South Africa -- the reality
No, there is no "white genocide" happening, but the writing is pretty clearly on the wall for the future. Murder, torture, and other atrocities against white farmers have been ongoing for years, although South Africa's overall murder rate is so staggeringly high that such killings don't stand out as much as they would in most countries; in any case, the use of torture in many of these attacks belies the claim that robbery and not hatred is the main motive. People have been tying themselves in knots insisting that the "kill the Boers" chant (Boers is another term for the Afrikaners, the white ethnic group which has lived in South Africa for centuries, descended mostly from early Dutch settlers) is "a figurative expression of resistance" and not a literal call for violence, is associated with a minority party, etc -- but if we had politicians of a minority party in the US leading mobs in chants of "kill the Jews" or something similar, one could hardly expect the targeted group to find such gaslighting very reassuring. And just taking the South African government's word for what is going on makes about as much sense as taking the Chinese regime's word about its designs upon the Uyghurs.
More to the point, South Africa is a failed state clearly on the road to collapse, where the rich (regardless of their race) have almost totally disconnected from the state and mainstream society in order to have a tolerable existence, and are increasingly fleeing to any civilized country they can buy their way into:
Most white South Africans are not rich, and the Afrikaners (unlike the Anglo part of the white population) have no ancestral or family ties to the UK or its developed ex-colonies to help them gain entry there.
Calling people names for pointing out the facts of the situation does not change those facts. How deserving the Afrikaners are of refugee status, compared with other threatened populations around the world, could be debated ad nauseam from a number of viewpoints. It is probably true that they would assimilate within the US more easily than most immigrants from non-Western cultures do. There is certainly no valid reason to judge them uniquely unworthy of coming here, and those who help other refugees but refuse to help them purely because of their race and national origin are the true bigots of the story.
Update/note: Forget about Trump and his ridiculous meeting with Ramaphosa. This is nothing to do with that. I've been following these developments in South Africa since before Trump's first term. None of it has anything to do with Americans or the US.
8 Comments:
I had also thought that this "white genocide" was some invented crisis brought on by Musk whispering into Trumps ear for the last six months.
I have no problems with refugees. I do have a problem when the "refugee crisis" is more or less a sham created by Trump and Steven Miller. I do not know what their endgame is at the moment.
I am just wondering how long that shoe will take to drop? Trump swooping in to defend... what? The diamond cartels? Melania needs new jewelry?
I am sorry to say that I've tuned Trump out. His administration has offered nothing substantive, and is nothing but one bad egocentric publicity stunt after another. The same goes for the reactionary politicians wringing their hands. I am watching what the courts are doing; if they are even capable of slowing this shit-show down.
For now, I am just going to take my coffee mug and watch the rain come down.
when the "refugee crisis" is more or less a sham created by Trump and Steven Miller
As I explained in the post, that's not what's happening here. I've been following the situation in South Africa since before Trump's first term. These issues are not being made up by Americans, and have nothing to do with anything happening in the US. As I said, there is no "white genocide" yet, but the writing is clearly on the wall for the future.
Yep, I really had no idea what was going on there. Thanks for the easy to understand information about it.
Thanks! I always hope to spread some clarity.
My friend Infidel has a well deserved reputation for well targeted research.
The link within "refuse to help them purely because of their race and national origin" refers to the Episcopal church. That may be inaccurate, although mainstream coverage does lend that impression.
Toward the end of this bit of NPR coverage one paragraph seems to imply that refugee cases are to be considered individually, rather than relying on the Trump administration.
This quote concerning White South Africans is from an associated Christian support group, and so is ambiguous on whether it also reflects the Episcopal church:
"Matthew Soerens, vice president of advocacy and policy at World Relief, an evangelical Christian group that helps resettle refugees, said in an email that his group anticipates 'serving a small number' of the arrivals who qualify for Office of Refugee Resettlement-funded services. But he said the situation is 'complicated by the reality that the government is not bringing them to the US through the traditional State Department initial resettlement process, where World Relief has historically been one of the ten private agencies that implement this public-private partnership, because that process remains suspended.' "
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/12/g-s1-65988/episcopal-church-white-afrikaners-ends-partnership-u-s-government
Thank you for the kind words. This particular post didn't require much research this week, since I've been following the situation in South Africa for a long time and am already familiar with it.
Apparently the evangelicals at least took the trouble to dig up a technicality they could use as an excuse for refusing help to the Afrikaner refugees; if the Episcopal Church did as well, not a single news story I've seen on the topic has mentioned it. Their own statements make it forcefully clear that they simply have a moral objection to helping these particular people because they're white South Africans.
Thanks for the background information. I had a feeling that leftwing sources were omitting relevant details.
I think almost all news sources with an ideological lean -- which means pretty much all of them -- tend to omit details that don't fit their preferred narrative. That's why I habitually look at a wide range of sources. Using sources that all have basically the same viewpoint is like looking through only one eye -- you can see most of the view, but you're not getting the full depth of the picture.
Post a Comment
Please be on-topic and read the comments policy. Spam, trolls, and fight-pickers will be deleted. If you don't have a Blogspot account and aren't sure how to comment, please see here. Fair warning: anything supporting transgender ideology, or negative toward Brexit, or in favor of a military draft or compulsory national service, will be deleted. I am not obligated to provide a platform for views I find morally abhorrent.
On work days there is likely to be a substantial delay in approving comments, since I can't do blog stuff in an office. For this I apologize.
Please be considerate -- no political or politics-tinged comments on non-political posts. I will delete them.
<< Home