Look at These Shameless Grifters

1,674 words

Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa

Coming from a rightist, pro-white perspective, it’s easy to ascribe to Donald Trump God-tier levels of 4D-chess. I don’t think this is true, but it’s certainly tempting because of the ripple effect, which almost always happens whenever Trump does anything. Trump will act upon Principle A, which, on paper at least, is fair-minded and generous. His leftist, anti-white enemies will then overreact, and accuse him of acting instead upon Principle B, which is particularist and self-serving. In so doing, the anti-white left will reveal through projection that they themselves operate upon Principle B, rather than Principle A. Thus, we have a convincing argument that pro-whites should also operate upon Principle B—if they wish to survive in the culture wars with the Left, that is. This inescapable conclusion then gets promulgated by the increasingly effective right-wing media, which stretches—rather than shifts—the Overton Window rightward. Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson talking about the Great Replacement are good examples of this.

Eventually, however, this Overton Window will snap, which will result in one of two things—separation or civil war. From a rightist, pro-white perspective both contingencies would be preferable to the alternative, which is to be boiled alive in the melting pot of racial diversity with all the other white frogs. More than anyone else, we have Donald Trump to thank for this. But did he do it on purpose? Who knows?

The latest example of this Trumpian phenomenon occurred very recently when the United States welcomed as new citizens 59 white, South African refugees. These are Afrikaner farmers and their families, a people facing violence and mayhem from the black South African majority as well as direct racial oppression from their black-run government. They qualify as refugees as much as most brown or blacks heading to the United States to escape poverty, war, or the brutality of their own leaders. In fact, the Afrikaners may deserve this distinction even more since they are being uniquely targeted for their race, which very few from the third world are these days. This is the universal principle which fair-minded Trump cites when justifying the Afrikaner presence in the United States, as well as labeling what is happening to them in South Africa a genocide.

This influx was a direct result of Trump’s executive order from this past February which halted all foreign aid to South Africa. As I wrote at the time:

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.

Now that white South Africans have begun their exodus to the United States (with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying there is more to come), leftist outrage is fulfilling the second part of the ripple effect mentioned above. They are accusing Trump of secretly being pro-white (as if that’s a bad thing), and in so doing, revealing themselves to have been anti-white all along. Matt Walsh and Mark Dice cover this quite well. And here’s former CNN anchor Don Lemon removing all the doubt:

This South African farmer bullshit, which is the most blatantly obvious racist shit ever[…]

It is blatantly obvious the way that that we treat white South Africans, who are by the way for the most part, and I am generalizing here, some of the wealthiest people or well to-do people in the country.

They’re not just taking land away from white South African farmers. White South Africans, about nine percent of the population, owned 87 percent of the fertile land, okay? Today black South African Americans make up more than 90 percent of the population and they only hold about 4 percent of all privately owned land. So what they’re trying to do is say, “Hey we need to fix an historical injustice and figure out if you’re not using that land to farm then we need to have some of that land, not taking all of your entire farm. That’s not what’s happening, And we need to what? There needs to be equity.” And now people are crying because the playing field is being leveled and so therefore it is now discrimination.

In other words, when African blacks enact over a hundred anti-white laws, such as one of many race quota laws, which now outnumber the anti-black laws extant during Apartheid, it’s justified as fixing a “historical injustice” or fulfilling a need for “equity.” But when whites demand equal treatment under the law, it is condemned as straight-up racism. We should also note how people like Don Lemon or the black leaders of South Africa are awfully picky about which historical injustices need to addressed. It cannot be stated enough that when the ancestors of these 59 refugees arrived in Southern Africa in 1652, they did not have formal dealings with the imperialist Bantu for another 70 years; with only one random—and notably violent—encounter occurring in 1702 hundreds of miles east of the Dutch settlement in Cape Town. This is according to Harry Booyens in his 2014 Afrikaner history AmaBhulu. Prior to this, the Bantu had been expanding southward, pushing out or conquering any African tribes that stood in their way. Booyens relates how the Bantu, along with the Khoekhoe and San Bushmen, who both resided closer to the Dutch settlers, were in a state of constant war, and would kill each other on sight. By 1702 the Khoekhoe had petitioned the Dutch for protection against the San.

Then there’s the infamous Mfecane, in which the Zulus, led by their king Shaka, massacred or starved up to 2 million black Africans between 1816 and 1828. As the Zulus expanded southward, they displaced other groups, such as the Nguni, the Sotho, and the Ndebele, which would then war with each over land and resources. As with the Khoekhoe over a century earlier, many of these blacks fleeing the Zulus sought refuge among the whites, whom they knew would be much less likely to kill them. As Simon Webb puts it:

Quite often the worst colonial excesses were wars, such as the Ashanti Wars fought throughout the 19th century by the British in what is now Ghana and was then the Gold Coast, and the Zulu War of course in 1879. These wars were actually trifling affairs when compared to the death of the Mfecane. The total death-toll in the whole of the Ashanti Wars which were fought for quite a period of the 19th century was only about three and a half thousand black Africans. Even the Zulu War, which was quite savage, accounted for about six or seven thousand Zulus who were killed by the British. All of this pales into insignificance when compared with what the Africans were doing to each other, with the death-tolls running into millions.

So much for past injustices. But what about the push for equity? Well, what mainstream commenters such as Walsh, Carlson, and Dice cannot say bluntly, I can. Due to the fact that sub-Saharan black populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from archaic hominid populations which predate Neanderthals, they on average do not have the cognitive ability to manage large farms or do many other complex tasks necessary to maintain modern civilization. Psychometrics tells us this. More to the point, the failed experiment known as Zimbabwe tells us this, such as when decades ago the Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe appropriated farmland from whites and handed it to blacks. The result was the impoverishment of the entire country and the embarrassing fact that the black government had to give some of the farmland back to the whites since the blacks did such a poor job of running things.

Given that the South African blacks cannot have their vaunted equity without an equal dose of famine, it is right and good that the Afrikaners own 87 percent of the arable land in South Africa. They’ve been managing farms in that part of the world for centuries and have gotten quite good at it. Plus, considering that their ancestors acquired the land before the Bantus arrived in Southern Africa and before there were permanent settlements of any kind—Booyens describes the Khoekhoe as “semi-nomadic” and the San as “exclusively hunter-gatherers”—the land is rightfully theirs.

Since the South African government refuses to recognize this and instead enacts laws which strip away fundamental rights from their white citizens, these oppressed whites have every right to call themselves refugees and flee to greener pastures in the United States. They just want a chance to make it on their own and ultimately thrive—and Donald Trump deserves credit for allowing them this opportunity.

In opposing this with such vitriol, blacks on either side of the Atlantic have revealed their anti-white hatred. There is no other way to explain it. It’s not really about equity, and it’s not really about past injustices. Rather, it’s about protecting a practice that blacks have gotten very good at in the past century: getting something for nothing from whites. In their view, these Afrikaners deserve contempt and scorn not for any objective reason but simply because they’re getting in on their grift.

For blacks, that’s all it ever was.