2,103 words
Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa
On February 7th President Trump issued an executive order which could be considered an act of pro-white foreign policy. In addressing the “egregious actions of the Republic of South Africa,” which enable its government “to seize ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation,” Trump has halted all foreign aid to South Africa. He has also offered to resettle South African Afrikaners “who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.”
This comes on the heels of South Africa’s Expropriation Act of 2024 which South African President Cyril Ramaphosa recently signed into law. This law allows the government broad powers to determine what property to expropriate, from whom, and for what reason. There’s even a provision stating that “property is not limited to land.” While some in the African media have attempted to spin the law as fair play, many white South Africans understand that anything short of a guarantee that the government will never expropriate land that is owned and in use by its citizens will ultimately provide the means by which the corrupt, anti-white government of South Africa will steal land from its white citizens.
And they’re not exactly being subtle about it, either. Here is the opening paragraph of the law (emphasis mine):
To provide for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest; to regulate the procedure for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest, including payment of compensation; to identify certain instances where the provision of nil compensation may be just and equitable for expropriation in the public interest.
“Nil compensation,” huh? In other words, theft. Imagine a mugger holding you up at gunpoint offering “nil compensation” for your wallet and wedding ring because he deems it more “just and equitable” that he own them instead of you. White South African farmers, who have been the victims of horrific crimes and murders since the fall of Apartheid—crimes which their government tolerates—are now expected to believe that in spite of this law, this very same government will listen to their better angels and not take over their land?
It’s beyond absurd.
This is why Trump did the right thing on February 7th. Yes, he also included language about South Africa’s anti-Israel posturing and the possibility of its developing “commercial, military, and nuclear arrangements” with Iran. When summarizing the order he did revert to generalities:
As long as South Africa continues to support bad actors on the world stage and allows violent attacks on innocent disfavored minority farmers, the United States will stop aid and assistance to the country.
And this is fine. But in the order itself, and in other places, Trump specifically mentions Afrikaners as potential victims of this law as well as victims of past abuses. And Afrikaners by definition are white. He also states in the above quote that they are innocent. This is a huge development for whites everywhere. For the first time since the fall of Apartheid, an American president has dared speak on behalf white South Africans, while simultaneously renouncing the stigma of white guilt. He’s also the first to punish a black government for being anti-white.
And Trump didn’t need to do this. He could have kept quiet about it and continued to dazzle his MAGA base with all the other wonderful things he has been doing since getting elected—and no one would have been the wiser. Instead, Trump decided to look out for his fellow whites, and not just with words, but with actions. And this coming from a president who is making his reputation on deporting rather than taking in immigrants. Yes, his sense of racial patriotism and race realism doesn’t rival Jared Taylor’s (let alone Theodore Bilbo’s), but what we are seeing right now is a vast improvement from what we’ve had for the past 40 years at least.
And is it me, or does it seem as if Trump is acting with some urgency as well?
The fallout so far has been . . . interesting.
Of course, the South African government denies that it would ever do anything as untoward as harming a single hair on any tow-headed, freckle-faced, rosy-cheeked, cute-as-the-dickens Afrikaner child. But of course they would say that. Their modus operandi for years has been to oppress the native whites on one hand, and bilk the foreign ones on the other. The South African government is a corrupt ANC cabal that tolerates overtly violent anti-white rhetoric from its black leaders. They also crack down on their white citizens who dare speak out against this. Lauren Southern’s excellent documentary Farmlands goes into this in great detail, but you can also check out the writings of Dan Roodt at American Renaissance or follow Boer on X for more on this grim topic. Vincent James has also been tweeting up a storm over this, and was recently re-tweeted by Elon Musk.
As for Trump’s overtures to the Afrikaners, AP and other news outlets gleefully report that the Afrikaners themselves are saying, “Thanks, but no thanks.”
On Saturday, two of the most prominent groups representing Afrikaners said they would not be taking up Trump’s offer of resettlement in the U.S.
