- This topic is empty.
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
-
Posts
-
“Kill the Boer” and Elon’s Brave Stand
A Note to Our Readers: Thanks to Elon Musk’s comments on the issue, the topic of white genocide in South Africa has risen to the fore of the culture war. Because of the importance of that issue, one the MSM refuses to cover honestly, we’re interrupting the next article in the Epstein series to release this special report on US culpability in southern Africa’s white genocide problem.
Thanks largely to the positive press regarding the 2010 World Cup and propaganda surrounding former South African leader Nelson Mandela, many in the West view South Africa as the “Rainbow Nation.” According to that unfounded but general impression, post-apartheid South Africa is where racism died, and now the nation’s various tribes and ethnic groups – Zulus, Boers, Indians, and Anglos – get along and are together building a bright and diverse future. That’s a lie. The truth is that South Africa is anything but a beautiful nation of successful and peaceful diversity. Rather, it’s a nation at war with itself, as recent videos of the EFF chanting “kill the Boer,”1 Elon’s comments about the video,2 and attempts to defend it3 show.
The truth is that South Africa is a land where affirmative action on steroids has impoverished the country. It has turned the white lower class into denizens of slums more horrific than any that existed under apartheid4 while the nation’s remaining white farmers are murdered with impunity by thugs. What was once the continent’s dominant economy is now a center of injustice, genocide, and human suffering.
This article will discuss the culpability of American foreign policy as to what is now happening in South Africa and how that same foreign policy began the process of white genocide in Rhodesia.
Andy Young, Rhodesia, and the Beginnings of the Genocide
Rhodesia was a little land that sat north of South Africa and west of Mozambique. Explored by the famous hunter and adventurer Courtney Selous5 and founded by the Cecil Rhodes-led British South Africa Company,6 it succeeded tremendously as a country in the first half of the twentieth century. In fact, it became one of the few countries in the Dark Continent to industrialize7 and produce enough food to export. Under the aegis of the Brits who settled it, men who prided themselves on being “more British than the British,”8 it became the “breadbasket of Africa”9 and a rare land of opportunity for those of talent, black or white, in a continent torn asunder by decolonization and the violence it brought.10
YourJohneePacket36, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Rhodesia never had an apartheid system like South Africa.11 All those who proved their responsibility by meeting a land ownership threshold could vote,12 and so the little land north of the Limpopo had a thriving democracy characterized by free and fair elections. Further, thanks to the stable, western-style government, Rhodesia was spared the ethnic conflicts that drenched the rest of the continent in blood in the mid-60s.
So, you might think that the United States would defend such a land when it came under attack by genocidal rebels backed by the Soviet Union and China13 during the middle of the Cold War. Sadly, that was not the case. When the nation came under attack in the mid-60s and began its famous Bush War,14 the US embargoed the brave, little land.15 Then, when it was cut off from the sea with the fall of Portuguese Mozambique,16 the US actively hastened the demise of the one free country in the continent via political machinations that empowered its communist rebels at the expense of moderate, pro-Western leaders.
US enmity toward the Republic of Rhodesia was largely the responsibility of Andy Young, a former civil rights leader turned America’s UN Ambassador from January 1977 to September 1979. While in that position, he was known for being “lenient toward communist tyranny”17 and took the lead on US policy toward Rhodesia. When Young took charge, Rhodesia was trying to end its war with African rebels with a conciliatory, election-focused strategy.
