A taboo has been broken and a silence - a close runner-up to the silence of the grave - has been shattered by respected journalist, Paul Toohey, writing in the Sunday Telegraph of March 11, "A white minority in South Africa is being murdered and tortured - as families in Australia wait helplessly".
Could it be true? Whatever happened to the happy ending predicted by starry eyed opponents of Apartheid back in '94 just before packing up their picket signs and going home congratulating themselves on a job well done? Exactly what even the dimmest dimwit could have predicted would happen: a national suicide - the very thing Apartheid was created to prevent and exactly what present Israeli apartheid is designed to prevent.
What Toohey is now writing about are merely details. He lists some of the most recent atrocities: a white farmer, Berdus Henrico nursing three fresh bullet wounds but surviving the intended coup de grace, a bullet to the head, because of faulty firearms; holes drilled through the feet of elderly women; people cremated while still alive; the ever popular past-time of bashing and raping preferred white women, and the case of the couple, Rickkie Alsemgeest 67 and Piet Els 86. Rickkie was stripped and digitally raped while Pietf was bashed with an iron bar. They were then both tortured by burning with a steam iron.
These cases are simply a few tickets plucked from a macabre garbage-bag full in a process ramping up for almost the last quarter century, given official sanction by none other than former South African president Jacob Zuma entertaining a crowd of ANC faithful with a rendition of a catchy little number, Kill the Boer. The more cynical may interpret this as a call for genocide. Evidently though, up until now, Australian officials could never be accused of being this cynical because in their eyes nothing special could be attached to the suffering of South African Whites. Hey! Doncha know perfect equal opportunity reigns in the suffering of all in South Africa, be the Black, White, or in between.
Admittedly, this argument has some substance given that Joburg is the world capital of homicide, the South African incidence of rape is the highest in the world and where Black women have come to view being raped as rude interruption on the way back from the market, and "necklacing" (a victim being encircled in a tyre which is then set on fire) is a much loved spectator sport. However, the perpetrators of these black-on-black-crimes are not being urged on by the president himself, and neither are these atrocities seen as fair payback for what the masses have been taught was one massive atrocity - the system of Apartheid. Additionally, with the exception of necklacing which would be, although not pleasant, at least a relatively quick death, the same enthusiasm for prolonged torture in the murders of Whites does not seem to appear in the deaths of Blacks. As Toohey writes, "An urban crime might last ten minutes, but (on farms) people can be tortured for nine hours."
Apparently though this has remained irrelevant minutia for Australian governments when dishing out refugee status, in order to retain a dirty, little loophole. And that is that because the heinous treatment inflicted on all appears to be so evenly spread, how can special consideration be given to Whites alone? Why, before we know it we'll have the populations of the entire African continent claiming refugee status because of mutual ill treatment.
That argument though has just had the rug pulled out from under it with the new president, Cyril Ramaphosa throwing his weight behind a motion passed by socialist Economic Freedom Fighters (and who'd want to get on the wrong side of an outfit with a moniker like that) that white owned land should be appropriated without compensation. The Horror! Not to mention the stupidity. This is exactly the same process that converted Rhodesia from a bread-basket to a basket-case. Farms run scientifically with the expertise acquired over generations were unceremoniously stolen from their rightful owners and chopped up and distributed to fools who were barely able to draw a subsistence from the fragments.
The day after Toohey's article appeared, Jewish but nevertheless lovely to look at Caroline Marcus, writing for the same paper, added to the subject that had been non grata for so long that, if not for the internet, readers would be as shocked as they would be if suddenly told the American moon-landings were all faked (can hardly wait for that day). "In South Africa, apartheid has been replaced by a violent campaign of rape and murder directed at the country's white farmers, who cannot claim refugee status [not even while being tortured]" Her claim that being a white South African farmer is the world's most dangerous job isn't really pushing poetic licence all that much.