“Our members work here, and want to stay here, and they are going to stay here,” said Dirk Hermann, chief executive of the Afrikaner trade union Solidarity, which says it represents around 2 million people. “We are committed to build a future here. We are not going anywhere.”
At the same press conference, Kallie Kriel, the CEO of the Afrikaner lobby group AfriForum, said: “We have to state categorically: We don’t want to move elsewhere.”
If you only skim the headlines, it would seem that the Afrikaners themselves are snubbing Trump, as if he’s getting his poufy hair askew for no reason at all. The article goes on to quote the South African government throwing shade at the idea that white farmers have it bad in South Africa. So anyone who’s too lazy or too busy to read the article in full will not realize that they’re only getting a tiny fraction of the story, and a skewed one at that.
Firstly, within hours of Trump’s announcement, 17,000 white South Africans contacted the South African Chamber of Commerce, looking to get out. And that number is expected to increase. So, yes, there are white South Africans who would love to flee to the United States. Like this guy.
Another thing to consider is that any refusal on the part of South African Boer farmers does not come from ingratitude. Nor does it have anything to do with Trump. Rather, most Afrikaner families go back many generations in Africa and therefore have strong ties to the land. The land is part of their identity and many would die before parting with it. British journalist Katie Hopkins gives a chilling rundown of this intransigent Boer mindset:
My new farming friends—big, bold Boers—whose grandfathers turned the bushveld into fertile land are now preparing to make one last stand. They are strapping in for the final fight. Preparing for a new battle: the river of blood. And they say they will die in their boots and spill their blood for the land. Because they will not leave the place of their fathers.
Another noteworthy response to Trump’s overtures came from Theo de Jager, the Executive Board chairman of SAAI – The Southern African Agriculture Initiative. De Jager penned an open letter to Trump in which he profusely thanked him for calling attention to the plight of the Boer farmers. He writes:
In your order, you made special provisions for Afrikaners to be given opportunities in the United States. We sincerely appreciate this, as many farmers in South Africa face dire circumstances—threats of land expropriation, increasing rural crime, and discriminatory access to financing and other critical resources. For some, the opportunity you have extended may be their only viable path forward.
That said, as a fundamental patriot yourself, you will understand our commitment to stay and fight for our home. Africa is in our blood, and despite the challenges, the vast majority of us have chosen to struggle within the ambit of our constitution.
So, many Afrikaners would prefer fight to flight. For this they should be commended, and I wish them the very best—as much as I would personally like to see them come to the United States. However, I was worried a bit by something that de Jager wrote later in his letter:
It is critical for you to understand that the tensions in our country are not simply a black-and-white issue. Many black family farmers, from other cultural communities, suffer just as much—if not more—under the weight of corruption, poor service delivery, and state inefficiencies. Families who are beneficiaries of land reform, and the traditional communities who share the rural spaces with our commercial farmers, are delivered to the same challenges as us, and often worse. Land reform in South Africa has failed to create a class of profitable black farmers, as they are often denied title deeds and left at the mercy of political elites and corrupt officials. The system has been captured, benefiting only a select few while leaving aspiring black commercial farmers and smallholders with little hope.
We respectfully ask that any future policies consider these realities and not punish hard-working black families who share our struggles.
Once again it’s time to play whack-a-mole with the demon NAXALT. Yes, this is mostly a black-and-white issue—at least as far as the Expropriation Act is concerned. We all know that, when compared to whites, blacks in the vast majority cases make for miserable farmers. I can lay out some evidence for this here, here, and here. We all know I could keep going.
Suffice it to say, we should realize that employing statistical anomalies as centerpieces in one’s argument makes one’s argument brittle. From the perspective of the lawmakers who created this Expropriation Act, it doesn’t matter if there are a handful of successful black farmers who suffer from “corruption, poor service delivery, and state inefficiencies.” What matters is that the government has now granted itself the right to take whatever it wants from its citizens whenever it wants as long as they claim it to be in the “public interest,” whatever that is. Given all the anti-white hate being spewed by various specimens of South Africa’s black leadership, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out who’s going to be overflowing with nil compensation in the near future.