As Rhodesia tried to find a non-genocidal way out of its troubles, Young supported the two Marxist militants, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo, over the two moderate options. Those moderates were WWII hero Ian Smith18 and Bishop Abel Muzorewa. Smith had been the PM for years, actively leading the fight for freedom and negotiations over his land’s future. Muzorewa, meanwhile, had won a free and fair election in 1979.19 The Nation, at the time, described Abel Muzorewa’s election as “undeniably mobilized a genuine outpouring of sentiment for peace among black Rhodesians.”20
Despite that moderate electoral victory, one which could have kept the country together and functional, Young refused to accept the 1979 election. Instead, he called the election of non-communist Muzorewa “neofascist.”21 Young also described Soviet-supported Nkomo,22 who later shot down two civilian airliners and bayoneted the survivors,23 as “conciliatory.”24
Young then supported25 Mugabe in the next election, which was characterized by Mugabe’s men intimidating voters; Lord Christopher Soames, charged by the British with overseeing the election, found that “the scale of intimidation in eastern Rhodesia [bordering Mozambique, which had sheltered Mugabe’s ZANU guerrillas] was massive. . . . The mere presence of Mugabe’s guerrillas in the villages was enough to deter the local population from showing support for any party other than ZANU.“26 Regardless of the campaign of intimidation, Young defended Mugabe. At the time, Young said, “I find that I am fascinated by his intelligence, by his dedication. The only thing that frustrates me about Robert Mugabe is that he is so damned incorruptible.”27 He also described Mugabe as a “very gentle man” in that interview.28 In another statement, he described Mugabe “as a world statesman and future leader of the nonaligned countries.”29 Meanwhile, Mugabe indicated his tyrannical leanings and said “the multiparty system is a luxury” before adding he would “have to reeducate” those that don’t support Marxism.30
Young continued supporting Mugabe even as Mugabe’s regime went from potentially tyrannical to outright genocidal. First came the genocide of the Ndebele people, an African ethnic group that had supported Mugabe’s rival Nkomo. That genocide occurred in 1982 and was called the “Gukurahundi.”31 Mugabe wanted to eliminate his rival’s base of support, so he ethnically cleansed Zimbabwe of the tribe that had supported Nkomo during the Bush War and post-war political process. Though Mugabe later tried to pass off the incident as his soldiers acting overzealously, the campaign continued for years and was characterized by rape, torture, massacres, and destruction of villages.32 Further, an Australian researcher Stuart Doran found, in diplomatic cables, that Mugabe’s Fifth Brigade was acting “under Mugabe’s explicit orders.”33 Rather than criticize the genocide, Young then appeared alongside Mugabe in a 1983 trip Mugabe made to the United States and continued advocating on his behalf.34
Meanwhile, Mugabe continued to wage a war of terror on his own people, particularly white farmers and opposing tribes, as The Jerusalem Post reported:
“War crimes have occurred in Zimbabwe and I challenge anyone who disputes this to interview Zimbabweans in South Africa, the two million who have run away from Mugabe in fear of death. Interview them, and don’t take my word for it. A British documentary by Panorama documenting massacres and torture in 80s Zimbabwe does exist. As well as a detailed report by the Catholic Commission in 1997. Mugabe’s war crimes are not limited to Gukura- Hundi, Muramba-Tswina, Chiadza affair, the rape of Judith Garfield Todd, are just a few examples, but are an ongoing concern to all who believe in the equality of human rights and the application of international law regardless of the color of the victim’s skin or tribe.”35
Then came Mugabe’s confiscation of land, which involved the wholesale theft of farms cultivated for generations by families of farmers. That “land reform” involved mass murder, rape, and other atrocities and injustices, mainly committed against Rhodesia’s white population.36 Young defended the “land reform,” saying, “President Mugabe is doing much better to manage this situation than the British government is doing managing Ireland.”37 He then hand-waved away the murder that occurred, saying, “I think it was in the tradition of civil disobedience, but unfortunately the hostilities between the veterans and the land owners was rather volatile and people were killed.“38
Young has continued to support Mugabi in recent years. In 2008, The New Republic quoted him as lying and ridiculously claiming that Mugabe doesn’t steal, leading that outlet to say, “Young, with the soft voice and the doe eyes, long ago turned into a cash carnivore, fronting for Africa’s tyrants in corporate board rooms and congressional offices.”39 It added, “Well, he does steal, and from his own people. And he maims and murders them, too.”40
Later, in 2013, Young described those who opposed what happened as unenlightened, saying, “Very few people by then were enlightened about the struggles in southern Africa in particular the struggle for independence in South West Africa (now Namibia), Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South Africa.”41 In the same 2013 interview, Young gushed about Mugabe when he met him during the Bush War, adding that Mugabe, the man behind the ethnic cleansing of the Ndebele and white farmers, was a saint. He said, “I said people who are leading these movements are saints. Mugabe was a sober and highly principled man, so was Robert Sobukwe and many others. I even said I doubted if they could ever pull the trigger of a gun!”42
So, throughout it all, Young covered for, defended, and spoke on behalf of terrorists. Despite Mugabe’s genocide of the Ndebele, ethnic cleansing of whites, and “one man, one vote, one time” political system, Young defended him through the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s, as the great tragedies of southern Africa unfolded.
That support for Mugabe, particularly after his seizure and consolidation of power, came alongside an “ethnic cleansing,” or genocide, of the white population, which fell from 300,000 at its peak to under 30,000 now.43 That mass murder and pushing out of the white population is the very definition of genocide.
