THE CASE OF SOUTH AFRICA -WRITTEN BY GABRIEL FROM ARGENTINA!!

[Nat Quinn]

South Africa is a land populated by a great variety of races and ethnicities, which are found in disparate numbers. Of these, only one can be considered the indigenous race: the Koisan, located in the Cape region, who today are found in very small numbers. All other groups have colonised the country, some by land and some by sea. Of these groups, the Bantus (blacks) make up the majority and are divided into multiple tribes that have maintained historical rivalries as elsewhere in Africa. The Europeans (whites), on the other hand, also have divisions that have led to conflict and confrontation in the past.

Faced with this situation, there were only two ways to administer the territory, either by unifying it as one nation or by dividing it into several nations. To govern a society as diverse as a nation through universal suffrage would lead to the majority group despotically dominating the others, which is why the second option was chosen and it was determined that each group would occupy the place where it had historically been established so that it could inhabit, progress and be the master of its destiny without any kind of interference.

The UN did not take kindly to the creation of homelands for the various Bantu tribes and refused to recognise them. International leftism, pursuing its personal interests, used the Africans for its own purposes, backing guerrillas in order to take over a territory that, in addition to all its natural wealth, had a strategic location, since the crude oil that was destined for Europe had to inevitably pass through the Indian Ocean, so that if communism gained power, it had the possibility of drying up the West of oil.

Considering the forced relocations by the Soviet government of populations supposedly hostile to the regime such as the Cossacks or the Volga Germans, among others, to areas of difficult survival in order to get rid of or ethnically cleanse the territory of these peoples, or the “villagisation” (relocation of peasants) implemented by the Marxist government of Mengistu in Ethiopia, as well as the way the Han majority in China treats the Uighur minority, I have serious doubts about the supposed “humanitarianism and solidarity” of communism towards the Bantus as a justification for financing guerrilla groups opposed to the Pretoria government.

In the end, the tribal homelands project was aborted, and all the inhabitants were united into one nation, which brought to power a majority with many grudges against the other groups, which would later manifest themselves in their policies.

Since the Bantus gained power through the African National Congress in 1994, South Africa has been ruled by the same party. The new government pursued affirmative action policies towards the majority group, economically disadvantaging whites, Colored’s (mixed race) and Asians (Hindus).

South Africa has become one of the most violent countries on the planet, where crime and ethnic and racial hate crime is rife, and this is to be expected given that the ANC (African National Congress) is a Marxist organisation and as such follows traditional leftist politics: “the bad guy attacks and oppresses the good guy because he hates the good guy, the good guy has to take power away from him and take revenge on the bad guy”, therefore, no matter whether Mandela had the desire to “unite the nation” or not, this would never have been real. Even the ANC turned against many of its white allies.

Frederick De Klerk, the last white president of South Africa, who freed Nelson Mandela, shared the Nobel Peace Prize with him and legalised the ANC, in other words, it was he who put an end to apartheid, has recently been considered part of the “bad guys” for committing a crime of political incorrectness by claiming that apartheid was not a genocide against humanity.

In the face of such “heresy”, the far-left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) said that De Klerk was a racist with “blood on his hands”, that he should be stripped of his privileges, and that he was a “racist”. that he should be stripped of his privileges and the Nobel Peace Prize he won alongside Nelson Mandela.

It is necessary to remember again that it was Mr. De Klerk who made possible all the political reforms enjoyed by the gentlemen of the EFF, and that, like everyone else, he has the right to express his opinion and whoever does not like it can disagree, but not be denied that right.

“But De Klerk’s opinion was offensive and hurt sensitivities.” It’s a good thing that the sayings not so long ago coming from the mouth of Julius Malema (leader of the EFF) “We don’t want to kill whites, at least for now” or his idea of expropriating land from whites without compensation, are not offensive at all and what is worse, they are not “opinions” but ideas that can be put into effect.

But there was something in De Klerk’s opinion that was even more disturbing, (besides stating as he had done in 1993, and was accepted at the time by the African National Congress but not by the South African Communist Party, that the apartheid rulers had no bad intentions in implementing the policies of Separate Development), and was to say that most of the deaths during the period from 1960 to 1994 were due to political violence, mainly the conflict between the Inkatha Freedom Party, the Zulu nationalist party led by Gatsha Buthelezi and the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela, and not to the action of the security forces. In fact, more than half of the deaths occurred between 1990 and 1994, when Separate Development was in its final stages.

That was too much, don’t you know that the official story should not be questioned? No, no sir, that is inadmissible!!!! We Argentines know well the possible consequences of contradicting or doubting the sacred word imparted by the progressive state.

The De Klerk Foundation defended itself from criticism by arguing that the UN during the 1960s and 1970s had assigned that consideration to Separate Development under pressure from the Soviet Union, which surely did not please the “good” gentlemen.