When blacks say they want to redress the wrongs of Apartheid or colonialism, what they really mean is they want to take things away from white people. When they talk about “reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected” or granting “equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources” (to quote the current law) what they really want is to take things away from white people. When they talk about returning land to the people, they’re talking about taking land away from whites—because whites don’t count as people, you see. And this is not even going over all the genocidal rhetoric, murder, rape, and torture whites have had to put up with in South Africa.
Mr. de Jager and others may ask how Spencer J. Quinn in his comfy American perch can possess the elephantine stones to lecture a Boer farmer on the nature of blacks. Fair enough. But I have spent a quarter century in a part of the American South which is majority black. I know what their ruling elites always strive for, which is to take things from whites without having to pay for them. For example, welfare, head start programs, DEI, affirmative action, critical race theory, and a whole host of other initiatives which artificially empower blacks with entitlements and dehumanize whites with guilt, thus making us susceptible to legal theft—nil compensation, if you will.
I can only imagine the same kind of difficulties in South Africa, but a hundred times worse. Thus, I feel confident in extrapolating. Of course, I respect the decision of any white South African who wishes to stay and fight—one way or another—for their land, their rights, and their posterity. Lord knows, they deserve it. Such people are motivated by blood and soil, kith and kin, legacy and tradition. You can’t get more honorable than that. On the other hand, if hard-working, productive white South Africans wish to take Donald Trump up on his offer and make a go of it in America, I’ll be the first to say to them, welcome home.
34 comments
As I’ve said before, the USA should trade our Blacks for South Africa’s Whites. A long-standing race problem in two countries – solved!
-This is an idea I can get behind, provided it is the first step towards our Ethnostate.
-You are correct in that “we have to walk before we can run”. Our low ingroup preference got us into this mess. That has to be turned around, to reignite our will to survive.
As I’ve said before, Shame on the UK for cutting and running out to leave the White South Africans to face certain danger. Race realism was thrown out the window for “democracy” which was a pre-determined black run dystopia in the near future. Looks like the future is now.
According to Ian Smith, South Africa did the same thing to Rhodesia in the 1960s and 70s.
https://counter-currents.com/2022/08/ian-smiths-great-betrayal/
Yes, that is a good article. Thanks for the link. I will read again in light of current events.
The fact that Afrikaaners don’t want to be refugees or claim “asylum” like all these worthless third world brown people who just want to get on welfare and get free shit speaks volumes about the character of the White race. They should however see the writing on the wall and realize that getting out eventually might be the best course if they want any kind of future. It would be nice to have immigrants who aren’t complete parasites coming here for a change.
Yes, lots of tough, defiant talk from some of the Afrikaaners, and I am told they are heavily armed. But I expect the next move by the black run SA govt is to ban civilian weapons. Or provoke a shoot-out that leads to hysterical gun grabbing. After that happens, we will see about the tough guy talk. It is over for them and a bitter pill to swallow.
“They should however see the writing on the wall and realize that getting out eventually might be the best course if they want any kind of future.”
Definitely disagree. Immediate solution is Boer/Afrikaans separate to form their own nation. South Africa is twice the size of France, five times the size of UK. We should support Boers/Afrikaans having their own state.
Should have done that in 1994. Btw, they’ve been there since 1652 I believe.
Separation In Perpetuity.
That would be best, but it doesn’t seem likely. They’ve asked for autonomy, and the government refused. Staging an uprising would be a very bad idea, since they’re vastly outnumbered.
“They’ve asked for autonomy, and the government refused.”
Firstly, one does not ask for a divorce. Secondly, you say you are divorcing & then you go your own way (in this case you claim said territory as your new nation). Now, if you’re not left alone that means the enemy drew first blood & it’s war & the enemy is annihilated. Btw, that is a good cause we Americans can get behind & support, send money, send weapons, send troops. You know, just like we help & back Israel. Everybody join this topic, who is against or in favor of Boers/Afrikaans having their own nation in a new area of the large land mass (twice the size of France) now known as South Africa? I would bet there are Americans who would go help their Race set up their own Ethnostate.