Sadly, it wasn’t just Andy Young that stayed silent as Mugabe carried out campaigns of genocide against both the Ndebele people and the white Rhodesians. Ronald Reagan, the supposed arch anti-communist, met and laughed with Mugabe in 1983 and, during a speech he gave during Mugabe’s visit, was generally complimentary.44 Similarly, HW Bush and Bill Clinton did nothing as Mugabe stole the land from and killed white farmers throughout the 90s as part of the land redistribution campaign. George Bush did nothing as the theft continued and violence45 against white farmers and their farm workers escalated. By the end of the Bush presidency, the violence was mostly over and the genocide had been completed.
Only during the Trump presidency did the Zimbabwean government start returning stolen land to white farmers.46
South Africa: Following in the Footsteps of Rhodesia
Understanding the course of events in Rhodesia is important because, after it fell to the communists and the genocide began, much the same thing happened in South Africa.
The process began with Nelson Mandela, a politician lionized by the Western press as a “healer” of the country’s woes who rose to power after apartheid ended. The truth about Mandela is much darker than the media’s propaganda would have you believe.
For one, South Africa imprisoned Mandela not because he believed in civil rights and equality but because he was the head of the military wing of the ANC, called Umkhonto we Sizwe.47 As if to prove is bloodthirsty credentials, he signed off on the infamous Church Street bombing, which murdered 19 people.48 Similarly, his wife, Winnie Mandela, supported using the cruel form of torture and execution, necklacing, to kill political opponents of the ANC.49
Despite that murderous history, America supported Mandela. For example, in 1986, a few years after Carter attacked the South African government, Congress overrode Reagan’s veto and passed a sanctions bill to pressure the South African government to change its political system,50 a sanctions plan that helped put Mandela in power.51 Mandela then came to America in 1990 and, despite his murderous history, was cheered by the American people and members of Congress.52
Reagan, perhaps having learned his lesson from not stopping Mugabe, spoke in favor of the South African government. He told CBS he supported the South African government because it was “a country that has stood by us in every war we’ve ever fought; a country that, strategically, is essential to the free world in its production of minerals.”53 But it was too little, too late. The ANC took power in 1994,54 in no small part thanks to the US, and disaster resulted.
Crime rose precipitously as the Zulu population viciously attacked South Africa’s Afrikaaner and Anglo populations, turning towns into war zones and formerly pristine and safe neighborhoods into slums wracked by violence and theft. Yet worse, murderous thugs roamed the countryside and murdered farmers by the dozens, leading to thousands of deaths of farmers in secluded, rural homes.
Here’s what the reality now is for South African whites, formerly citizens in the most successful nation in the dark continent:
All those attacks occur, as Elon noted,55 as members of the EFF, a radical political group, chant “kill the Boer!” Rod Dreher, describing that reality for Boers in a recent essay, said56:
Here, below, is the Marxist-Leninist black nationalist party singing “Kill The Boer” the other day. Imagine that you are a white farmer, a member of a small minority group in a country that is over 80 percent black. And you see a stadium full of people chanting for the murder of you and your family. How are you supposed to feel about that? The New York Times says you are a far-right idiot to notice. Are you willing to trust your life, and the life of your family, and your neighbors, to The New York Times?
That’s not the South Africa we were all taught to expect, is it?
One imagines that to be a white person in South Africa, watching this, is to be more or less in the position of a member of the black minority in the apartheid-era South, watching a Klan rally. I am not aware that that evil organization filled stadiums with Klansmen, though, and sang songs in praise of lynching. If they had done, the Times would have recognized that for what it was: straight evil.
But, of course, the American paper of note, The New York Times, didn’t condemn the “kill the Boer chant.” Rather, it defended it. In an article titled “‘Kill the Boer’ Song Fuels Backlash in South Africa and U.S.,” the NYT minimized the murders and song, saying57:
Right-wing commenters claim that an old anti-apartheid chant is a call to anti-white violence, but historians and the left-wing politician who embraces it say it should not be taken literally.
Continuing, the NYT went on to claim that the genocide of Boers, observable in the campaigns of murder against them, is just a conspiracy theory, saying:
“Kill the Boer!” Julius Malema chanted, referring to white farmers. The crowd in a stadium in Johannesburg on Saturday roared back in approval.
A video clip of that moment shot across the internet and was seized upon by some Americans on the far right, who said that it was a call to violence. That notion really took off when Elon Musk, the South African-born billionaire who left the country as a teenager, chimed in.
“They are openly pushing for genocide of white people in South Africa,” Mr. Musk, who is white, wrote on Monday on Twitter, the platform he now controls.
In recent years, people on the right in South Africa and the United States, including former President Donald J. Trump, have seized on attacks on white farmers to make the false claim that there have been mass killings.