Already in 2012, De Klerk suffered a similar episode when he expressed a favorable opinion on Separate Development. Again, he apologised, but noted: “What I do not apologise for is the original idea of bringing justice to all South Africans through the creation of race-segregated nation-states within the territory of South Africa.

A few days later, South African model Tshidi Tamana issued a very “correct” opinion: that “all whites should be killed”.

Hellen Zille, an anti-apartheid activist in her youth, current leader of the Democratic Alliance party and voted in 2008 as the world’s best mayor by the World Mayor organisation, was punished for political incorrectness after saying that colonialism was not all bad, as it provided the colonised peoples with technical advances that improved their quality of life, and that she had to resign from her party’s leadership positions.

Was Mrs. Zille wrong? But if the natives of Africa received from the colonisers all the infrastructure, technological innovations, health resources and benefits available to them today, even the current rulers of South Africa preside over the white-built country they condemn so much.

This was not the only problem Ms. Zille has had with political correctness. In June this year (2020), she posted on twitter that in South Africa today “there are more racist laws than there were under apartheid.”

Her criticism of the current South African government cost her an ANC correspondent, Dakota Legote, who demanded that the Democratic Alliance party discipline the lady who suffers from “hangovers of a white supremacist agenda”.

In South Africa today, as we have mentioned, we have a “unified” country in which the majority race concentrates its power for its own benefit, especially for those who directly exercise power, plunging the nation into violence, to the point of being one of the countries with one of the highest intentional murder rates in the world.  The South African state, as we also mentioned, foments racial hatred against whites, and other groups as well, through its revanchist discourses, and what does the world’s left do? Shut up or back up, where are the anti-racists to march? They are not, because the fact that a black person assaults a white person is not an act of racial hatred, because black is “good” and white is “bad” in the leftist religion, and freedom of speech? Bigoted” views cannot be allowed, with the definition of bigoted based on contradiction to the single dominant view of every leftist government.

The reality of the white person in South Africa is far worse than that of an African American in the United States, he is considered an enemy even if he supports leftism, he is affected by positive discrimination which, unlike in the United States and as we said earlier, in South Africa is used in favour of the ruling majority and to the detriment of minority groups, and in recent years it has been proposed to implement a Mugabe-style land reform, which consists of confiscating land from whites without compensation. A policy that would not only harm the descendants of Europeans, since ANC president Gwede Mantashe said in 2018 that no one should own more than 25,000 acres of land, and if that limit is exceeded, the government could proceed with expropriation without any right to compensation, a fact that will affect black farmers who own extensive land and who have criticised the measure to be implemented.

And what are the whites demanding from the ANC government? That their corresponding human rights be respected and, for many of them (increasingly), that they be given a territory in which to establish their own homeland, where they can live according to their culture without the risk of being killed or harmed by any government policy, just as the white government did to every Bantu tribe during the apartheid era of Separate Development.

But let’s leave the whites aside for a minute. What about the Coloureds? They are affected in the same way as whites by old grudges. While in the past the Bantus did not tolerate the mixed-race people, now they are accused of having supported or benefited from the old regime, it is worth mentioning that many Coloureds voted for the National Party (the representative party of the white government and the Separate Development) in the 1994 elections.  The same thing happens in Argentina when the leftist government targets a particular sector or a particular person and resorts to the slogan “supported the military dictatorship” or “benefited from the military dictatorship”. Therefore, the mestizos are “bad” for having been “friends of the bad guys” and therefore deserve a justified sanction by the current government of the “good guys”.

I think it is important to note that the half-breeds are partly descended from the Koisans, the indigenous people of South Africa, who were displaced by the Bantus, the current rulers, in their incursions into the region, an attitude that leftism likes to call and condemn as “genocidal imperialism” when carried out by a certain specific group. I have not read so far a progressive repudiation of this.

The Asian (Hindu) community is also the target of ANC attacks on the charge of having collaborated with or benefited from the former regime. In fact, they are currently being targeted for violence by looters who are supporters of former president Jacob Zuma and have had to arm themselves to defend their businesses and property from vandals who believe they are entitled to the fruits of other people’s labour.

Returning again to affirmative action or positive discrimination in South Africa, which, we repeat, exclusively disadvantages all minority groups: whites, Asians and mixed race, when in the rest of the world such a policy is used to benefit minorities, I did not hear a single left-wing organisation protesting against this measure. Because in this case, the fact that a majority oppresses minorities is not a bad thing because let’s remember that racism and discrimination are for the leftist concrete facts and not actions, if the fact is that a white majority or minority rules over a black minority or majority, that is racism, the opposite case is not, therefore, not all discrimination is bad, there is also good depending on the situation, like the current one in South Africa. Can you imagine if the United States had a policy of positive discrimination towards whites?

