← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Ragnar
Thread ID: 3693 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2002-11-26
2002-11-26 04:16 | User Profile
The 'New South Africa' lurches toward chaos
by Sam Francis
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
You don't hear much about South Africa these days, unless
it's about all the trouble that country's white people are causing -- or whatever white people remain there. Since the "apartheid system" was dismantled in 1994 and a "black majority democracy" "liberated" the country, more and more whites leave -- mainly because so many have been murdered by black criminals whom the government of the "black majority democracy" refuses or is simply unable to control.
The most recent report about South Africa in what in this
country is often called the "mainstream media" is a story about "white extremists" accused of plotting to overthrow the government or in one case to blow up a dam or set off bombs in downtown Johannesburg. According to The Economist, a dozen men have been arrested for such offenses, but the magazine, which is about as "mainstream" as you can get in this country or Great Britain, dismisses what it calls the "deluded right-wing conspirators" as "paper tigers."
But in the media that is not so mainstream, at least in this
part of the world, you hear somewhat different stories about South Africa. Thus, The Independent on Saturday reported last week that a new study published in the South Africa Crime Quarterly, a law enforcement journal, finds that South Africans are more likely to be shot dead than to die in vehicle crashes. "An average of 55 South Africans are ... murdered every day," the paper reports, "more than in many countries which are at war." At 55 murders per day, the total number of murders per year is about 20,000, compared to about 16,000 for the United States. The latter, of course, has more than six times the population of South Africa.
A few years ago, South Africa's murder rate was said to be
among the highest in the world, if not the highest, but the new "black majority democracy" banned the reporting of crime statistics because it discouraged foreign investment, so today no one really knows. In 1999 the Wall Street Journal called the level of violent crime in South Africa "astronomical," with some 24,500 murders and a per capita murder rate (26 per hundred thousand) four times that of the United States. Even The Economist allows that "right-wing terrorism" is fed by whites' fear of black violence and the government's refusal to control it.
The New York Times in 1998 reported that some 500 white
farmers had been murdered since 1994, and last summer World Net Daily reported that 1,200 have been murdered since that year, with some 6,000 attacks against white farmers. "It's politically correct to kill whites these days," one white farmer told World Net Daily's correspondent, who concluded that "the white Boer Afrikaner farmer is easily the highest at-risk group for murder on Earth."
It's hardly surprising therefore that South Africa's foreign
minister last week urged Western states to stop grousing about Zimbabwe, where government-backed black mobs have so far killed only a handful of white farmers but where the government itself has seized the land of some 3,000 whites. Whatever criticisms the West has made of Zimbabwe could just as easily be applied to South Africa itself, so it makes sense for the black-ruled states to stick together.
It also makes sense for white-ruled states to stick
together, but they don't. It's precisely because of what the United States, Western Europe, Great Britain and the Soviet Union did in the 1970s through the 1980s that whites in southern Africa today face the loss of their land, their livelihoods, their freedoms, and their lives. The whites -- and blacks, for that matter -- of southern Africa were not delivered to tyranny and destruction by blacks but by other whites.
"The radical blacks hate us," the white South African farmer
told World Net Daily last summer, "because we are strong, blonde, hard-working and productive. We came to South Africa and turned it into the richest country in the world, while before we came the locals had been here for many centuries and did nothing with the land."
The wife of yet another white farmer told the same reporter,
"The farm invasion problem is not confined to South Africa. Look at Zimbabwe. Look at the call for white Australians to give their land back to the Aborigines. Look at the problems on the border with Mexico and the United States and the massive Third World immigration in Europe. European Western civilization is totally under siege by the New World Order elite."
What she says explains why so many whites are leaving the
new democracies of southern Africa and why those who can't get out might be tempted to turn to terrorism. If a South African housewife understands the big picture of which her country is a small part, why don't the leaders of the countries that betrayed their own people and civilization?
Samuel Francis is a nationally syndicated columnist.
2002-11-26 17:14 | User Profile
Interesting. It seems that, the world over, whitey is being backed into a corner. The burning question is, will he have the fortitude to claw his way out and possibly die trying? Or will he simply beg for mercy and get stomped to death like the whipped cur "minorities" perceive him to be?
Camp of the Saints, anyone?
2002-11-27 03:22 | User Profile
I'm just amazed the farmer's wife made the connection and said it plain. Out here in Lotus Land only a few hardy souls like David Duke dare say that sort of thing even if everyone knows it's true.
I think they're way past Camp of the Saints in SA. I just wonder how the Western press will cover the final slaughter.
2002-11-27 16:57 | User Profile
**I just wonder how the Western press will cover the final slaughter. **
No doubt the same way they're covering what's happening in Robert "Mad Bob" Mugabe's Zimbabwe, that is, not at all.
The one good thing, if you can see it this way, about having so many "minorities" commiting so many crimes is that pretty soon, there won't be that many whites who have not been the victim of our betters, said "minorities," directly or indirectly through relatives/friends. When that happens, most won't have the luxury of rose-colored glasses and sitting on the fence anymore. Of course, I'm sure a lot of folks said that about Rhodesia and SA, too, and look what happened to them. Then again, whites are a lot more numerous here, even if declining, than in either of those two sad cases.
One other sad thing about the Carr massacre case is that the relatives of the vicitms felt pity and urged prayer for the perps and said that's what the victims would have wanted. Yuck! I don't know how widespread this attitude is, but for the future's sake, I hope not very.
Kind of reminds me of a scene in Eric the Viking in which Atlantis is vanishing beneath the waves while all the residents sit around singing and cheerfully assuring the folks trying to warn them that they're sinking, "No we're not! Tra la la!"
2002-11-28 01:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Nov 27 2002, 11:57 One other sad thing about the Carr massacre case is that the relatives of the vicitms felt pity and urged prayer for the perps and said that's what the victims would have wanted.
It doesnt bother me that they had pity. I would have some pity as well. I would feel sorry for them that this country has left blacks without white guidance by destroying the institutions which subdued their impulsive inclinations. I would feel sorry for them as we have given them freedom they are incapable of handling.
But pity would not be first in my mind. Justice would be. And my prayers for them would be that they repent before we hang 'em from a tree.