Trump, for reference, was the only US president to take a strong stand against anti-white ethnic violence in southern Africa. He said,58 “I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.” @TuckerCarlson @FoxNews”
Predictably, the New York Times attacked Trump for that tweet at the time, minimizing the murders and injustice in the collapsing state. It said59:
But when Mr. Trump announced Wednesday night that he was directing his secretary of state to scrutinize what he said was the targeting of white farmers for land seizures and “large-scale killing” in South Africa, the president waded into a complex and politically charged debate.
And in doing that, he embraced a common talking point among white supremacists who claim white genocide is being perpetrated in South Africa and around the world.
The presidential tweet on Wednesday appeared to be the culmination of a lengthy lobbying effort by a right-wing South African group that falsely claims that white farmers are being systematically forced off their land and killed in large numbers. Its leaders traveled to Washington this year to press their case.
So, following in the demented footsteps of Andy Young, the New York Times is now taking the lead in defending campaigns of genocide against white people in Africa. The farm murders are clearly happening. The Boers are being exterminated, one family at a time, by murderous thugs.60
Yet the NYT, like Andy Young with Mugabe, attacks those who call out the murderers rather than the murderers themselves. And so, thanks to Congressional action and media cover, the Boers are on the verge of sharing the fate of the Rhodesians. Here’s how “South Africa is at War with Itself,” perhaps the best article on the current situation in the country, described what’s going on61:
According to some reports, over 50% of South Africans live in poverty on less than $2.00 a day. Some have no access to sanitation, water or electricity.
Many of them are the Afrikaners, the descendants of the early Dutch settlers who have become dispossessed and feel betrayed, defrauded and deprived of their rights and of their strong heritage and beliefs. A large number of South Africa’s farmers are Afrikaners who unbeknownst to the outside world have been brutally murdered, their wives tortured and raped; their children shot. The government fails to offer any protection to its white farmers and there was a popular EFP (Economic Freedom Party) song, called “Kill the Boer” that the Equality Court ruled “does not constitute hate speech”. People are free to continue singing it and during a debate in Parliament about the farm attacks and the plight of white farmers, an ANC Member of Parliament felt immune to shout:
“Bury them alive.”
The government’s solution for the White farmer is to be found in its policy of “Land Reform”. The ANC has vowed to expropriate white-owned land without compensation and redistribute that land to blacks who are not experienced in agriculture nor have the desire to farm.
While an Afrikaner replies to my question “What will become of the ‘Boere’?” that they will fight to the bitter end, a growing number of Afrikaner farmers are emigrating to Australia, Nigeria, the Congo and the former-Soviet state of Georgia, where their expertise and knowledge is in great demand.
At the end of the Apartheid, and the end of racial discrimination in 1994, there was joy and optimism and the promise of a unified society known as “The Rainbow Nation”.
This expression was coined by the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu describing post-apartheid South Africa with the assurance of a total multi-racial society and a country where everyone has the chance to prosper.
Well, not exactly and Nelson Mandela must be turning in his grave witnessing what has become of the ANC. A caricature of itself, this ‘movement for change’ has itself ‘changed’ having morphed into an organized criminal conspiracy, eviscerating the country of everything it had, and gutting its citizens of all they have left. Today, South Africa is a country of “74 murders and more than 100 rapes a day.” (Business Tech Feb 17, 2023). The police chiefs are corrupt and they do not care for the sanctity of life but rather how much they will collect from another bribe. Of course there are those that do care passionately, and those that give to the country and their communities.
This didn’t have to be the way colonization ended in southern Africa. The evil of apartheid could have been done away without putting murderous thugs in charge. Rhodesia could have remained a democracy rather than becoming a brutal dictatorship known for its genocidal campaign against white farmers and a rival African ethnic group. South Africa could be a functional country rather than an anarcho-tyranny-ridden hellhole where thugs murder, rape, and steal from the Boers with impunity as the country’s infrastructure collapses and its economy follows Zimbabwe’s down the drain. But, thanks in no small part to US foreign policy, the worst-case scenario is exactly what happened. And now crosses symbolizing the murders of white farmers line the roads of South Africa by the thousands:
Rustin, Bayard (July 1979). “The War Against Zimbabwe”. Commentary. Archived from the original on 2013-01-19.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Young : “Young’s favoring of Mugabe and Nkomo over Muzorewa and his predecessor and ally, Ian Smith, has been controversial. Many African-American activists, including Jesse Jackson and Coretta Scott King, supported the anticolonialism represented by Mugabe and Nkomo.”
SOURCE:How the United States Supported White Genocide in Southern Africa (theamericantribune.news)
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.