. To take one example among many, Nicci Simpson, a farmer in the Eastern Cape, had her feet drilled through with power tools in a six hour ordeal which culminated with her nearly being suffocated to death with a plastic bag. Piet Els, 86, a farmer in Kimberly, was beaten with metal rods and branded with iron.

While the ongoing violence against farmers can’t be characterised as genocide, it’s undoubtedly a form of ethnic violence. When this enduring ethnic violence is directed against a demographically declining minority, one that is dispersed throughout an entire country, then it can be considered a non-systematic form of ethnic cleansing. Ultimately the recent decision by the South African parliament has nothing to do with ‘readdressing past wrongs’. It is only the denouement of a long standing rhetorical and physical campaign of racist violence against whites. For the government to confiscate land from white farmers is only to regularise in a legally acceptable manner the violence which has been inflicted upon them for the last three decades.

Further reading.The South African farm Murder Epidemic.

Free speech isn’t free – Make a donation to the Salisbury Review

12 Comments on Racism the left drools over ?

  1. You can’t blame black Africans for being black Africans.

    What I really hate are the demented policies of supposedly civilized countries which don’t grant white South Africans expedited refugee immigrant status whilst they’re being robbed, raped, tortured and murdered.

  2. p.s: Why do blog essayists fail to observe the elementary courtesy of short paragraphs? The rules for paragraph breaks online are different now than taught by Sir Ernest Gowers or by Strunk and White back in the days of Dickens and Proust. Was this an interesting article?

  3. Apart from President’s Trump’s tweet, the Western leaders appear to have been entirely silent on this. The catalogue of vicious crimes against whites in SA are horrifying. But then, I have to wonder why any white farmers could sensibly have imagined that their future was secure after power was handed over to the ANC thugs.

    As to the West, I wonder how many of our third rate leaders are mired in the groupthink that racialism only ever emanates from whites? How many are too cowardly to speak out when it comes to persecution of white people?

    Progressives would have us believe that racialism can only be carried out by those in power against those who are powerless. Well, who do they think is in power in SA?

  4. This is a glimpse into the future wherever a 3rd world minority becomes a majority in a 1st world country. The methods of genocide may vary between the 3rd world groups, but the ultimate aim is the same: The dispossession of property and then life of the white minority.

  5. These are the words (paraphrased) of a European economist professor concerning Muslim and black African immigration:
    The countries of Europe will fight to the death over border markers moved 1 metre inside their territory, but will allow 1 million immigrants inside their borders with a shrug.

  6. So-called “anti-racism” is nothing but the organised racial hatred of whites and like all such doctrines it is moving ineluctably into its active phase. That so many powerful whites believe or are cowed into compromising with this new form of Nazism, which broadens the tropes of anti-Semitism to include every European people – defined, of course, by appearance and “blood” – makes it all but impossible to highlight its activities. These are legion, ranging from the torture-to-death of white farmers in Africa to the exclusion of white students from American campuses on certain defined days; it includes the systematic denigration and exclusion of “white voices” from the literary canon and a primitive, Hitler style suspicion of science as “white”. It also accounts for the industrial scale paedophile rapes which Pakistani Moslem gangs have inflicted on little girls from northern England. In the Spectator this week a writer called Cosmo Landesman reports that his novel was turned down by a publisher in spite of its merits because he was “too white” and – incidentally – male. In my own brief writing career I have come up against the same wall of prejudice. The question is, why do so many apparently sane men and women believe or kow-tow this poison? I believe it is because they have no religion to give their lives meaning and in its place – as Chesterton foresaw – slips a desire to find that meaning through bitter and excessive self-abnegation. This “religious” cast of our current left has been noted by many of the remaining conservative commentariat, not least Jonathan Haidt and it is frighteningly impervious to criticism, discussion or even doubt. How we can weather this storm, God knows – and mention of God is apt, for the only parallel one can see with the current situation is that of declining Rome, in which hostile migration makes common cause with the fanatics of early Christianity, whom I distinguish from the true, the decent and the rational Christians, to bring down classical culture. We really are, this time, at the borders of a new dark age.

  7. A civilized society has no place for pre-scientific fairy tales and mumbo-jumbo, aka organized religion. It is perfectly possible to have meaning in one’s life, and lead a moral life, without resort to these pernicious, arbitrary creeds. Freedom of conscience should be a fundamental freedom in any civilized society, but it should stay in the private realm, with strict separation from state affairs.

    • Sheilagh: What’s your comment got to do with the price of sugar in Peru, or with what’s being discussed on this thread for that matter?
      ___
      Oh, I see now that you were replying to Brother Percy who had the temerity to mention Chesterton once and God twice. Anyroad, there’s nowt so religious as a radical left wing atheist ideologue.

    • I’m not sure about South Africas, but West Africans, both young and old, such as Ghanaians and Nigerians, are fervent church-goers.

      I have heard first hand accounts from young white South Africans of discrimination against white people in South Africa in the jobs market. One was related to me nearly twenty years ago.

    • Out of a lengthy article about other subjects you select a few asides that the author has included about God or religion. Why such sensitivity? Why is your ‘radar’ so attuned to detect the least approach of God?

      If a person has led a blameless life oughtn’t their response be the opposite? Wouldn’t they want to come to a God who is a just and righteous judge, as Christianity claims, to have that life acknowledged and approved of? After all, people want other people to acknowledge their achievements.

      The very claim that one can lead a blameless life, day by day and hour by hour in the minutest detail in the every next right thing we have to do, and do that out of what amounts to the strength of one’s own character and against the prevailing tide worldly fashion, is to use morality, however conceived, to keep God at a distance, to create a separation. And how likely are we to succeed every time in doing that minutest detail rightly?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.