The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Where the Boer Roams Free
Is Zuma going to pull a Mugabe?
South Africa's 40,000 white farmers, mainly Boers – descendants from Dutch settlers – say they fear that South Africa's government is threatening their livelihoods with land-reform policies. When they first came to Africa, the Boer Voortrekkers, or pioneers, left coastal colonies to forge a path to the interior of the country in search of fertile land. Now some of their descendants believe the answer to their problems might lie thousands of miles away in the Caucasus.
In what would be an extraordinary migration, the Georgian government has invited South Africa's farmers to buy up land in the country for next to nothing in exchange for bringing their expertise and knowledge of modern farming methods.
SA is not like Zimbabwe. For one thing black majority rule was established peacefully in SA. Another is that the former Rhodesia was settled mostly by Englishmen, most of SA's whites are Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch, German and some French settlers. The Boers trekked into the interior in the 1830s, when anger exploded at the British authorities who ran the coastal regions of South Africa.
While many reasons are cited for the trek, the least pleasant - and probably most accurate - is that the Afrikaners were upset with British policies toward the native black populations, in the wake of imperial emancipation. Nor is it much of a secret that Apartheid's electoral base was overwhelmingly Afrikaner. For all the soothing words of the Mandela-era, and Thabo Mbeki's generally professional dealings with white South Africans, old memories die hard. Zuma is a populist and a statist. The temptation to redistribute some of that white-owned farm land is very great. A way of both rewarding supporters and settling racial scores.
Many moons ago père Publius would visit SA on business. The Afrikaners he met insisted that Apartheid would never end, so long as they controlled the armed forces. Hidden in the back country, they whispered, were large caches of arms ready to be used to maintain their supremacy. The rest of Africa was a mess, and they were not about to let the same thing happen to their country.
The black population returned the hatred. The early ANC was in part a terrorist organization, trying to undermine white majority rule. This included the now saintly Nelson Mandela, who early in his political career lead a bombing campaign against government installations. His twenty-seven years in prison were punishment for a series of terrorist attacks in the early 1960s. His resorting to violence came in the wake of the Sharpeville massacre, the declaration of the South African Republic, and after years of peaceful protests.
The temptation of moving to a country that is, quite literally, populated by caucasians is no doubt a great one for the remaining Boers. There are no evil memories in Georgia and their considerable skills would be appreciated. For those who fought and suffered for their freedom from the Apartheid regime, the desire to even the score is equally great.
To Canadians, who are soaked from birth in multicultural platitudes, the shocking truth is that in most of the world divisions of race and ethnicity are real and powerful. There is no group hug or Folkfestival that will solve generations of racial hatred. One group oppresses another, the latter returns fire. Repeat. Whether in Caledonia, or on the Gardiner Expressway, don't let it happen here. The ideal of One Canada is too important to lose.
Posted by Richard Anderson on November 16, 2010 | Permalink
And let's not forget what influence the Canadians had in South Africa what concentrations camps was concerned. The Afrikaners suffered at a great cost before apartheid. Apartheid tried to protect a minority against a brutal onslaught by Africans. Go and look up history and your involvement as Canadians in the Boer war.
Canadians is just as guilty when it comes to the problem and hatred there is in the modern South Africa....which those that are left behind have to deal with.
It's easy now sitting from afar, in a safe country, and condoning a white minority who have nowhere else to go. We have to survive in Africa.Nobody is willing to help us.Even when people look for asylum in your country that are white Africans, your country are so stuck up it's own political correct ass its unbelievable.
You 'think' you are multicultural.Wait till your whole western culture is in the minority then we'll see you moan. You're still safe, as long as you control your immigration. Even the UK, France and Italy are so fed up with this forced 'multicultural' dream people are moving to the right. Only Australia is doing a responsible job what that is concerned as they let other countries try out things first before they do it.
The African in Africa is not so tolerant as westerners in America, Canada or UK when it comes to other cultures.
Go an look up 'xenophobia'. Look on youtube.
Also type in 'Farm murders'
Here's a list of all the 'white' farmers murdered and we don't hear Bono organising a concert, or Amnesty International making a noise. We live in the world of 'political correctness' gone mad, because we all know, injustice and human rights is monopolized by one race. The world will not evolve once people start dealing with these things on an equal basis.
