Not only does a politics of invidiousness not work, by allowing hatred to dictate policy, a nation will dash itself to pieces in the belief it is somehow correcting historical injustices, real, perceived, or selectively remembered. What purports to be liberalism in the modern era is nothing more than a preoccupation with the past that must by necessity hold the present hostage to the past and mortgage the future for the redress of the sins of another age. In this zeitgeist, there can be no reconciliation. White Namibians, like white South Africans, like white Rhodesians, like white Americans, have been targeted for oblivion as “cosmic retribution” for daring to exist in the historical shadow of since-passed colonialism and Apartheid.
It is one of the gravest mistakes one can make to foist the dominant values of the present on to the past, and it results in often profoundly lethal distortions. The purpose of Year One under Pol Pot was not simply to mark the new age of his communist regime, but to erase history prior to the ascendancy of the Khmer Rouge; on April 17th, 1975, the “Because Current Year” trope was given legs in Cambodia with the declaration of Year Zero and the onset of the “classless society.” For not only Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, but virtually every other totalitarian regime, the erasure of history from monuments to books boils down to absolute control and the re-making of man in its image. As Dominique Venner wrote, “Like plants, men cannot exist without roots.” Divorced from identity, from history, they become tumbleweeds, subject to the whims of forces beyond their control, easily moved and even easier to corral and shepherd. Lightweight and without resistance, with nothing to tie them to the land, the deracinated and identity-less man is useless to everyone but his master. As the Czech writer Milan Kundera, no stranger to communist totalitarianism wrote:
The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was.
The transition to Year Zero is well underway across the Occident, from the United Kingdom’s making Tommy Robinson an Unperson to the United States doing the same to the accused men of the #MeToo hysteria; in Africa, Brave Africa, the same fate is being visited upon the entirety of the white population. Ethnic cleansing is the latest trend below the Sahara, the process—barring two Spanish cities in Morocco—complete in the Maghreb. As the legacy of colonialism looms large in the rhetoric justifying the spectacular failures of post-colonial independence, the need for a scapegoat becomes all the more pressing to justify the egalitarian mythos. You don’t see anti-Turkish pogroms in Bulgaria or Macedonia or Greece, for example, despite the atrocities visited upon their native populations by the Turks for centuries. You do, however, see anti-“Settler” pogroms in Africa, and often in countries where colonial rule was far more benign than was the Ottomans’.
I will use just one more example to illustrate this rank hypocrisy. Whites are portrayed as uniquely evil colonialists responsible for slavery, ethnic cleansing, and all sorts of other horrors, and yet China, in all of its flagrant disregard for human rights and its aggressive expansionism, somehow escapes scrutiny. That the Chinese engaged in the African slave trade for a millennium and that the first nations to actually abolish it were European and European-founded never registers. Similarly, it is apparently unremarkable that the communist regime is sitting on a mound of tens of millions of corpses; according to historian Frank Dikötter, Mao’s Great Leap Forward was responsible for forty-five million deaths in a four year span (1958-1962) alone. The country continues to censor, censure, repress, and imprison, all the while continuing its ethnic cleansing of regions like Tibet, which represents an extension of what they’ve done historically in regions like Manchuria. China is also continuing to expand its imperial influence in the South China Sea, they provide material aid and support to the North Korean regime, and they persist in the refusal to acknowledge Taiwan as a sovereign nation. They’re also, shrewdly, practicing a more discreet form of economic imperialism, with the effect that China effectively owns countries such as Jamaica, Uganda, Kenya, Senegal, and Venezuela. Their rapid industrialization follows no restrictions on pollution, and the environmental degradation as a consequence has been profound. Finally, while liberals go ballistic about American Vice President Mike Pence’s supposed views on homosexual “conversion therapy,” it remains standard practice throughout China.
