The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewSam Francis Archive
African Land Seizures Part of World Revolution
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It’s not often these days that the American media pays attention to what’s going on in places like South Africa or Zimbabwe. Once ruled by white minority governments that enforced racial segregation, both countries are now ruled by blacks. That makes the American media happy, so there’s no particular reason to pay these two countries any further attention.

But however happy the American media might be with the way things are in South Africa and Zimbabwe, not everyone there is equally pleased. Occasionally, Americans get to hear something about this, as happened this week when the Washington Post carried a story about the forcible expropriation of land that belongs to white farmers.

The idea of expropriating — a fancy word for “stealing” — white-owned land has been kicking about in the noggins of Zimbabwe’s new rulers for some time. The chief noggin, that of Robert Mugabe (who, in what passes for Zimbabwean democracy, is apparently president for life), demanded last year a constitutional amendment that would have allowed his government to seize white-owned land without compensation. Amazingly, the amendment failed to pass — perhaps because most Zimbabweans, black as well as white, understand that if they drive out the white farmers, the whole country might well starve to death.

But Mugabe wasn’t pleased about the amendment’s defeat, and he hinted that he might just seize white land anyway. Not long after the vote, black mobs began doing just that. The New York Times, which used to shriek all over its front page about every suspected atrocity against blacks under the white government, noted the seizures calmly in its inside pages this month.

The Post gave the seizures somewhat larger play, but incredibly, ran the story under the headline “A Peaceful Invasion.” When a mob of 120 people, armed with axes and clubs, shows up at the gates of a white farm and tells the owner and his family that it’s taking their land, apparently, to The Post, that’s “peaceful.”

In fact, similar seizures have occurred all over the country — black invaders, peaceful or not, have grabbed about 650 white farms in the last month — and the government seems to do nothing about it, which is yet another factor that makes it “peaceful.”

What exactly is the legal owner supposed to do? Call the cops? But the cops will do nothing. Fight them himself? He’s a farmer, not Rambo. In the case the Post examined, he did, and could, do nothing but watch the mob take over his land, his livestock and his crops. What the new “owners” will let him and his family have — to keep, to sell, to eat — the Post doesn’t bother to report.

Of course, the land seizures in Zimbabwe are not peaceful, but compared to the outright violent assaults against white farmers by black marauders in South Africa, they are. Those assaults have become increasingly common, as the “black majority” government begins removing its democratic mask.

The rationale for the seizures is that the whites have too much land and the blacks don’t have enough. In fact, there is a good deal of inequality in the country. Almost half of Zimbabwe’s land is owned by its 70,000 whites out of a total population of 12 million. To many, blacks who want the whites’ land as well as the American media who coo over its seizure, that alone justifies confiscation.

“We want the whites to stay,” says a leader of a black mob that seized a white farm, “but it’s past time for them to share. We’ve begun to wonder what we fought for” during the civil war that led to the end of the white government.

What he and his comrades were supposedly fighting for, at least according to the glowing press accounts in the West, was “democracy,” “racial equality,” and “freedom.” Now, it turns out, they were really fighting so they could grab somebody else’s land.

What’s happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa is not confined to those countries, and it’s not just control of land that’s being changed. What is happening is a long-term revolt of the non-white world against the white domination of most of the planet that has prevailed in some respects for some 500 years. The same process is taking place in Europe and the United States as non-white immigrants and their offspring begin displacing the white majorities of those regions.

The Western world needs to pay a lot more attention to what is happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa than its slanted media want us to know. What is happening there now, to white power and white property and ultimately to white freedom, may well be the prelude to what will happen here as whites sink toward being a minority themselves in their own country.

(Republished from TownHall by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Zimbabwe 
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Sam Francis Comments via RSS