Come and live in Africa first. Experience Africa from a white perspective for more than 2 years. We'll chat again...
My family's been here 350 years. Now why would people that's not lived here that long, want to tell us how this place is....?
Farm murder list:
The world is getting to a 'saturation' point what all this 'pc' bs is concerned. The signs are there that a 'reset' is imminent.
Posted by: Henri | 2010-11-16 10:44:47 AM
SA is heading for 'ZANU-fication'.
The ANC this week started research on 'nationalizing mines'. The ANC youth league openly spoke out for the support of North Korea.
The party of Nelson Mandela is no more. They don't want to bother him with the news which is understandable as he is old.
Remember when Mugabe told everyone not to worry and not be afraid of 'majority rule'?
We all know what happened.
The ANC fooled the world into this hocus pocus 'multicultural' rainbow nation.
All i can tell you is we are busy working on getting our own federal state as per international minority rights. UNPO.ORG
This marriage between a (white) western nation, and a majority (African) nation that believes in witch craft and 'African forefather worship, aint working. We want a divorce. A 100 years from now SA will be a country with many federal states.
Youtube search string - 'muti murders'
An every day occurrence for us that live on the 'other side' of the Cape Town mountain. People in Cape Town are not true South Africans. Totally cut off from what is really happening in the rest of the country.
PS. A 2 week holiday to Cape Town hardly counts towards saying you were in Africa.
Posted by: Henri | 2010-11-16 10:56:11 AM
I totally agree with Henri. Canada should allow as many white SA's into Canada as possible. They are hard working decent folk. Every white SA let in would mean one less muslim.
Posted by: The Stig | 2010-11-16 11:23:26 AM
Somewhere, suppressed in the back of the Canadian mind is the knowledge that the remnants of the descendants of white colonizers of South Africa will eventually be exterminated or violently driven off the land that was "settled" long ago, a form of PC and silently ignored ongoing genocide. Also contained in the same file is the knowledge that the only real difference between South African apartheid and Canadian apartheid is that the overwhelming numbers (inverse of SA) of white colonizers in North America allowed the earlier and safer extension of democracy and more affordable but crippling welfare, perhaps due to the arguably de facto conquest of natives.
I think that the whites remaining in South Africa know the "PC civilized" world will not raise a finger in their defense, therefore their options are not good. Africa and genocide go so well together, it's part of the liberal racism of lowered expectations. Smug liberals in North America will argue over lattes, that the land was taken by Afrikaners and "reforms" are justified, while the deeply suppressed knowledge of the domestically conquered race doesn't warrant a bumper sticker.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2010-11-16 11:57:11 AM
If trends continue, within a generation or two there will be only a handful of whites left in South Africa. Black radicals, who dominate the ANC, see the white population as a check on their real desire to turn South Africa into a one-party dictatorship, so therefore the whites must go, by whatever means necessary. If rampant crime will do the trick, fine by them, even if most crime victims are black. Then, they will be free to do what they have done with the rest of Africa: loot the economy to the point of collapse.
Ironically, many other Afican nations today are also inviting white South Africans to immigrate and rebuild their economies. But having spent thirty or forty years destroying those same economies through "scientific socialism", it is almost too little, too late.
Posted by: Dennis | 2010-11-16 1:19:42 PM
If I had been a white Rhodesian in 1965, I too would likely have voted for Ian Smith. Not for the reason that I possess any racial hatred towards blacks, but simply because the track record of black majority rule was so abominable that only the most deluded white Rhodesian would ever have sanctioned it. That is a concept that most Western liberals could not, and still cannot, grasp. It is no accident that today the only whites left in Zimbabwe are deluded liberals.
Black majority rule, simply put, posed an existential threat to the very fibre of the Rhodesian and South African economies. In countless African states, black rule meant one rigged election, followed by a dictatorship and the implosion of living standards, the rule of law and the economy in general. That very real existential threat meant throwing out the "rule book" on issues like universal suffrage. Of course, Ian Smith's government took the issue too far: having a black family move in next door to you does not qualify as an existential threat in any way. Nonetheless, the unabashedly hypocritical treatment of Rhodesia and South Africa from the 1960's to the 1990's qualifies as one of the worst foreign policy blunders ever perpetrated by the Western powers.