There is clearly a double-standard at work here. Far from the charade of expanding “tolerance” and “inclusion,” the anti-white fervor sweeping the globe is becoming increasingly blatant. The rhetoric is one of Original Sin (example: “Namibia’s Whites May Atone for Apartheid Sins”), but there is no means of redemption. Not even extinction will do—the “legacy” of colonialism, exploitation, “white supremacy,” et cetera will still persist. This, too, must be “dismantled.” As the anti-white virulence continues to spread, there are few countries left on earth that do not work toward the active dispossession and ultimate extermination of their white populations, regardless of whether or not they ever even practiced colonialism. What “legacy of colonialism” do Norway or Sweden or Ireland or Switzerland have to atone for? “Colonialism” is clearly just a thin justification for global white genocide. If it’s not colonialism, it’s something else. Sam Francis explains:
The attack upon us defines itself in racial terms and seeks through the delegitimization of race for whites and the legitimization of race for non-whites the dispersion and destruction of the foundations of our solidarity while at the same time consolidating non-white cohesiveness against whites…If and when that challenge should triumph and those enemies come to kill us as the Tutsi people have been slaughtered in Rwanda, they will do so not because we are “Westerners” or “Americans” or “Christians” or “conservatives” or “liberals” but because we are white.
From Australia to Canada, the United States to Namibia, we are uniformly being told No Whites Allowed. It is, simply, apartheid with the roles reversed. So much for reconciliation. Namibian Democratic Movement treasurer general Nico Smit explains that the reason most white Namibians do not participate in Independence Day celebrations is quite simple—they are tired of being scapegoated for everything that’s gone wrong in the country by the ruling party, Swapo, and the majority of the black population. Smit stated:
This is the thing that is haunting us now maybe for 28 years, which is actually sad. Unfortunately, it’s true. Nobody can deny that it is especially the ruling party. Their weakness is that when anything goes wrong in this country then they accuse the White people for being the cause of that…They are being labelled…as people who are not in favour of progress, not in favour of this and that. If you are always accused, always being…told that you’re responsible for things that are not good, then you will also feel not being part of the house… To be involved in the economy of the country to open a business, to do business, there (are) no White people that forbid Black persons to do this. It’s open. We welcome. We even help them. We give people who are starting young businesses, you know, Black and Brown people, many of the White people are even helping those people to get on their feet. But we still are being labelled and accused of being sort of responsible for these type of things. Even last year when the celebrations were in Rundu, the president again chose to pick on White people to accuse them of this. Now the more you accuse people, the more you push them away. Why would I go there knowing that I will be insulted and be called names? Why? Why should I do it to myself?
Despite using their economic clout to help blacks, the Namibian whites are routinely vilified and, even worse, often barred from participating in many aspects of public life, as well as actively disadvantaged in economic terms by the ruling party. Namibia, despite the overt acrimony from the black majority and much of the governmental structure, had heretofore avoided some of the more egregious expropriations, policies, and attacks that have been wrought on whites in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other former European colonies, but unfortunately that is starting to change in Namibia, too. Borrowing a page from the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) programs instituted in South Africa, all white-owned businesses will now be required to sell a controlling interest of a minimum of 25% of their companies to blacks as a form of apartheid “redress” under the Namibian equivalent of BEE, the Namibian Economic Empowerment Framework (NEEF), and this new bill. In addressing the “necessity” of passing such a bill, President Hage Geingob stated:
The majority of Namibians remain structurally excluded from meaningful participation in the economy and as we established earlier, inclusivity ensures harmony and exclusivity brings discord. We require the support of all Namibians to fix the obvious and dangerous flaws in our social structure.
Spoken like a true college professor! It is not a slippery slope fallacy to note the parallels here with Zimbabwe and South Africa. In countries with no tradition of or care for democratic principles, one man, one vote, one time became the norm. Post-independence, Zimbabwe’s new leadership, just like South Africa’s, and Mozambique’s, and just about every other African country’s rushed to embrace some version of communism or socialism, and the strong-men often brutally consolidated power, nationalized and strip-mined existing industries, and, as so many former colonies deteriorated into chaos and civil war, or watched the bottom drop out of their infrastructure and economy, or both, their former colonial overlords and the small populations they left behind became convenient targets.
