The unsurprising return of apartheid

It is a basic law of nature that, if you insist on persecuting a minority, stealing from them, mistreating them, and chasing them out of your country through intimidation and brutality and outright murder, then that minority will react to preserve its culture and identity and way of life.

It doesn't matter where you look in human history. This has almost always been the case; it's difficult to think of a single race or tribe that simply rolled over and accepted its inevitable destruction.

Whether you look at the conquest of the American West and the often savage resistance of the American aborigines, the wars waged by the Norse pagans against their eventual Christian conquerors, the last stand of the samurai at Shiroyama, the ferocious fight that the Zulus and the Boers put up against the British, or any of the countless other examples you can think of, the fundamental human instinct for survival has always and everywhere dictated that a tribe will fight for its survival to the very end.

Evidently, though, this is complete news to the mainstream (((media))), at least as far as white people are concerned:
A sprawling 'whites-only' settlement dubbed 'Project Eden' is being set up on the edge of the South African desert by 'pioneers' who claim they are the victims of 'apartheid in reverse'. 
The controversial community will house up to 30,000 residents and is modelled on the 'Orania' enclave where Afrikaaners live apart from black people and even have their own currency. 
Jacqui Gradwell, leader of the chilling new area under construction [er... what's "chilling" about it?] cites 'the murder of 88,000 white people' since the first free vote of 1994 as evidence of 'a genocide against our people'. 
A return to the old way – when whites and non-white South Africans lived apart - 'is the only way to preserve our culture', he insists. 
'It is not a racist project, it is based on fact. We have the right to that.' 
The married father-of-six, whose beard is styled on those worn by his early settler ancestors, claims to receive 'multiple' calls every day from white 'pioneers' seeking refuge from South Africa's political volatility, endemic corruption and high rates of violent crime. 
He is convinced that the current level of violence will soon bring the 'Rainbow Nation' to the brink of civil war. 
In an unnerving example of how deep racial divisions remain in South Africa more than two decades after the end of apartheid, Gradwell is unapologetic that the qualification to be part of Die Eden Projek – the Eden Project in Afrikaans – is based on race. 
'They must be white because all the murders and all the violence in this country is perpetrated by black people,' the 55-year-old farmer says firmly without apology. 
'They must also be Christians and we intend to stick to that principle, we want to bring safety back to our own people.'
Right, lads, say it with me. All together now: "DIVERSITY + PROXIMITY = WAR".

Interestingly, I don't find anything even slightly objectionable about the idea of setting up a whites-only enclave in Africa. It doesn't bother me in the least.

Why? After all, I am not white. I am not American. I am not even a Westerner by birth. Yet I live in a majority-white nation (for now, anyway), live peaceably with my white neighbours and coworkers, and have adopted many of their customs and mannerisms as my own. My experience with white people has been almost universally positive, aside from certain harsh exceptions from during my time in Australia.

Yet I have absolutely no problem with the idea of whites wanting to live apart from blacks, when they are the minority instead of the other way around. And that is because white and black cultures are fundamentally very different and deeply incompatible.

The reality of white civilisation, as I have pointed out before, is that whites have generally created culture, order, stability, peace, and prosperity pretty much wherever they have gone. The reality of black "civilisation" is anarchy, violence, brutality, and civic dysfunction.

Anyone who disagrees is welcome to take a drive from the, very white, suburbs of Detroit into the, very black, inner city. You will experience the extreme shock of going from a prosperous and flourishing community largely made up of happy and stable individuals, to what looks like the aftermath of a direct strike by a fusion bomb.

Or just visit inner Chicago- mind that you bring body armour with you, though, it's called "Chiraq" for a reason.

Or visit Camden, NJ. Or Newark, NJ. Or large parts of the Bronx. Or...

Well, you get the idea.

The author of the Daily Mail article- who is very clearly and evidently female- has an extremely hard time understanding that white people are just like any other tribe. And tribes respond to external threats by banding together and fighting for survival.

What she further fails to understand is that the very system of oppression and separation that she condemns- which we know as apartheid- was a similar survival mechanism.

She would do well to read Ilana Mercer's superb book, Into the Cannibal's Pot. Mrs. Mercer makes no apologies whatsoever for the excesses of apartheid, which has rightly and repeatedly been castigated for its oppression of blacks and its treatment of the majority-black population as somewhat less than human in many ways. Yet, as she points out in that book, apartheid was about the clearest expression of xenophobia as a survival instinct as you will ever see.

The Boers of South Africa who created the regime of apartheid were not fools. They were pragmatists. They knew that whites in sub-Saharan Africa were a distinct minority. They knew that, in order to survive in a plainly highly hostile environment, they needed a system of government that made a very clear distinction between whites and blacks. And that is precisely what they implemented.

You can call it racist- which it was. You can call it bigoted- which it often was. You can argue that its enforcement was extremely heavy-handed- which, at times, it was. And you can argue that there was little moral backing for it other than the usual doctrine of "might makes right", since the whites had a monopoly on force that they used to keep blacks down.

What you cannot argue, not anymore, is that blacks would not do even worse to whites if given the opportunity- because that is precisely what they have done in Zimbabwe and, increasingly, in South Africa itself.

South African whites comprise less than 10% of the entire population. Blacks form about 80% of the population. The mathematics are coldly determinate. Given that blacks have, on average, far higher time preferences than whites and have demonstrated a markedly lower willingness to build out the institutions and social capital needed to create functioning, orderly, and stable societies, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that the only rational reaction from the white minority was to segregate themselves away from "the others" who were not part of their tribe.

Now we are simply witnessing the exact same thing, happening in reverse. Instead of the white ruling class taking steps to ensure the survival of its tribe, we are seeing the white persecuted class doing what is necessary to preserve its own posterity for itself and its descendants.

I note parenthetically that apartheid is far from the worst evil that has ever afflicted the dark continent. The last time I checked, the Rwandan Genocide was something that blacks inflicted among and between themselves, which incidentally put paid rather thoroughly to the ridiculous myth of black solidarity. Blacks are just as tribal as anyone else- don't ever be fooled into thinking otherwise.

There is nothing objectionable or remarkable about "Project Eden", contrary to whatever the politically correct right-on editors of the Daily Mail would like to believe. It is the natural state of humans to gravitate toward those who are most like them and to protect those who are part of their "tribe".

The lesson for the rest of us is clear. Identify your tribe- and do it quickly. Understand that your "tribe" will be the group for whom you would willingly fight for- even perhaps die for, if necessary. Realise that sooner or later, it will be you and yours against the rest of the world. And don't ever let any halfwit graduate from a "journalism school" to the left of Lenin tell you that you are wrong for doing what is natural and correct.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts