Category Archives: Africa

Candace Owens In Immigration Wonderland, ‘Discovers’ Demography

Africa, Conservatism, Critique, IMMIGRATION, Media, Republicans

Candace Owens says we should welcome more black immigrants from Africa, because they constitute only 2 percent of the United States’ immigration intake.

At the same time, she complains about a plan she has documented—and is happy Tucker Carlson is finally discussing—to change the demographics of the USA.

Hmm. I wonder what Peter Brimelow, Michelle Malkin, Steve Sailer, Ann Coulter or myself have been writing about for decades?

I recall, when first I wrote about immigration, in 2002, I had read and referenced Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow,  because I considered that without it—one could not write about immigration with any credibility. I still think this.

Next, Candace will discover that, “legal immigration is the real catastrophe.” (from “IMMOLATION BY IMMIGRATION,” 2003.)

A media conservative has no intellectual history or coherent philosophy; he or she is but a grab-bag of talking points. The GOP circus goes on—on TV.

For the media conservative, the history of ideas begins when he or she gets their TV gig. All is tabula rasa before that.

UPDATED (8/26): CONSERVATION IS CAUCASIAN

Africa, Asia, Conservatism, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Ethics, The West

A relative of the monsters who tortured a racoon to death said about this untold cruelty to a helpless critter: “Only white peoples worry about this” [animal cruelty]. Via BitChute.

There is truth in this. CONSERVATION IS CAUCASIAN. Wild life dies without white men and women.

Recommended is a site called Africa Unauthorized.

This is what US rivers will look like once America is “transformed.” Most other cultures have no concept of conservation. Woe betide the wild life.

And who but honkies would rush to the rescue:

Bear farming:

* Image courtesy “Hannes Wessels”

UPDATE (8/26/020):

Oops, I forgot; Republicans want the 3rd world to be fruitful and to multiply.

… With Europeans on the ropes the future for wildlife and the natural environment in Africa has probably never looked so bleak. As far as the continent is concerned we live in a world that has allowed the human population to multiply without control and all other forms of life simply suffer the consequences…
… Thanks to the efforts of donors like Bono, Bob Geldhof, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and the flow of Western aid, population growth is logarithmic and unsustainable without international intervention and support. No mention is made of ‘planned parenthood’ or ‘family planning’ anymore because that might be considered ‘racist’, aimed at reducing the number of Africans and other peoples in in the Third World. …

READ: “For Wildlife and White Men the end maybe nigh.”

MORE.

UPDATED (2/10): NEW COLUMN: What Americans Can Learn From F. W. de Klerk’s Great Betrayal Of South Africa

Africa, Democracy, Federalism, History, Iraq, Racism, Secession, South-Africa

NEW COLUMN IS “What Americans Can Learn From F. W. de Klerk’s Great Betrayal Of South Africa.” It’s on American Greatness NOW. The column also appeared on WND.COM and The Unz Review.

Excerpt:

In what should serve as a lesson for Americans today, recall that 30 years ago, on February 2, 1990, F. W. de Klerk, South Africa’s last white president, turned the screws on his constituents, betraying the confidence we had placed in him.

I say “we,” because, prior to becoming president in 1989, Mr. de Klerk was my representative, in the greater Vereeniging region of Southern Transvaal, where I resided. (Our family subsequently moved to Cape Town.)

A constellation of circumstances had aligned to catapult de Klerk to a position of great power. A severe stroke forced the “The Crocodile,” President P. W. Botha, from power in 1989. Nothing in the background of his successor, President, F. W. de Klerk, indicated the revolutionary policies he would pursue.

To a 1992 referendum asking white voters if they favored de Klerk’s proposed reforms, we returned a resounding “yes.” Sixty-eight percent of respondents said “yes” to the proposed reforms of a man who sold his constituents out for a chance to frolic on the world stage with Nelson Mandela.

For it was in surrendering South Africa to the ANC that de Klerk shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mandela.

Why was de Klerk trusted to negotiate on behalf of a vulnerable racial minority? For good reason: De Klerk had made his views abundantly clear to constituents. “Negotiations would only be about power-sharing,” he promised. At the time, referendum respondents generally trusted de Klerk, who had specifically condemned crude majority rule. Such elections, in Africa, have traditionally amounted to one man, one vote, one time. Typically, elections across Africa have followed a familiar pattern: Radical black nationalist movements take power everywhere, then elections cease. Or, if they take place, they’re rigged.

Among much else, de Klerk’s loyal constituents agreed to his scrapping of the ban on the Communist-sympathizing ANC. Freeing Nelson Mandela from incarceration was also viewed as long overdue as was acceding to Namibia’s independence, and junking nuclear weapons. Botha, before de Klerk, had, by and large, already dismantled the most egregious aspects of apartheid.