South Africa does indeed have provisions whereby an ethnic community may request autonomy. The government has done so for various Black tribes, but denies this for Whites.
As for declaring independence and backing it with the force of arms if needed, the problem is that Whites (Afrikaners and British) are outnumbered there several times over. I don’t think it’s necessary to explain what could result from all that. If you study the region’s history, you’ll get some ideas of what it might involve.
I can’t speak for Trump, but assuming he were inclined to intervene militarily for the Boers, there are several problems with that. First, he’s only begun to clean house in the armed forces. Our military includes large numbers of Blacks, who obviously would have divided loyalties. Also, we’re not in great shape (either militarily or in terms of the public morale necessary to maintain a campaign) after two decades of neocon spit-in-your-eye wars in the Middle East. Also, the public is badly disunited, and he has plenty of irons in the fire already.
Who else could come to their aid? During the Rhodesian bush war, there were indeed some volunteers. Unfortunately, this didn’t affect the outcome, since there were not nearly enough Soldier of Fortune subscribers willing to drop what they were doing and shoot African terrorists in the veldt. I doubt things have improved. Our people have plenty of irons in the fire too. As for Britain, Keir Starmer surely would be delighted to intervene – on behalf of howling mobs of Blacks, of course. As for the EU, no way. As for Russia, South Africa is not their back yard, but even if Putin were willing to help, he has enough to deal with in his own back yard.
The present situation is terrible, but hasty moves could make things far, far worse. Trump’s offer of an escape route for embattled Whites is the best news they’ve had in three decades. At the moment, anything else would be putting the cart before the horse.
Beau Albrecht, your response (apparently there is no ‘reply’ option at your last comment which is the reason I clicked the ‘reply’ at mine) is logical. I checked to find out when the first European settlement occurred & this is what appeared:
“The first European settlement in southern Africa was established by the Dutch East India Company in Table Bay (Cape Town) in 1652. Created to supply passing ships with fresh produce, the colony grew rapidly as Dutch farmers settled to grow crops.”
My question is – how can we European Peoples from Europa to Australia stand down & allow our people to get murdered & kicked out of their country? Afterall, they built South Africa, it became the most successful country in Africa because it was created & built by & for Europeans. Obviously, the same is happening here regarding taking the land without compensation – what do you think reparations is! If we choose to follow South Africa to become a minority (which we are), I am sure we would want other Europeans to come to our aid. Again, how can we Europeans standby & allow our race to get murdered & denied their country in South Africa? Have we no shame? It’s a legitimate question. Should be a major topic.
To reiterate, we have to walk before we can run. I wish we could do everything we want all at once, but for now, we have to work with what we’ve got. Once we’ve cleaned house here, a process that’s just beginning, then we can start cleaning things up abroad.
Our legacy media is giving this virtually no exposure whatsoever.
Where are the cries of white supremacy from black politicians? Crickets.
Is it because revealing the truth to the world would be a massive confession of failure? It would reveal once again what happens when a first world country is handed over to blacks. It would also reveal how whites are treated in said country.
Is Elon Musk on the side of his South African brothers? Is he responsible for this?
Based on his retweets I would say Musk is.
It’s really incredible you still have Whites in South Africa who express sympathy for the “good blacks” in the country, “they’re not all bad!”.
Just goes to show how far Whites’ suicidal altruism can go.
That may have been a PR ploy aimed at deracinated global White audiences. And it may have been true: perhaps there are civilized black farmers facing land seizures just like the Whites (even if the seizures are of course mainly directed at stealing from Whites).
Off topic: Today (Feb. 13/25) is the 80th anniversary of the start of the bombing of Dresden. 25,000 or 250,000 – why would anyone argue that it matters. It was an act of vindictiveness and nothing else.
https://www.tracesofwar.com/sights/22548/Grave-Sir-Arthur-Harris.htm
“The Nazis entered the war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else and no-one was going to bomb them.” Bomber Harris.