This is how the ethnic cleansing and the attendant deterioration of Zimbabwe began. From 296,000 whites in 1975 to less than 30,000 in 2018, the white population declined precipitously against a backdrop of “indigenization” laws that barred whites from certain professions, legalized confiscatory policies and the stripping of social benefits, and, ultimately enshrined land expropriations from the bread-basket of the nation—the white farming community. At the time of the expropriations, 4,000 white Zimbabwean farmers employed roughly 40% of the nation’s people; the expropriations put forth by Mugabe, which re-distributed productive white farmland to poor blacks, was nothing short of a disaster and hastened the country’s death spiral. Still more whites fled the country, and the mismanagement of the land led to Zimbabwe going from a food exporter to a food importer.
Due to the decline in supply, prices shot up, which caused Mugabe to impose price controls. As economist Bradley R. Schiller explains, the price controls further discouraged production, and coupled with a new black market, the inflation rate continued. The passage in 2008 of the “black empowerment” Indigenization and Economic Empowerment Bill into law called for the transfer of majority shares from foreign-owned firms to black Zimbabweans, discouraging investment and leading to a number of companies leaving the country. That same year, 2008, inflation in Zimbabwe hit an astounding 165,000%! The use of foreign currency had to be legalized the following year as the nation abandoned its own currency. The Economist ran a piece in 2007 entitled “Blackening the Economy” about the situation, apparently unaware of the deep ironies:
Doing any business at all in Zimbabwe is no mean feat these days. Sky-rocketing inflation— officially estimated at 7,600% in July but probably over 10,000%—unemployment at 80% and crippling power and fuel shortages are daunting enough. On top of that, price controls slapped on in June have emptied shelves and depleted stocks, bringing many shops and factories to a standstill. The official exchange rate was devalued last week from 250 to 30,000 Zimbabwean dollars to the American one. But this new rate is still at least eight times less than what you can get on the black market. Now, following the land redistribution that has devastated agriculture, President Robert Mugabe’s government seems to have declared open season on other parts of the economy as well. In the next few weeks, Parliament looks set to pass the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Bill that might ultimately transfer at least 51% of all businesses into local black hands. This is in addition to a law which already reserves 60% of most listed companies to local blacks. Zimbabwe’s government is not the only one in the region trying to involve more blacks in the economy, none more so than South Africa with its “black economic empowerment” programme.
Foreign and white-owned companies with assets of more than $500,000 either needed to cede or to sell a 51-percent stake to black Zimbabweans or to the country’s National Economic Empowerment Board. Let us also not forget the “darkest” aspect in all of this, the state-sanctioned murders of whites. The new government is pleading for white farmers in particular to return in order to ramp up food production once again, but to quote the band Gallows, “The bed they made is a grave in hell.” For forty years they’ve maligned, murdered, and chased away the whites, scapegoating them for everything that has gone wrong in the country, when all along it was the whites who were holding it together. The appeals to white Rhodesians now, after everything has fallen apart, are too little too late, and I find poetic justice in Zimbabwe’s fate.
In South Africa, the situation is not quite that far gone (yet), but it is rapidly disintegrating to Zimbabwean levels. Forcible white land expropriations are now constitutionally enshrined by the black majority. The Black Economic Empowerment laws also impose racial company ownership quotas, and call for the kind of blatant affirmative action policies Americans will no doubt be familiar with. Further, the whites of South Africa are tortured and victimized while the state turns a blind eye, and the murder rate in the country is approaching epidemic levels.
Under the auspices of “reparations,” the black majorities in Zimbabwe and South Africa have stripped the white populations of their voices, their assets, their legal protections, and increasingly, their lives. Namibia now appears to be ready to follow suit. Instead of living standards rising in Africa following independence and the end of colonialism, they have plummeted; in fact, global poverty is not only increasingly clustered in Africa, but its standard of living is lower now than it was in 1960. This is largely the product of biological regression to the mean, but even if you are not convinced by the biology-drives-culture argument, surely what are at best deeply misguided policies instituted by Africa’s rulers would then be at issue, and in lieu of understanding that the politics of invidiousness I discussed at the top of the article does not work—and that any attempted implementation of Marxist doctrines is doomed to failure—only intensifying the scapegoating of African failures vis-à-vis whites is proving to be nothing short of catastrophic. Either way, in the brave multicultural future of tomorrow, what makes you think the “colonizers” of America, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand will be safe?