What de Klerk’s constituents were not prepared for was to be legislated into a permanent position of political subordination. President de Klerk, the man entrusted to stand up for crucial structural liberties, went along with the great centralizers. He caved to ANC demands, forgoing all checks and balances for South Africa’s Boer, British and Zulu minorities.

By the time the average “yes” voter discerned the fact that de Klerk had no intention of maintaining this opposition when push came to shove, it was too late.

… READ THE REST. What Americans Can Learn From F. W. de Klerk’s Great Betrayal Of South Africa” is on American Greatness NOW. The column also appeared on WND.COM and The Unz Review.

* Image is of President F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela (Photo by © Louise Gubb/CORBIS SABA/Corbis via Getty Images)

UPDATE (2/10):  Nevertheless, we are honored to have a response from Jeffrey Sachs. It generated quite the thread.

My book is not “an attack on the end of apartheid,” @JeffDSachs. That’s a distortion. A principled critique of dominant-party rule in South Africa doesn’t amount to an approval of apartheid, of which the book offers a detailed critique, too.

Heck, I came out FOR Quebec’s secession (2000), @GerardHarbison & @JeffreyASachs . That’s the libertarian position. Political divorce is completely kosher, so long as individual rights are preserved.

 

 

Comments Off on UPDATED (2/10): NEW COLUMN: What Americans Can Learn From F. W. de Klerk’s Great Betrayal Of South Africa

NEW COLUMN: How About Intra-Racial Reparations In South Africa?

Africa, History, Race, Racism, South-Africa

NEW COLUMN IS “How About Intra-Racial Reparations In South Africa?” It’s on WND.COM and the Unz Review.

An excerpt:

Donald R. Morris’s epic tome, The Washing of the Spears: The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation, is the all-time PIG (Politically Incorrect Guide) to Zulu history.

In it, Morris notes correctly that the Bantu, like the Boers, were not indigenous to South Africa. They “dribbled south” from some “reservoir in the limitless north,” and, like the European settlers, used their military might to displace Hottentots, Bushmen (his archaic terminology), and one another through internecine warfare.

Indeed, there was bitter blood on Bantu lands well before the white settlers arrived in South Africa.

Westerners have committed the little San people of Southern Africa, the “Bushmen,” to folkloric memory for their unequalled tracking skills and for the delicate drawings with which they dotted the “rock outcroppings.”

The San were hunters, but they were also among the hunted. Mercilessly so. Alongside the Boers, Hottentots and blacks “hunted down Bushmen for sport well into the 19th Century.”

In “the book to end all books on the tragic confrontation between the assegai and the Gatling gun,” Morris places Cape Town’s founder and Dutch East India Company official J. A. Van Riebeeck, on landing at the Cape in 1652, 500 miles to the south and 1,000 miles to the west of the nearest Bantu. Joined by other Protestants from Europe, Dutch farmers, as we know, homesteaded the Cape Colony.

No doubt, the question of land ownership deeply concerned the 19th century trek Boers, as they prepared to decamp from the British-ruled Cape Colony and venture north. Accordingly, they sent out exploration parties tasked with negotiating the purchase of land from the black chieftains, who very often acted magnanimously, allowing Europeans to settle certain areas. Against trek Boers, it must be said that they were as rough as the natives and negotiated with as much finesse.

Still, the narrative about the pastoral, indigenous, semi-nomadic natives, dispossessed in the 17th century of their lands by another such people, only of a different color—this is as simplistic as it is sentimental.

When Boer and Bantu finally clashed on South Africa’s Great Fish River it was a clash of civilizations. “The Bantu viewed the land as entailed property that belonged to the clan. A chieftain might dispose of the right to live on the land, but he could not dispose of the land itself.” The European mind in general could not grasp the concept of collective ownership and “regarded a land transaction as a permanent exchange of real property.”

As Morris observes in his matter-of-fact way, “The Bantu view insured European encroachment and the European view insured future strife.”

South Africa has since reverted to “The Bantu view.” It is thus perhaps inevitable that 21st-century land claims or “restitution” in South Africa are not dominated by individual freehold owners reclaiming expropriated land, based on title deeds kept on record.

Rather, a group of blacks scheming on a particular property will band together as a “tribe,” and pool the taxpayer grants, which its members have received gratis, for the purpose of purchasing occupied land.

No sooner does this newly constituted “tribe” (or band of bandits, really) launch a claim with the South African Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, than related squatters—sometimes in the thousands—move to colonize the land. They defile its grounds and groundwater by using these as one vast latrine, and terrorize, even kill, its occupants and their animals in the hope of “nudging” them off the land.

The latest victim of this guerrilla warfare is a wine farmer, Stefan Smit of blessed memory, gunned down on his Stellenbosch estate, in the Western Cape. …

… READ THE REST.  NEW COLUMN, “How About Intra-Racial Reparations In South Africa?“, is now on WND.COM and the Unz Review.