The irrefutable evidence is that Britain bombed Germany several times before Germany responded. The irrefutable evidence is that Britain wanted a war against Germany at all cost as Britain refused every peace offer Hitler made. At Dunkirk Hitler let the Allies go back, he could have taken them all as POWs.
Rudolf Hess flew to Britain (May 10, 1941) on a mission to stop the war only for Churchill to imprison him. Hess died in prison.
The evidence is all out there, why haven’t more British people discovered the truth?
The Brits all think World War II was their finest moment. They’ll never take responsibility for their own role in causing it (and letting it get totally out of control).
As encouraging as this is, it seems obvious that it is retaliation against South Africa for bringing those genocide charges against Israel or whatever it was they did, chipping away at South Africa’s moral legitimacy, so to speak. “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” is an old Yiddish saying appropriate for us.
Why is that obvious?
Well, criticism of sa was absolutely verboten, the one inviolate perfect nation, trump never said anything about it in his first term, then sa got rowdy towards Israel, and now this. Idk. Seems like an association most of us would make. I mean I could be wrong, but it seems like the kind of cause and effect that governs politics.
Wouldn’t the more obvious association be that Musk is South African?
That could be a factor, but is there any evidence Musk ever talked about this issue before? I don’t know that much about him, I’m asking. And if you read Spencer’s article, Trump included language about sa’s anti Israel stance. That’s a big hint. I don’t mean to belabor this.
My first thoughts exactly as well.
Trump’s move is nothing more than another bait and switch for the Jews of Palestine. He did this in his first terms as well, moaning on Twitter about the murder of white South African farmers and then doing absolutely nothing about it (meanwhile, appeasing Bibi by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, etc). Perhaps he would want the white South Africans to resettle in the new U.S. territory of Gaza instead of in the browning U.S.
Trump runs a very sophisticated con operation on behalf of Israel in concert with Biden and Hillary, et. al. The stick and the carrots.
A completely paranoid, jaundiced, Jew-centric take originating from TRS and its wreckage.
1. What happened in his first term proves nothing. Trump has changed a lot. None of the things he did in his first four weeks were things he did in his first term.
2. Trump didn’t run on helping Boers. He didn’t need to do this for votes. He didn’t need to do this to be ZOG’s front man. The best explanation is that he thinks South Africa is doing evil things to whites, and he thinks that’s wrong.
3. Apparently, if you just mention Jews (or in some cases, not mention them) this will cause certain anti-Semites to get giddy and declare that, once again, any given topic is really “nothing more” than something Jew-centric. Why did Trump (or the Republican who drafts his statements) mention Jews in connection with South Africa? Probably because he thinks it is important to stop anti-white policies in South Africa, and he’s cannily building legitimacy and a coalition around that cause. So, knowing that some people only care about Jews, and that some people use Jews as moral and political benchmarks, such that “If something is good for Jews, nobody can object to that,” he throws in references to the Jewish obsessions of the day.
4. What Trump absolutely does NOT need to do to sell anti-Palestine, pro-Jewish policy is link it to white interests. SINCE WHEN has that been a necessity? Remember when the Republicans (Trump included) were attacking universities that hosted pro-Palestinian protests for their anti-whiteness? No, I don’t remember that either. Why didn’t they? Because Jews are sacred cows. They don’t need external legitimation. Beyond that, anything pro-white is widely regarded as evil per se. Why, then, would there be any political advantage to linking Jewish advocacy to white interests? None at all.
5. The converse, however, is true. Many white advocates are pleased to draft off Jewish sacrality to promote white interests. Hence arguments like, “If Israel has a border wall, that should be good enough for us.”
Well that’s interesting, so it is something trump has talked about in the past.
This needs to be said and pointed out.
