The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
South Africa

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

When President Bush made his grand tour of Africa last year, he had little to say about the land seizures and violent assaults on white farmers that the government of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe has carried out, nor did he insist that South Africa’s president Thabo Mbeki do anything about it.

“I don’t have any intention of second-guessing his tactics,” Mr. Bush smirked to the press about what Mr. Mbeki would or would not do about the black tyrant next door who has managed to reduce Zimbabwe to the edge of mass starvation and genocide.

Mr. Bush no longer has any need to guess at all, since Mr. Mbeki himself may have started imitating Mr. Mugabe’s policies in South Africa.

Last week, in what is probably the best report on what’s gong on in South Africa in the American press in the last 10 years, the Washington Times showed how South African whites are slowly being dispossessed of their farms—and their lives. Having sniffed the insipid weakness of white leaders like Mr. Bush, Mr. Mbeki knows he has nothing to fear.

The Times reports that in the decade since the end of white rule in South Africa, “almost 1,700 farmers, nearly all white, have been killed on South African farms.” [Violence besets rural South Africa By Tom Carter, July 21, 2004 ].

Many whites are convinced the government is coordinating these attacks, though there seems to be little evidence of that so far, but one thing is perfectly clear: The attacks are motivated by race.

One white homicide investigator who denied the government was behind the murders is well aware of their racial pattern.

“If you look at what [the criminals] did, to these people in these attacks, there was hatred for white people. Black farmers have also been attacked, just not with the same brutality.”

And brutality is the key word for what’s happening to whites in South Africa. As the Times notes,

“Many of the killings were unspeakably brutal. Rape is common. One wheelchair-bound elderly woman was scalded with boiling water until she died. And the number of ‘farm attacks’—where no one was killed—number in the tens of thousands.”

The story begins with an account of a white farmer beaten to death with a stone—for “less than $3, a pair of pants, a pair of shoes and a wristwatch.”

Nevertheless, things are getting better in the new majority-rule South Africa. Just after the end of apartheid, the country enjoyed the highest murder rate in the world—67 per 100,000 in 1994-95. Today it’s only 47 per 100,000—about the same as Washington, D.C.

As for land, what’s happening is frighteningly similar to what has already happened in Zimbabwe, where government-backed gangs of black thugs have simply moved onto white-owned lands, kicked off (or sometimes killed) the white owners, and taken over the farms—usually ruining the land in the process. The Times report recounts how one white farmer has witnessed some 40,000 black squatters take over 140 acres of his farm. He can do nothing about it—“I can’t go in there. Too dangerous for me—they know me for who I am”—and the government will do nothing to get them off. It says the farmer must pay $262,000 to house the squatters somewhere else.

Similar seizures in South Africa have resulted in the loss of some 500,000 agricultural jobs, mostly by unskilled black workers, since 1993 as farms where they once worked have had to shut down. The government has resettled many blacks onto white-owned lands, “and have not been able to make a go and [the farms] are now vast rural shanty towns that are no longer producing’ either food or jobs,” the head of the South African Institute of Race Relations told the Times.

“The unskilled farmworkers who were supposed to be lifted up are being hurt the most,” the head of the Agricultural Employers Organization said. “If the land issue is not handled correctly, it will be Zimbabwe all over again.”

Which may be exactly what South African blacks would like. When President Mbeki was inaugurated last April, the visiting Mr. Mugabe “received a thunderous ovation from the overwhelmingly black crowd, only slightly less raucous than for Mr. Mbeki or his predecessor, Nelson Mandela.”

What is going on in South Africa is not merely the exposure of the cheap hypocrisy of President Bush’s gabble about “human rights” but the working out of the results of the century-long racial conflict that is being waged wherever whites are or have been dominant.

What we need to learn from what has happened in Rhodesia(Zimbabwe) and what is happening now in South Africa is that as the white future in the United States steadily darkens, their fate may be ours as well.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: South Africa 
🔊 Listen RSS

The tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide is upon us this week, and some predict yet another African genocide is about to unfold in Sudan. In South Africa, however, where wicked white supremacy was dismantled (also a decade ago) and black majority rule established, all is happiness, a veritable cakewalk to utopia, according to neo-conservative pundit Max Boot.

The South African government has just given Mr. Boot a grand tour, and he faithfully reports what he was told in articles in the Los Angeles Times and the neo-conservative Weekly Standard. If his adventures in fantasy prove much of anything, they show why we need to ignore whatever neo-conservatives tell us.

“A flourishing democracy has taken root in South Africa’s rocky soil,” Mr. Boot bubbles. The kind of democracy he admires there is of interest — a species quite unknown to the Western world. [A Flourishing Democracy Takes Root in South Africa Weekly Standard, March 22, 2004]

The African National Congress, the terrorist organization run by the Communist Party that took over the country in 1994, is the main political party and shows no sign of losing power. As Mr. Boot tells us,“There is no chance of the ANC losing the next election or the one after that. For the foreseeable future South Africa seems destined to be a one-party democracy like India prior to the 1990s or Japan today.”

Of course, in our part of the world, where we actually have democracies that (at least in theory) sport two whole political parties or more, “democracy” is not quite the term for political systems dominated forever by a single party.

Mr. Boot complains that these days no one ever hears about South Africa except in terms of AIDS and crime. As for the former, it has more HIV-positive people than any other country in the world, and AIDS is expected to reduce life expectancy to the age of 36 by 2010. Mr. Boot is pleased that even though “South Africa’s crime rate has spiked to among the highest in the world,” in recent years “it has at least stopped rising and stabilized, though at very high levels.”

What he doesn’t tell us is the truth about the systematic campaign of murder and torture carried out since 1994 against South Africa’s white farmers. Some 1,600 have already been murdered, and while the government claims it’s simply uncontrollable crime, the indications are that it’s a deliberate effort to exterminate whites and drive them off the land.

But that’s only farmers. Some estimates put the number of white Afrikaners killed by blacks since 1994 at 30,000 or more. Mr. Boot mentions none of this. “The most inspiring thing about South Africa,” he sighs pleasantly, “is that there seems to be so little rancor.”

After Mr. Boot finishes scribbling what the ANC’s one-party democracy fed him, he should take a look at a forthcoming article on the realities of South Africa by a man who actually lives there, South African novelist Dan Roodt, in a forthcoming two-part article in American Renaissance, a monthly newsletter about race and race relations.

While Mr. Boot beams about the government’s promotion of “economic growth” in the country but deplores the “bad news” of persistent economic inequality between blacks and whites, Mr. Roodt has somewhat different facts to report.

“Increasingly, whites are economic slaves,” he writes. “They pay 80 percent of personal taxes, despite earning only 50 percent of total salaries. Afrikaners as a group pay the highest portion of overall tax in South Africa — 36 percent — while white English-speakers pay 32 percent. When he was in exile in Britain, [President Thabo] Mbeki is reputed to have said, ‘We will suck the whites dry,’ and that is more or less what is happening. South Africa is like a small, first-world economy like that of Denmark or Norway, still run by whites, but which must support a welfare state for 40 million blacks and Coloreds.”

That’s the bad news Mr. Boot didn’t want to tell us.

What is happening in South Africa is simply the deliberate transformation of a Western society, economy and political culture into a Third World swamp. The transformation is taking place because the dominant race of white Westerners has been pushed out of power by the majority non-white, non-Western race.

But as Mr. Roodt understands, what’s happening there is not unique.

“By a curious historical and demographic twist, the percentage of white people in South Africa — nine percent –corresponds precisely to the portion of whites as a share of the global population. South Africa is a microcosm of the world. The processes of demographic expansion, territorial occupation, and moral and intellectual subversion that we have suffered are similar to what the entire West is experiencing.”

And people like Mr. Boot and his friends play a major role in pushing that experience toward its grim conclusion.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Neocons, South Africa 
🔊 Listen RSS

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 of South Africa 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 Dailyreported 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’scorrespondent, 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?

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: South Africa 
🔊 Listen RSS

Among the contributions to civilization of South Africa since the end of “apartheid” – the common shorthand for white rule – is the phenomenon known as “child rape.” You really have to hand it to the South Africans. No other nation seems to have invented this particular kind of atrocity before, and in the country where it originated, it’s flourishing.

Rape in South Africa in the last few years has indeed taken off. In 2000, there were more than 52,000 cases reported, and Interpol says that “South Africa has in recent years had one of the highest per capita rates of rape and sexual assault in the world,” according to the New York Times. [NYT, January 29th, 2002, Grappling With South Africa's Alarming Increase in the Rapes of Children PAY ARCHIVE] But “child rape”—violent sexual attacks on females under 18—is a specialty that appears to be unique. About 40 percent of the 52,000 rapes in 2000 involved victims under 18; 20 percent involved victims under 11.

One reason for the sprouting of child rape there is yet another idea unique to South Africa—the notion that having sex with a virgin is a cure for AIDS. Since AIDS also has exploded since the end of “apartheid” (along with unemployment, murder and terrorist attacks on white farmers by blacks), raping young females—including actual infants—has become almost commonplace. One doctor interviewed by the New York Times counted more than 200 child rapes in 2001 in his locality, “mostly girls ages 7 to 9.”

Last October six men were arrested for raping and sodomizing a nine-month-old baby. “No one knows what accounts for the disturbing trend,” bleats the Times.

Well, actually, some people do know. It turns out that the child rape epidemic is all part of the legacy of “apartheid.” “The researchers investigating child rape,” the Times reports, “say they cannot close their eyes to the lasting impact of the apartheid system, which legitimized violence and oppression for decades.” It’s not just the researchers. The political establishment itself in the New South Africa makes the same claim.

“As we all know,” preaches the country’s deputy president, Jacob Zuma, “the apartheid history of this country left behind a legacy of a serious breakdown of the moral infrastructure of our society.” One of the researchers into child rape, Saths Cooper, also blames “apartheid”; South Africa, he intones, is “a society that has come out of an abyss.”

As a matter of fact, South Africa has fallen into an abyss. Child rape—along with AIDS, other kinds of rape, murders, and terrorism—were all either unknown in South Africa under “apartheid” or under control. Indeed, today, police won’t even release statistics on rape committed prior to 2000. It’s only in the New South Africa—the democratic South Africa, the anti-racist South Africa, the progressive South Africa—that the abyss started swallowing the country whole. The blunt truth is that South Africa was far better off under “apartheid” than it is today or than it promises to be ever again.

What has happened in the New South Africa is not only the enthronement of ideologies alien to it but also the legitimization of the savagery that “apartheid” repressed and controlled. No doubt superstitions such as the belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS existed under “apartheid,” but because the savages dumb enough to believe it and act on it were kept under restraint—by laws that regulated the physical movement of blacks, kept them out of cities, required them to carry passports, etc.—the superstition didn’t matter much. Now—with the triumph of “freedom”—it does matter.

Indeed, one feature of the New South Africa that also contributes to the rape epidemic is the collapse of law enforcement itself. As the Times also reports, “Rape victims still wait hours for an ambulance or police car to take them to the hospital. Sloppy investigations mean that rapists are usually free to terrorize their victims over and over.” Yet another legacy of “apartheid,” of course.

It occurs to no one in the South African government—or for that matter at the New York Times—to suggest that blaming “apartheid” for every failure and atrocity that happens in South Africa is merely an evasion of the truth, with about as much merit as a juvenile delinquent blaming his parents for being too permissive. But of course no one can speak the truth about what is happening in South Africa without discrediting the whole case against “apartheid.”