Posted by: Dennis | 2010-11-16 1:40:40 PM
I agree that they are the kind of immigrants Canada should be encouraging. Once they have all left South Africa there will be no one left to sustain the economy and S.A. will revert to just another third world country run by communist racists. You see racism is not a white creation, and furthermore expect to see lots of tribal warfare between the various African tribes there.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-11-16 6:28:17 PM
There was no way that South Africa could allow to share rule with blacks as long as there was a Soviet Union with the old guard, with the Brezhnev doctrine (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Poland 1981) and with the Berlin Wall around.
The ANC is referred to as communist and allied toward the Soviets whereas the other black entity, the Pan African Congress was allied with communist China. (Mugabe's party of Zimbabwe is also allied with China).
Back in the 70s and 80s the Soviet's economy was such a bad shambles that oil was the only source of hard currency to keep the country afloat.
U.S. President Reagan brilliantly persuaded the Saudi's to turn on the spigot to collaspe the price of oil. He appealed to the Saudi King's emotion by asking to "punish" the Soviets for their non belief in God.
Reagan knew that the Saudis could still make a profit on the ultra low price for a barrel of oil, which the Soviets could never do.
The main source of hard currency for the Soviets dried up. Soviet leader Gorbachev pleaded with Reagan at the Reykjavík Summit to tell the Saudis to turn the tap off, because the low oil prices will bankrupt the Soviet Union he told Reagan.
Since South Africa has huge deposits of gold I can guarantee if the old Soviet guard like Brezhnev or Andropov and the like where around and the ANC was allowed to take power and rule the country, the Soviets would have that country in their orbit as a satellite country and the gold in South Africa would be the other source of income to fund its own empire.
The gullible ANC will seek to be a friend of the
Soviets and soon the Soviets would run the show like the Soviets ran eastern Europe.
It was imperative that the ANC was not allowed the power to rule South Africa until after the Soviet Union's demise.
That is my take on this.
Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-11-16 6:32:26 PM
Since you mention Ian Smith, here is my obituary of Rhodesia's last Prime Minister:
Posted by: Publius | 2010-11-16 7:28:49 PM
I don't think Reagan convinced the Saudis of anything. By scrapping price controls on oil production - imposed by Nixon and Carter - he encouraged a boom in domestic oil exploration. With America less dependant on world markets, it broke the power of OPEC. Reagan was very charming, but not that charming.
Posted by: Publius | 2010-11-16 7:32:24 PM
Excellent obituary, Publius. You identified one of Smith's obvious but least noted failures: his refusal to observe and understand developments in Portuguese politics and their subsequent impact on his country. I have a signed copy of his autobiography, and one criticism I have of Smith is that he relentlessly flayed South Africa's arm-twisting for much of the book, while the critical role that the Portuguese collapse played in Rhodesia's demise barely gets a mention.
Posted by: Dennis | 2010-11-16 8:04:24 PM
The glue that connected Reagan with King Fahd and the Roman Catholic William Casey with Prince Bandar and the excellent rapport among them was the fact they all hated Soviet Atheism. In the book "The Crusader Ronald Reagan and the fall of Communism" by Paul Kengor tells of covert action, of economic warfare to successfully persuade the Saudis to manipulate the price of oil to weaken the Soviets, to finish them off economically. The Reagan administration kept this 1985- 1986
campaign secret throughout the rest of his term and beyond. The media, Congress, the Democrats etc, never knew.
Maybe I should have said that instead of Reagan appealing to the King's emotion, that they were already united in their hatred of Soviet Atheism and the fact that they jailed and suppressed religious believers. This common ground certainly played a part because the book stresses that the Saudis (especially Prince Bandar) hated the Soviets in this regard and that they wanted to "smash" the Soviets in "any way" because of this.
Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-11-16 11:05:24 PM
I hope the farmers don't even think of going to Edmonton.
Posted by: TM | 2010-11-16 11:28:27 PM
Fair enough StanleyR, but why did the Saudis keep oil prices low after the fall of communism? Why did prices shoot up only in the early 2000s? I'm not saying that anti-communism wasn't part of the reason, I'm saying that the bigger reason was Reagan's de-regulation of the oil market in 1981. You can trace the fall of oil prices almost to the week of his inauguration, when he issued the first executive orders on oil. Prices only started to climb again when Chinese demand took off around the year 2000.
Posted by: Publius | 2010-11-17 7:28:46 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.