The South African government has said that it planned to confiscate lands from farmers based on race and “redistribute” them. This has just been confirmed, and the government says that it is officially going to change the constitution in order to do this:
The ANC has decided to change the Constitution to expropriate land without compensation.
This was decided at a two-day lekgotla held in Irene, outside Pretoria, which concluded on Tuesday.
The move is seen as one which reflects the majority perspective expressed at the ongoing hearings on land taking place across the country headed by Parliament’s Constitutional Review Committee.
Business Day understands that a decision was taken by the ANC national executive committee lekgotla to “amend the Constitution to explicitly allow for expropriation without compensation”.
The party is set to make a submission to the parliamentary process under way to this effect.
The decision has far-reaching consequences for both the South African economy as well as its political space. It comes following yet another quarter in which the South African economy has shed jobs, with Statistics SA announcing an increase in the unemployment rate on Tuesday. The move is set to further dent investor sentiment and confidence by local business in the economy.
However, it can be viewed as a decidedly political move to neutralise the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) whose members have been dominating parliamentary hearings on whether the Constitution should be amended.
The ANC in a statement from President Cyril Ramaphosa late on Tuesday said it had become “patently clear that our people want the Constitution be more explicit about expropriation of land without compensation, as demonstrated in the public hearings.
“There is also a growing body of opinion, by a number of South Africans, that the Constitution as it stands does not impede expropriation of land without compensation.
“The lekgotla reaffirmed its position that a comprehensive land reform programme that enables equitable access to land will unlock economic growth, by bringing more land in South Africa to full use, and enable the productive participation of millions more South Africans in the economy,” Ramaphosa said in a statement.
“Accordingly, the ANC will, through the parliamentary process, finalise a proposed amendment to the Constitution that outlines more clearly the conditions under which expropriation of land without compensation can be affected.”
There has been intense debate inside the ANC about whether Section 25 of the Constitution should be amended to expropriate land without compensation.
The ANC took the decision on expropriation without compensation at its national elective conference at Nasrec in December. It partnered with the EFF in Parliament in February to vote for a motion for the expropriation of land without compensation. The EFF wants all SA land to belong to the state, but the ANC’s stance on this remains unclear. There have been dissenting views inside the ANC and the alliance over whether it was necessary to amend the Constitution to allow for expropriation without compensation.
Ramaphosa’s own investment envoy, former finance minister Trevor Manuel, said in June that explaining SA’s ongoing land debate to investors had been tougher than expected. (source)
In the words of President Ramphosa:
A proper reading of the Constitution on the property clause enables the state to effect expropriation of land with just and equitable compensation and also expropriation without compensation in the public interest.
It has become patently clear that our people want the Constitution to be more explicit about expropriation of land without compensation, as demonstrated in the public hearings.
There is also a growing body of opinion, by a number of South Africans, that the constitution as it stands does not impede expropriation of land without compensation.
The lekgotla reaffirmed its position that a comprehensive land reform programme that enables equitable access to land will unlock economic growth, by bringing more land in South Africa to full use, and enable the productive participation of millions more South Africans in the economy.
Accordingly, the ANC will, through the parliamentary process, finalise a proposed amendment to the Constitution that outlines more clearly the conditions under which expropriation of land without compensation can be effected. (source)
There are two points to be considered in this situation.
First, is the historical connection between the European peoples of South Africa, especially the Boers, in light of the rise of ultranationalism. It is true that the Boers have suffered under post-Apartheid conditions, and that many are seeking to move to Russia as refugees. However, one must also not forget that the South Africans, and especially the Boers, were and remain supporters of ultranationalism, including National Socialism. The area which the Boers want to migrate to in Russia is also a historical focal point for Germany’s wars with the Russians. We have written an entire analysis of this here.
Second, are the platinum mines in South Africa. As we wrote in July 2018, South Africa is the world’s leading platinum producer at a minimum of two-thirds of all worldwide production, and the next closest is Russia at 11%. Platinum and the metals in her elemental family found with platinum are critical to modern electronics and technology, constituting the spectrum of “rare-earth metals” found in commodity trading. Major world powers are fighting for control of access to the mines with these metals, and with the USA, UK, and Germany on one side and the Russians and Chinese on the other, and given the history of terrorism as an extension of foreign policy to secure economic resources for political leverage, the violence in South African cannot be separated from this phenomenon.
Neither of these points is meant to deny the seriousness of what the European people in South Africa are facing. South Africa already is a very violent and terrifying place to live in. President Ramphosa’s actions mimic the actions of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who instituted a policy of the forced land confiscations of Euro-Zimbabweans and giving them to “black” farmers. This resulted in the collapse of agriculture in Zimbabwe, which went from being a net food exporting nation to mass starvation with people slaughtering zoo animals to feed themselves:
It is reported by Wikipedia that approximately 1300 Rhodesian soldiers, who were mostly Euro-Zimbabweans, were killed in comparison to the ZANU Rebels, who were predominately Afro-Zimababwean and lost over 10,000 soldiers. Zimbabwe’s destruction began with the end of the Rhodesian Bush War with the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement in June 1979 and the ascent of Robert Mugabe to the Presidency, which he has autocratically held ever since. As Wikipedia notes:
…at the time of independence in 1980, the country was growing economically at about 5 per cent a year, and had done so for quite a long time. If this rate of growth had been maintained for the next 37 years, Zimbabwe would have in 2016 a GDP of US$52 billion. Instead it had a formal sector GDP of only US$14 billion, a cost of US$38 billion in lost growth. The population growth in 1980 was among the highest in Africa at about 3,5 per cent per annum, doubling every 21 years. Had this growth been maintained, the population would have been 31 million. Instead, as of 2018, it is about 13 million. The discrepancies were believed to be partly caused by death from starvation and disease, and partly due to decreased fertility. The life expectancy has halved, and death from politically motivated violence sponsored by government exceeds 200,000 since 1980. The Mugabe government has directly or indirectly caused the deaths of at least 3 million Zimbabweans in 37 year (source)
South Africa’s situation is far more serious. According to recent population estimates, South Africa has 57 million people, of which approximately 45 million are black African, and 10 million split near evenly are either European or mixed Afro-European. This is not significantly different from the demographics of Rhodesia prior to the Bush war, except as far as it concerns the actual numbers of people. Likewise, fall of Rhodesia and the ensuing destruction that has swallowed her around government-sanctioned racial violence is a concern rooted in historical precedent. Given that Zimbabwe is South Africa’s northern neighbor, this must be of concern because among African nationalists, if “they”, meaning Zimbabwe, can do what they did, why can’t South Africa?
There is no reason to say they cannot.
So, if such concern is real, why is there so much talk about this, yet seemingly so little in terms of concern from other nations about it? Also, as noted before, why are major identitarians such as Lauren Southern, who have direct connections to major Jewish financiers such as Robert Shillman and David Horowitz talking about “white genocide” in South Africa?
Perhaps, it is because they want a massacre of the European people, and not for the purpose of death in that nation, but for inciting a war.
Something that one notices about violence in Africa committed by Africans is that it is very blatant, merciless, extreme, and can be triggered by even something insignificant. This phenomenon is also witnessed in the USA, where owing to websites such as World Star Hip Hop, people post videos of people being assaulted and even murdered over petty reasons. This was one of the points that comedian Bill Cosby raised in his famous “Pound Cake Speech,” where he criticized the tendency in the Afro-American community of people killing each other for no reason and in horrible ways that defy reason:
Kenneth Clark, somewhere in his home in upstate New York…just looking ahead. Thank God, he doesn’t know what’s going on, thank God. But these people, the ones up here in the balcony fought so hard. Looking at the incarcerated, these are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! Then we all run out and are outraged, “The cops shouldn’t have shot him” What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand? (laughter and clapping). I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else (laughter) And I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said if get caught with it you’re going to embarrass your mother. Not you’re going to get your butt kicked. No. You’re going to embarrass your mother. You’re going to embarrass your family. (source)
Cosby’s observations also apply to the continent of Africa, where as many historical writers have noted from the ancient times through today, that the sons of Ham seem to have an established pattern of such violence when they do commit violence.