What is happening in South Africa today—indeed what has happened all over Africa since the withdrawal of the European empires in the 1960s—is exactly what defenders of “apartheid” always insisted would happen: the victory of savagery over the civilization that the white empires imposed. What was once the most economically and technologically advanced society on the African continent now lurches into the abyss created by egalitarians—and no one in its government or in the world press dares say why.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: South Africa 
🔊 Listen RSS

While the multiracial democracy of Zimbabwe is experiencing a virtual breakdown because black mobs, with government encouragement, are seizing white-owned farm lands without compensation to their legal owners, the African continent’s other multiracial democracy in South Africa is sporting its own crisis over the supposed “racism” of the country’s newspapers. Now the black-controlled government is hauling white newspaper editors before a commission to explain themselves, and freedom of the press in South Africa may soon go the way of private property of land in Zimbabwe.

In South Africa, where multiracial elections were held in 1994 and the racial segregation that kept the white minority in power for decades was dismantled, the government has launched an investigation of the news industry for the “racism” that supposedly still lurks in its pages, photographs, editorials, cartoons and broadcasts. Newspaper editors, broadcasters and television producers have been threatened with subpoenas if they don’t “voluntarily” testify before a government agency, the “Human Rights Commission.” If they don’t cooperate, they face a fine.

The witch hunt began a few years ago when black watchdogs began complaining that two newspapers had run no fewer than 14 stories about the corruption of black public officials but only two about crooked white public officials. The inquiry soon came up with some major conclusions — such as the one claiming that a photograph showing two blackbirds sitting on the rim of a garbage can was “racist” because it suggested the decay of the country’s inner cities. So far, the investigation seems not to have turned up any more serious thought-crimes than that, which simply won ridicule.

But, thought crimes or not, the real purpose of the hearings is not to excise real “racism,” whatever that might be, but to clobber the news business into a state of docility more appropriate to multiracialism. As one black reporter who testified before the commission put it, “We cannot begin to talk about freedom of the press as long as there is no real diversity of thought in our media.” Apparently, the way to instigate “diversity of thought” is to have the state intimidate anyone who criticizes the ruling party and its leaders.

Thus, one charge is that a leading newspaper ran an article questioning the capacity of President Nelson Mandela’s successor, Thebo Mbeki, to lead the country. The accuser, an official of the ruling African National Congress, claims the story was really written by a white editor but was published under the name of a black reporter. Both editor and reporter deny it.

The investigation concluded its research last week and will soon issue a report as to whether “racism” — which apparently includes only the white variety and none of the non-white — is sufficiently serious in the South African media to warrant legislative remedies. Observers needn’t be too surprised if the report finds legislation is desperately needed.

Nor should anyone be too surprised if the crackdown on “racism” is merely the government’s opening shot against whatever bastions of white power remain. In Zimbabwe, the government is aiming at white farm lands, but the pattern is the same in both countries. Having been stripped of formal political power with the end of apartheid, whites are now being targeted for outright persecution by the non-white majorities now in power.

Freedom of expression is not the only casualty of the transition away from white control. Both rape and murder have skyrocketed in the new South Africa, as has AIDS, which the old government successfully controlled but now is spreading faster in South Africa than anywhere else in the world. Whites, who possess the bulk of technical and managerial skills, are quickly but slyly leaving the country — and not coming back. As of 1997, despite strict currency controls, some 11,000 whites fled the country. The number is probably considerably larger today.

News reporting on black murders, rapes, AIDS and political corruption could plausibly be blamed on “racism” in the media, and silencing such reporting would be one way for the government to make South Africans shut up about the problems democracy has brought and discourage the exodus of whites and the loss of revenues and skills they would take with them.

But the word is already out, and for all its commissions, reports, investigations and legislative repression, there’s probably not much the South African government can now do to muzzle the truth or the journalists who speak and write it. The larger question that Westerners in both Europe and the United States need to start thinking and talking about is whether what’s happening under the multiracial experiments in Zimbabwe and South Africa will also happen elsewhere when the mass immigration Western nations welcome makes their populations even more multiracial than those of these African democracies on the edge of chaos and tyranny.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: South Africa 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”