South Africa is no different than any other “democratic” country where white people have an intertwined relationship with black people. About 40% of the white people in South Africa are going to behave in the exact same manner as shitlib whites in the US do. They are going to self flagellate and prostrate themselves over guilt from apartheid. They are going to vote in favor of land appropriation from whites. They’re going to vote hardest for the “wise, pure, saintly” black men and women who lecture and finger wag and put the boots upon their necks and beg for more.
These people think that only the most racist Afrikaner farmer would resist giving up their land, or wish to flee South Africa to get away from the problems. Virtuous white people are only interested in seeking approval from blacks, begging for forgiveness, and disavowing their “white privileges”. (While of course sending their kids to private school and living in gated communities) it’s like the Z Man at Z Blog likes to say, their piety is only a totem or a spell to ward off the evil spirits or scare away Old Scratch.
South Africa is no different in its political makeup. So while many of these farmers say they will stay and fight, (and I commend them), there’s also a ton of them who would see the ones who would flee as irredeemably racist.
I don’t agree with your assessment of the political leanings of White South Africans. The vast majority are conservative. Leftist WSAs in the 70-80s were mostly Jewish, along with typical White liberal utopians and bedwetters. Many of the Jews have left SA (after they predictably ruined it); I had one as a professor over 40 years ago. Oh, how he condemned “dehumanizing apartheid” from the safety of the Ivy League.
But WSAs were always more rightist (and in the correct, ethnonationalist ways) than White Americans, and they still are. This is especially true of the Boers (many of the non-Jewish anti-apartheid liberals were Anglos, a disproportionate number of whom have, like the Jews, also exited). And many of even the liberals now embrace “old school liberalism” (rule of law, free speech, clean democracy, anti-corruption), as opposed to White guiltism and black-supremacist “socialism” (in Africa, socialism is always even more blatantly just simple theft, especially in interracial contexts, than socialism is in Western nations). The political divide today among WSAs is really between Afrikaner “blood and soilism”, and conventional White conservatism focusing on “working within the system” to protect free enterprise, property rights, basic public order, and a functioning (ie, not “African”) government.
Virtuous white people are only interested in seeking approval from blacks, begging for forgiveness, and disavowing their “white privileges”. Maybe that is the evolutionarily defective deadly strain that just is for too many Whites and incurable from oversaturation by jewish ‘hate yourself & feel guilty’ agitprop 24/7 like cirrhosis for the chronic drunk. Will the butterfly effect convergence of catastrophes along global fault lines be the system shock that makes Whites racefully tribal? I don’t know. As a ny dago wop who has lived in multiculti globoschlomo headquarters my whole life, if I could wake up to our plight just by reading and the occasional podcast I really thought others far more accomplished than I’ll ever be could as well. Perhaps that’s a grand tragedy of modernity, the masses of many doomed not to see.
When blacks say they want to redress the wrongs of Apartheid or colonialism, what they really mean is they want to take things away from white people. When they talk about “reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected” …what they really want is to take things away from white people. When they talk about returning land to the people, they’re talking about taking land away from whites—because whites don’t count as people, you see. And this is not even going over all the genocidal rhetoric, murder, rape, and torture whites have had to put up with in South Africa…
—
Dr. Pierce was predicting this dire situation back in the 1980s and repeated it 27 years ago after the foolish White South Africans turned their nation over to Blacks in 1994, allowing them to vote for the first time while being outnumbered by kaffirs in the one man, one vote democratic general election. Who said elections have consequences? https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/04/the-lesson-of-south-africa-2/
The problem with the Boers was not just with their politicians but with their Dutch Reformed Church.
As for the great mass of the people here [in the U.S.] who are unwittingly headed in the direction of White minority status, the great mass of Americans who don’t really want America to become a non-White country but who trust their politicians and their preachers and therefore are headed toward extinction anyway — as for the great mass of our people, education is the only course for us at this time. Our task is to give our people knowledge, to give them truth, and help at least some of them gather their wits and understand what is happening.
And you know, there is no more illuminating example, no better lesson for White Americans than what has happened and is happening in South Africa. That, of course, is exactly why the controlled mass media here remain silent when White South African farmers are slaughtered, when White South African women are gang-raped, and when many other very educational things happen in South Africa. So today let’s briefly talk about some more of these South African things which it would be good for White Americans to know about, to think about, to ponder.