This is likewise not to say that African people are “unique” in the level and extremity of violence they commit. World Wars I and II started in Europe, and there has not been a century in Europe in which there has not been a sizeable war. The Indians of the Americas were known for their violence, and certainly the Muslim peoples of the Middle East, the peoples of Hindustan, China, Japan, and Central Asia have their histories of morbid atrocities.
While the nature of violence remains the same, it is the distribution of said violence within a culture that changes, giving the appearance of a tangible difference when in reality is it the same just as water in a certain volume can be formed into a solid, liquid, or gas depending on the conditions it is subjected to.
In Africa, violence is open, manifest, and obvious. A man wrongs another man, the man wronged takes a machete and chops off the other man’s arm and starts eating it. It is disorganized, messy, crude, and visibly savage.
In Europe, the violence is concentrated in the mind that builds up and then explodes in an organized manner. It begins with books and writings, goes to propaganda, “justifications” for actions, and then explodes into organized warfare and mutilation done in the name of “science,” such as what happened in World War II. It is also hidden better from the public view, and so it has the appearance of being “cleaner.”
Again, the nature or extent of the violence itself has not changed. What has changed is the distribution and appearance.
If President Ramphosa follows through with his measures, he will usher in a level of violence similar to what happened in Zimbabwe. However, the difference this time is that everybody has a smart phone and an Internet connection.
David Carroll. While his videos are NOT for children, he discusses the situation of black America and the cultural factors influencing it regarding controversial topics, of which one is the use of technology.
David Carroll is an Afro-American cultural commentator who I have followed for years. He has stated in his videos that he believes one of the most destructive things ever to happen to the black community has been the smart phone because, referring to websites such as the one mentioned above, World Star Hip Hop, many Afro-American people have been making videos of themselves committing violent acts and then putting them up on that and other websites. Other black commentators such as Tommy Sotomayor have discussed this phenomenon as well and its destructive fruits.
Does this mean that European people do not commit violence? Absolutely not. What it does mean is that, following a common and historically established pattern, what Ham does in the open Japheth does in secret with better organization. The European may film himself committing a heinous crime, but he does so, generally speaking, for his private use and seldom puts his videos and face for the world to see and incriminate his actions. Japheth will organize his crimes, think through the consequences, and tend to make a better effort to clean up any incriminating evidence.
Same violence, but two different forms for two different peoples.
If this pattern follows in South Africa, one can expect to see the same pattern but this time in a racially-charged atmosphere, and one which the whole world is watching.
Can one imagine what would happen if one of these African nationalists filmed him murdering a European family on his smart phone while laughing about it?
What would the response be watching people in large number burn farmer homes?
What would people think to watch some of the African nationalists laugh at the pain of those whose homes and lives they have destroyed?
It would cause a massive outrage.
It would be a galvanizing moment for the new nationalist movement.
It would shock the entire world, and they would NEVER forget those videos and images.
It would be an ideal way to supercharge racial tensions, which are already strained in the Western world, and give way to justify violence against “foreigners.”
It would give the nationalists of the time a “reason” to engage in eugenics and human experimentation again against people considered “inferior.”
I want to emphasize the issue here is not a racial one of “black and white,” but one of the manipulation of already existing historical attitudes and documented cultural reactions in combination with intentionally aggravated racial tensions so to foment such feelings that they might be parlayed into militarism and war.
Is it possible that there could be violence similar to what happened in Zimbabwe or worse that takes place in South Africa?
It is certainly possible. It is also desired, because it would further the drive to war and eugenics. All men are sons of Ham, Shem, and Japheth, and the issue that faces the world today is not what is presented as the “problems,” but about population reduction and the creation of a new world order in the name of a new “evolution” of the human race brought about by the destruction of the great masses of humanity regardless of race while using race as a lever.