Most commentators on the situation agree that accurate figures are notoriously difficult to come by but Caroline quotes the Transvaal Agricultural Union, representing SA commercial farmers, murder rate of its members being 138 per 100,000. To put that into perspective, the total murder rate of SA is 31 per 100,000. No, nothing to see here folks. White farmers must just be incredibly unlucky and as bad luck can strike anywhere, absolutely no grounds whatsoever exist for special treatment. To give an idea of the trajectory as well as the tragedy of what's happening to Whites in SA, last year, according again to Caroline, a record of 404 farm attacks was set. This is four times the rate of a decade ago.
I've followed through on Caroline's suggestion to "Google 'South African farmers' to be confronted with the most stomach-churning images of white men and women tortured in their home with clothing irons, power drills and blow-torches". Here are the some of the results:
One slight quibble with Ms Marcus's sympathising: insight is given into just how well marinated she is in the belief that, by definition, racism means white racism, by her insistence on using the asinine term "reverse racism", implying that racism demonstrated by any other than the white race is so aberrant as to need a special term. No my lovely, racism is racism.
And the hits just keep coming. The very next day, again in the Telegraph, the thinking man's pin-up girl, Miranda Devine, hits the politically correct nail squarely on the head with, "Yet white South African farmers don't qualify as refugees in Australia. They are the persecuted minority we have to ignore because of the colour of their skin". Brava Miranda. Adding to the problem of a skin colour as popular as a pig's head in a mosque is, as Devine also points out, is the ability of white South Africans to blend seamlessly into the Australian way of life. They love barbecues for Christ's sake! But where's the diversity? multiculturalists would no doubt cry out. It's all well and good that they'd be mostly well-educated, skilled and wouldn't be lingering uselessly on the Centrelink tit for years on end, but where's the colour? Why these people would be as pale and stale and bland as ... well, the people whose country, at great expense and effort, is being pulled out from under them.
Nothing yet on TV about these developments, but some murmuring on radio. And then, almost miraculously as a walk on water, Peter Dutton, whose portfolio includes immigration, announces consideration is being given to a special refugee deal for "persecuted" White South Africans. However, it sounds suspiciously like a one-off like the 12,000 number that was conjured up for special case Syrians. But what happened to the loophole preventing refugee status? Apparently, it wasn't that important after all.
Naturally, the SA government isn't happy. In fact it is furious. How dare Dutton blacken its good name by insinuating not all SA citizens are cared for equally? Besides, white South Africans don't want to leave their homeland where they are so treasured. This calls for a truly dedicated suspense of disbelief. The Australian High Commissioner is carpeted.
Fuck the SA government! Fuck this pathetic state that is failing faster than a Chinese spanner! The sooner it arrives back in the jungle, the better.
Who's the chicken and who is the egg? Did the Telegraph articles, in true power of the press style, galvanise Dutton into voicing this change of long-standing policy? Or did Dutton first "leak" his reconsideration to this right-of-centre newspaper as a kind of softening-up strategy? This writer's money is on the latter. It's highly unlikely a media outlet would go stomping into this kind of minefield without a green light. More importantly, why the radical change in policy? The SA government's decision to expropriate White-owned land without compensation would appear to be the catalyst. Rape, murder and torture are one thing (or three), but private property stolen, when the right to own property is a central tenet of the Capitalist system? That's evidently a bridge, or a farm, too far.
Television, by this time, felt it safe to begin airing this ray of hope for SA farmers who, deprived of their farms would have no option other than joining their fellows in squalid squatter camps. Predictably, in a sound-grab, Richard Di Natale, leader of the Greens and idiot looking for a village, claimed ridiculously that this was nothing other than "a return to the White Australia policy". Predictable because the Greens, "these fairies at the bottom of the garden" have a pathological hatred for anything to do with the survival of the White race and its civilisation.
Postscript: From the Daily Telegraph, Monday March 19: "But Ms Bishop [Australian Foreign Minister] yesterday told the ABC she wasn't aware of any planned changes. 'I believe the humanitarian program's credibility comes from the fact that it is non-discriminatory and that each application is assessed on its merits'". Could this be construed to mean that if Whites are accepted as refugees, the program ceases to be non-discriminatory? Can't have that. Let the torture, murder and rape continue.