Perhaps the most instructive aspect of the South African tragedy is the betrayal of the people by those in whom they had placed their trust: principally their church leaders and their business/military/political establishment. Let’s talk about the church first.
For the Anglo element in South Africa, the church — that would be primarily the Episcopal Church — wasn’t of fundamental importance. Most of the English-speaking population didn’t take their church very seriously, and everyone already understood that the Episcopal Church establishment was thoroughly rotten, was completely sold out. But for the Boer element, the Dutch-speaking element of the population, it was different. They really believed in their church: that’s the Dutch Reformed Church. There was what might be called a compact, a covenant, between the Dutch Reformed Church and the Boer people, and the Boers took their religion very seriously. Like most other Protestant sects, it was based heavily on the Old Testament. The Boers saw many parallels between the Old Testament pseudo-history of the Jews and their own history. They saw themselves as a Chosen People in the Promised Land and the Dutch Reformed Church as their protector and guide. And the Church to a certain degree did fill that role. The Church gave the Boers a scriptural basis for their lives, for their institutions — including the institution of apartheid — at least, up until the early 1980s.
I, of course, always have been very leery of churches in general, and I could see, as an outsider, some things in the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church in particular which worried me: their tendency to identify with the Jews, for example. But whenever I would try to talk about my worries with South African visitors, I would be told that their church was absolutely solid. They had complete faith in their church. And of course, I didn’t want to attack their faith, so I would drop the subject.
Well of course, when the crucial time came the Dutch Reformed Church did betray the Boers. Their church sold them out. Their church held them back from putting up any real resistance to the theft of their country. Why was that?
I don’t believe that the Dutch Reformed Church in its earlier days was anything but what it pretended to be, and that was a Boer institution. I don’t believe there was any long-running conspiracy in the Church to betray the Boers. But as the Boers prospered, so did the Church. The Church’s leaders became prominent men, wealthy men. Many of the Boers’ political leaders were ordained ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church. They were comfortable men, soft around the waist. They ate well and dressed well and lived well. And when the time came to make a hard choice: a choice between their people or their own comfortable positions . . . well, they made the kind of choice that comfortable people tend to make…
More at the link.
Elon Musk might be busy counting pennies for President Trump at the moment but that doesn’t mean he’s not a native South African with a first hand understanding of the anti-white horror that turned thriving Rhodesia into depraved and genocidal Zimbabwe. Musk gets it, because he lived it, and so does Trump he just won’t talk publicly about it. In Musk we have our white power advocate.
Supporting White South Africans (WSA) should be a top priority for the Dissident Right.
This means cranking up the meme machine, the podcasts, the flash street-actions, the highbrow articles providing the intellectual case for standing in solidarity with WSA.
One theme: The situation in SA is a microcosm of the dilemma faced by White peoples worldwide. Their fight is our fight and all that sort of thing.
WSA are openly discriminated against under ANC policies (same as Whites are up against the hostile CRT/DEI/ESG regime). WSA are up against the seizure of their farmlands (same as the attacks on farmers in Europe). WSA are up against the destruction of their histories via iconoclasm and rewriting of history (same as Whites all over the place). WSA are up against state sponsored/tolerated third worlder mayhem (same as that perpetrated by gangs from Rotherham through the Paris banlieues to Springfield).
Another theme: during the 1980s the South African Defence Forces fought a generally successful campaign against the communists in Angola. They stood for the Western world in the Cold War, time for the Western world to stand for WSA. How about interviews with veterans of these campaigns on lessons learned? And with the current Afrikaner defense groups?
Since Elon Musk is from South Africa, a pro-WSA campaign could mean getting the Dissident Right back onto Twitter/X. And perhaps an invite to high-echelon conferences to address the centers of power. Who knows, there just may be in the cards a clandestine grant to support Dissident Right operations.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.