In August 2018, the government of South Africa moved to confiscate land from South African farmers of European descent on the basis of what is nothing less than Afro-nationalist racist politics. A high court challenge was put forward and the court subsequently dismissed it, allowing for the land confiscations to proceed forward:
South Africa’s High Court rejected a legal challenge on Friday brought by a group representing white farmers against President Cyril Ramaphosa’s plans for land expropriation without compensation.
Land is a hot-button issue in South Africa where racial inequality remains entrenched more than two decades after the end of apartheid when millions of the black majority were dispossessed of their land by a white minority.
Ramaphosa, who replaced scandal-plagued Jacob Zuma in February, has made land redistribution a flagship policy as he seeks to unite the fractured ruling African National Congress (ANC) and win public support ahead of an election next year.
In its legal challenge, Afriforum questioned the legality of a key parliamentary committee report which recommended a change to the constitution to allow land expropriation without compensation.
“The relief sought by the applicants… is dismissed,” said Judge Vincent Saldanha.
Afriforum, which represents mostly white Afrikaners, alleged that the parliamentary committee had illegally appointed an external service provider to compile the report, and also failed to consider more than 100,000 submissions opposing land expropriation without compensation.
Around 65 percent of public submissions were against a change, according to parliamentary officials.
Parliament successfully countered Afriforum’s case by saying the court action was premature, the committee had not abrogated its powers and all views had been taken into account.
“We welcome the orders handed down today particularly because we’ve always been of the view that the matter was not urgent,” Lewis Nzimande, co-chair of the constitutional review committee, told reporters outside the High Court in Cape Town.
“They (lawmakers) may set aside the recommendations, they may reject the recommendations but procedurally… we can’t just reject the whole work of the committee,” he said.
He said the report, just one step in a long process to change the constitution, will probably be debated in both houses of parliament on December 4.
Thereafter, it is expected a new bill proposing the exact changes envisaged to the constitution will go to parliament and further public participation.
Only once both houses of parliament approve changes to the constitution will it be sent to Ramaphosa for ratification. This process is unlikely to be completed before a parliamentary election expected to be held in May.
Afriforum said after the judgment they would continue challenging what they say is a flawed process, including through further legal action.
“AfriForum therefore undertakes to use every possible mechanism at its disposal to, in the interest of everyone in the country, fight to the bitter end against the undermining of property rights,” it said in a statement. (source, source)
This is a very sensitive topic and a deadly one because of the potential implications contained within it.
The land confiscations bear a direct relation to the confiscations by Robert Mugabe’s government in Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, from farmers of European descent. The result has been decades of continual impoverishment and famine, hyperinflation, and the transformation of a net food producer to a food-aid dependent and wretched shell of a nation that is still writing in its own misery. The same potential exists to happen in South Africa, except on a larger scale, as there is a larger population by comparison.
However, one must pay attention to the greater movements in the European political world, as they have direct implications for South Africa. As noted before, South Africa has two major European ethnic groups- the Germanic Dutch people, who have a long history of ethnic nationalism and support of the German National Socialists, and the British, who wrested control of South Africa from the Dutch in a centuries long struggle that did not end until around World War I.
A month before the government moved to proceed with land confiscations, fifteen thousand Dutch Boers petitioned to move to Russia. As I pointed out, the area they wanted to move to was a very violent region of Russia yet one with a large, historical German presence and that in both World Wars I and II, the Germans there assisted Germany in her invasions of Russia.
Another point I have made is that South Africa is currently being fought over between the nations of NATO and the Chinese for access to platinum ore and chrome, both of which South Africa is a major producer and the former of which she is the world’s leading producer. These products are critical to industrial processes for building supercomputers and weapons, and given the moves towards a major war being made by all the world powers, access to them is critical, and the Western world is not going to allow the Chinese to take a predominate hold in what was a historical territory of theirs and still view it as such.
Germany has a historical pattern of attempting to make “territorial expansions” and using crises to justify it. As I wrote in August 2018, the very violence that is taking place against European people in South Africa is desired because it will give Germany and excuse to march into Africa, first to her former territories, and potentially into more:
Currently, Germany does not have a “reason” to go into South Africa. However, because she has a historical relationship with Namibia that endures to this day, if there was a sufficient bout of violence against German targets and the German Namibian population that lives there, it would be an ideal reason to bring German troops into Namibia in the name of “peace keeping.” Given that South Africa is right on the Namibian border and there were many Boer trekkers who settled in that area, Germany would not need time to find an acceptable “reason” to engage in “peace keeping” and “regional stability operations” in South Africa.
This is why I said earlier that the conflict between the British and the Dutch last century was so important and must be remembered, because it was all based in ideas about racialism and the Germans have not forgotten this, and they are setting up conditions to repeat history once again. (source)
Germany once possessed four territories in Africa- Togo, Cameroon, Tanzania (German East Africa), and Namibia, the last of which was the location of the first genocide of the twentieth century, committed by Germany and from which the lessons learned and research gathered was used by the National Socialists a quarter century later.
The land confiscations are real and terrifying, and the potential for a lot of deaths of these farmers and common people at the hands of Afro-nationalist racists must not be understated and is absolutely wrong. However, one must look also that the larger situation of political movements, seeing that there is a strong chance this is being allowed to happen in order to advance the nefarious cause of German military expansion and a return to the conditions that will bring about another major war.