“Cutting the Throat of Whiteness”: The Suffering of White South Africans May Redeem the West

“The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice.”

These are the words of Julius Malema, the head off South Africa’s Economic Freedom Fighters party/gang. To use a contemporary cultural reference point, Malema is essentially the Killmonger to Nelson Mandela’s to T’challa, a more nuanced take on Black power, but both of which have proved symbiotic.

The words in the quote came in a speech supporting a new bill that was overwhelmingly passed  by the South African Parliament by 241 votes to 83 that makes it now legal for the South African government to seize land and other property without compensation.

The bill was brought before parliament by Malema, who also said, “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land” 400 years ago. And even more ominously: “We are cutting the throat of Whiteness.”

The ANC, seeing the enormous opportunities for graft and personal enrichment as happened in Zimbabwe where the main beneficiaries were politically connected to Mugabe, quickly fell in line, coming up with some choice phrases of their own.

ANC deputy chief whip Dorries Eunice Dlakude said, “the current policy instruments, including the willing-buyer willing-seller policy and other provisions of Section 25 of the Constitution may be hindering effective land reform,” while ANC rural affairs minister Gugile Nkwinti added, “The ANC unequivocally supports the principle of land expropriation without compensation. There is no doubt about it, land shall be expropriated without compensation.”

Behind all this is the assumption fostered by Leftists in the West that Africa was Wakanda before the White man arrived. Here we see the “We was kangz” narrative in all its untruth and malice, weaponized  for a racist attack on White people, rather than as a source of cheap laughs for Alt-Righters. Remember. before Whites came to South Africa, most of the Land was unoccupied, certainly by the Bantus who had displaced the Khosian people, a hunter-gatherer group with low population density who had been driven into the interior in the early stages of Boer colonization), while all of it was completely under-utilized. It only became productive and able to support South Africa’s swollen population at the hand of the Boer.

It is easily forgotten that in 1868 Whites were half the population and there were more Whites than Black Africans. As Lara Johnstone,  a South African activist on behalf of White refugees, wrote in TOO:

The advocates of a Boer Apartheid republic understood that exponential African population growth would, if unopposed, lead to them being ethno-culturally swamped — a major concern also of prominent Israelis …. To do nothing amounted to ‘national suicide’ of White South Africans. They also saw the breeding campaign as an act of war. Apartheid was their political Just War of Self Defense.

The choice before us is one of these two divergent courses: either that of integration, which would in the long run amount to national suicide on the part of the Whites; or that of apartheid, which professes to preserve the identity and safeguard the future of every race, with complete scope for everyone to develop within its own sphere while maintaining its distinctive national character.— Dr. D.F. Malan’s National Party in 1947. (1964-01-10: ICJ: Ibid (www.icj-cij.org): Counter-Memorial filed by Gov. of the Rep. of S. Africa (Books I-IV), p.473) …

Judge Jason G. Brent’s response to an individual doubting that the implementation of Apartheid was an act of Just War makes it clear that he, and by extension the pro-Apartheid movement, saw the ANC’s breeding campaign as act of war:

We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.

Indeed, it looks as if this core truth will be made apparent again by the future agricultural prospects of such land under black ownership — at least until the Chinese come in, as they have done in Zimbabwe, and re-introduce an element of productivity.

But the main point here is that such a blatant racist attack has been carried out on White people without a murmur of protest from anyone in the West. I am unaware of any government protesting this, let alone doing anything about it through sanctions or the threat of military action, which is much more merited than our saber-rattling against North Korea. The Left, of course, has been silent, secure in their insane narrative that racism can’t occur without power and the accompanying belief that Blacks can’t be powerful because….well, just because.

With some exceptions (certainly not including the neocon mouthpiece, The Weekly Standard), the Conservative movement has also said nothing, while even the Alt Lite have mainly just grumbled about it with a view to getting more views on YouTube that they desperately hope won’t be demonetized.

In short, it is clear that where our people are being most severely attacked by extreme racism, they are completely defenseless. The fact that Whites are a minority in South Africa is a necessary component of their victimization—a very ominous sign for the future of Whites throughout the Western world (including Western Europe) given current population projections.

In the debate preceding this crass extension of racist Black power, Pieter Groenewald, leader of the Freedom Front Plus Party, which tries it best to represent the White Afrikaner minority, pathetically asked what would happen once the land was expropriated.

“If you continue on this course, I can assure you there is going to be unforeseen consequences that are not in the interest of South Africa,” he said.

Essentially the only defense available against the political criminals was to say, “stealing this might not be to your profit in some ill-defined future.” Next time you’re confronted by a mugger, try that line. Just say “Taking my wallet might be economically bad for you in the long run.”

Of course, in a broader philosophical sense, this is undoubtedly true, because the thief is more likely to benefit himself if he gives up his thievery and develops healthy economic habits, like actual hard work etc. But the reason a thief is a thief is because he’s not able to follow that course. That is the kind of population and kleptocracy that White South Africans now find themselves faced with, without any leverage or support from the wider West to restrain them.

For the first 20 years of post-apartheid South Africa (as in the first 20 years after Rhodesia became Zimbabwe), it could be said that Blacks retained a sense of awe and respect for Whites, as well as a suspicion that the White countries that had pressured their co-racialists into ANC rule would somehow stand by them. But over that period these feelings have been slowly chipped away, both by changes in Western culture and by events on the ground in South Africa. Think what kind of signal Obama sent out to a people who would never elect a White man to rule over them.

Also important was the incessant stream of farm murders, each one carried out with unbelievable savagery. While much of the sadism employed in these atrocities is endemic to Africa and, yes, Africans, part of it at least seems like a “shit test” to the West, an attempt to twist the tail of the White Western tiger to see if it was truly asleep while its cubs were mangled before it.

Receiving the message of apathy, mixed with the “cuck signals” sent out by White deference to BLM and Wakanda, the criminals of the EFF and ANC felt empowered to strike.

White South Africans are the most tragic and potentially the most important people on Earth now, as their imminent betrayal and sacrifice — which will come not only in property expropriated, but in further economic humiliation, degradation, brutal oppression and bloodshed — may finally serve to demonstrate to the widest possible audience the lies of the Left and also disarm the victim narratives that have been used so successfully against us. Before we can be the avengers, it seems we first need to be the victims, and in South Africans, sadly, we have our vanguard.

Read the original here:

“Cutting the Throat of Whiteness”: The Suffering of White South Africans May Redeem the West

Related Post

March 7, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."