Roelof “Pik” Botha, a former foreign minister in the National Party government, a critic of apartheid and a member of the African National Congress since 2000, who died in 2018, said: “Discrimination against young whites, who have had nothing to do with apartheid, was definitely not part of the agreement between the NP (National Party) and the ANC. Neither was discrimination against whites, mixed-race people and Hindus”. He also said that the agreement could never have been implemented if the ANC had insisted on its positive discrimination agenda, because “there was no agreement to remedy the injustices of the past by creating injustices in the present”.

But what about violence between Bantus or blacks themselves?

What about the clashes between Zulus and Xhosas, what about the infamous “necklaces” of Mrs Winnie Mandela, what about the victims of the thugs of the Mandela United Football Club (Mrs Mandela’s praetorian guard), such as the 14-year-old black boy Stompie Moeketsi?  What about the current incidents that are taking place due to the arrest of former President Jacob Zuma for refusing to testify on corruption charges against him, fueled by the old tribal hostilities, which already have more than 270 dead, and which have mainly affected the Bantu population, who must make up a good number of the victims and who will suffer from the loss of jobs and food shortages caused by looting and destruction of businesses?

And what about the xenophobic attacks by South African Bantus on immigrants of their own race from other African countries in search of a better quality of life, because, despite the fact that the economic situation has worsened considerably since the ANC took over, South Africa is still better off than its neighbours? Why are old scenes always shown of clashes between groups of Africans and the police of the former Pretoria government and not of the current situation which has already left several dead and seems to be escalating?

There is a curious fact that needs to be commented on.  In apartheid times, Africans from neighbouring countries were desperate to enter South Africa, and indeed Zambia, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Angola and Mozambique, the latter two with leftist governments, lived mainly on remittances from their South African-based citizens. This was confirmed to me by a young Senegalese man with whom I became friends, and it was because at that time South Africa was the only country in sub-Saharan Africa with a black middle class. Why is it not the same in the “socialist paradises” such as Cuba and Venezuela? It really is a mystery.

“But what about apartheid? Separate Development has been losing presence since the 1970s until it was virtually eliminated in 1994, at the time of the ANC’s rise to power.   And it should also be remembered that this policy was supported by many African leaders such as the brothers George and Kaiser Matanzima, nephews of Nelson Mandela, the latter of whom argued that black liberation would be achieved through a federation of semi-autonomous tribal nations.  Moreover, is it not the policy of homelands that the Mapuche are currently demanding from the Argentine and Chilean states, with the full sympathy of leftism and the UN?

“But most of the land is in the hands of the whites. Let us hope for the sake of that country that they do not adopt the same “redistribution” policies as their neighbours.

In conclusion, today’s South Africa is a nation that inherited an economic and industrial infrastructure from the former National Party government, which, let us remember, put an end to Separate Development, as stated by former President De Klerk, whose actions won him the Nobel Peace Prize and to whom the current rulers are indebted. It is obvious that in a society as culturally diverse as South Africa’s, each group will have a particular view of a particular historical event.

To draw a parallel between the South African situation and the Argentine situation, what would be for the ruling party in South Africa the whites, mestizos and Hindus, would be for the current leftist government in Argentina the business class, the middle class and the Argentine Rural Society, groups that should be punished and repudiated for an alleged wrong done to the “people” (to use the word with which leftists like to define themselves and their voters) in times past.

As we said, today in South Africa a majority rules tyrannically over minorities without the world being too bothered by the simple moral role that each of the groups is assigned by global political correctness and the politically correct who rule that nation. It seems to be more fashionable to fight against a phantom such as American “white systemic racism” than against the real institutional racism of the current South African government. A “White Lives Matter”, a “Coloureds Lives Matter”, an “Asians Lives Matter”, and even a “Black Lives Matter” is really needed there, as the Bantus are not very happy with the new “rainbow nation” either, and affirmative action laws such as the Employment Equity Act have not benefited them as much as they had hoped, as the aforementioned Roelof “Pik” Botha put it: “The boomerang effect of the Employment Equity Act is that masses of blacks remain unskilled and unemployed, and that the economic progress of the country is severely hampered by the skills shortage. This affects millions more blacks than whites”.

It is quite clear that what South Africa needs is an “All lives matter” but it seems to be of no commercial interest to the designers of “noble causes”.

From what we have seen, we can appreciate that the abolition of tribal homelands and the unification of all racial groups into one nation has not been a wise policy, as it was detrimental to all except those who have managed to seize power.

The way to achieve coexistence is not through sanctioning policies but by renouncing them, because they do not benefit any of the actors involved, for if farmers are killed, land expropriated and shops destroyed, there will be no food and no prosperity for anyone. Only the recognition of our differences, mutual respect for them, the reciprocal right to preserve and practice one’s own culture, and a joint vision for the future, can allow diversity and harmony to reign.

“South Africa is like a zebra, if the white parts are attacked, the black parts will also die.

Ronald Reagan

[Author]

Posts