Savage murder campaign against white South African farmers
Ilana Mercer reports on a documentary film by the South African television program Carte Blanche that tells of “orgiastic killing sprees” and unspeakable atrocities being carried out against Afrikaner farmers by blacks. As of early 2006, over 2,000 white farmers had been murdered. It sounds worse than what happened in Zimbabwe. What is there to say? What is there to do? The Western world is not race-neutral and non-racist, as it claims, any more than Britain is against the “stirring up of racial hatred,” since its race hatred law is only enforced against whites, not against Muslims who are doing and saying things infinitely worse than any white. No, the West is anti-white, out of guilt or hatred for whites’ supposed sins. Our supposed ideology of non-discrimination really means murderous discrimination against the once-dominant whites, carried out in order to drag them down and raise up the nonwhites. Pace the dreams of well-meaning liberals and neoconservatives, equality under the law is not some independent spiritual essence that becomes operative by itself. Living human beings must believe in it, defend it, and enforce it. But who is there to defend and enforce it, since, as I explained here, liberal anti-racism from the moment of its inception denies whites’ status as moral agents and thus takes away their standing to protest injustices done against themselves? And if we are not for ourselves, who will be for us?
Not to leave unanswered the dilemma I posed above, how could whites have brought about racial justice for nonwhites without turning themselves into right-less victims? The answer, laid out in the article linked in the previous paragraph, is that they should have taken whatever measures were needed to remove those elements of racial discrimination that were truly wrong and unacceptable, while still maintaining and asserting their, the whites’, position as the ruling majority, or, in the case of S. Africa, as the ruling minority. Once whites gave up their right and their place as the dominant group, they didn’t merely become “equal” with the minorities, they became the moral equivalent of aristocrats and bourgeoisie and priests in Lenin’s Russia, the moral equivalent of land owners in Mao’s China, the moral equivalent of people wearing reading glasses in Pol Pot’s Cambodia. The underlying point is that liberal neutrality cannot operate by itself, but is only possible within the limits and standards set by an actual culture. To paraphrase what Jim Kalb says in another blog entry today, equal-rights liberalism depends on a state of society that rests on an authoritative majority culture that liberalism eventually destroys, because if self-defining equality comes first there’s nothing to support a substantive standard.
I asked Ilana Mercer:
If thousands of Afrikaner farmers are being brutalized and murdered like this how is it that they just remain on their farms waiting to be killed? Why haven’t they fled? Yes, it tells of people arming themselves to the teeth, but surely many must have fled, as in Zimbabwe.She wrote back:
Americans do not understand how hard it is to immigrate. I find most Americans think that if you apply to enter, well then, the U.S., Canada, or Australia will let you in. NOT SO. It is virtually impossible to immigrate legally to the U.S., Canada, and Australia if you do not have the right qualifications or huge sums of money. This of course should make for commentary about our immigration system, which selects for law-breaking, venality, and risk taking, etc. I’ve dealt with that somewhat here. Our refugee policies should favor the Boer, but we favor the likes of the “Lost Boys of Sudan”—more photogenic. Where do you think the Zim. farmers fled to? The U.S.? No. Most left for South Africa, as far as I know. Some might have had British passports. The Boers don’t have that. Karen W. writes
I sent you an email about this documentary about 10 days ago with the links to the film clips. One part of the Carte Blanche Documentary is still available here.Stephen T. writes:
Karen W. writes: “It is also very revealing that all the liberals who opposed apartheid have left South Africa.”LA replies:
Stephen should write up an article on this.Mark A. writes:
Really glad you brought this up. It’s a very important issue as we may face this here soon. Can I offer a constructive suggestion? I recommend that VFR readers join the NRA and make sure they are well armed should this come to pass.LA writes:
Last December, in an article called, “The Ugly Truth About Democratic South Africa,” Ilana Mercer wrote:Bruce B. writes:
I know a South African couple who are not yet citizens but whose daughter was born here. They mention how they got out because the future looks bleak for their White children. He is fairly frank about admitting, in a general, non-specific way, that the black majority is the source of this bleak future. But they still seem essentially liberal. They are Methodists so I suppose their liberal Christianity plays a role. I suppose they also could be keeping up appearances in liberal America. But they choose to live in a “diverse” city to be close to his work rather than living in the nearby “white-bread” community my family lived in and driving 10-15 miles so I have to believe they are racial liberals.David H. writes:
With this tragic story, you have brought up something that is even more important than the darkness of Islam, and indeed quite related to the peril we face. Excepting a change that must come soon, South Africa is not only the fate of America, it is the fate of the entire white race. White liberals literally despise their own race—the one that provided them with the technological and medical advancements that enable liberals to live long lives and destroy as much of the culture as they can—and they seek its death. Why else champion the submergence of the white race in a cauldron of racial fusion (such as Kondracke, et al, suggest)? Why else teach that each and every evil, real or imagined, is the fault of white people (especially men, who are a deliberate target; if you make him undesirable in the eyes of white women, you kill the entire race)? Why else celebrate racist miscreants like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad, while ignoring the enormous sacrifice of the Union soldier and the greatness of men like Washington and Lincoln? Why allow an exclusively black Black Caucus, approve of the white-liberal-supported (and utterly racist) NAACP, hide story after story of black-on-white crime (gang rapes being quite common; murder as well) while immediately embracing the Duke lie without even investigating the facts? The “MSM” has never, and will never, report on black atrocities in Zimbabwe and South Africa. They created the image that the blacks embraced the whites after power became theirs, and they must (for their agenda purposes) maintain that lie at all costs, no matter how many whites are brutally tortured and slain (horrors that the previous white regimes never came close to committing). To put it simply, most liberals—of all stripes—do not care.Charles T. writes:
I found your site by accident—linking through looking for info on another topic.Van Wijk wites: If you are truly interested in the plight of the Boers, I can recommend an excellent website. It is called African Crisis and is run by Jan Lamprecht, author of the book Government By Deception. Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 22, 2007 01:13 PM | Send Email entry |