South Africa’s new president dashes hope of moderates

During Ramaphosa’s address to the nation from parliament in Cape Town he made clear that his priority is to “right the injustice of the past”, going all the way back to the original European colonists in the 1600s.

The problem is that the colonists did not take any land from the indigenous tribes, because of the Mfecane, but this historical fact did not stop the new president from continuing his anti-white rant.

Mfecane – a Zulu word, means “crushing, scattering, forced dispersal, forced migration” – was a period of widespread warfare among indigenous ethnic communities in southern Africa during the period between 1815 and about 1840 leading to the genocide of interior tribes, and leaving the interior of the country empty at the time colonists decided to move north.

White colonists were therefore never part of any of the black-on-black conflict raging, but as many researchers have pointed out, blaming whites is often a way to unite black tribes in the country and Ramaphosa himself belongs to a hated ethnic minority. As a Venda, Ramaphosa is thus inclined to want to focus on an anti-white diatribe, something that former ousted president Zuma – a Zulu – felt no need for.

Ramaphosa blamed the white colonists for the “original sin”, and stated that he wanted to see “the return of the land to the people from whom it was taken… to heal the divisions of the past.”

How does he plan on doing that? By land confiscation, and specifically through confiscation without compensation.

“The expropriation of land without compensation is envisaged as one of the measures that we will use to accelerate redistribution of land to black South Africans.”

Ramaphosa minced no words about taking land from white farmers and giving it to black South Africans.

Astonishingly, the black billionaire followed up that statement the naive claim that: “We will handle it in a way that is not going to damage our economy.”

South Africa now wants to do what Zimbabwe did several years ago. Seeking to correct “colonial injustices” in his country, Zimbabwe’s president Robert Mugabe initiated a land redistribution program in 1999-2000.

Thousands of white-owned farms were confiscated by the government, and the white farmers were forced out by black youths mobs posing as “war veterans” although most were not old enough to remember the “liberation war” fought by black terrorists.

Bear in mind that Zimbabwe used to be known as the breadbasket of southern Africa. Zimbabwe’s world-class farmers were major food exporters to the rest of the region.

But within a few years of Mugabe’s land distribution, food production plummeted.

Without its professional, experienced farmers, the nation went from being an agricultural export powerhouse to having to rely on handouts from the United Nations’ World Food Programme.

Hyperinflation and a multi-decade depression followed.

South Africa has had a front-row seat to the effects of Mugabe’s land redistribution, not to mention the millions of starving Zimbabwean refugees who came across the borders.

It seems clear that copying Zimbabwe is a non-workable idea and will only end up hurting the people they claim to be helping.

But while most have sounded the alarm on a future disaster-in-the-making, the financial newspaper in Johannesburg, The Businessday, has been selling the idea of land grab with fervour.

An analyst who wants to remain anonymous, told FMW that there is a globalist angle to Ramaphosa’s zeal to take white farms. Corporate interests in Johannesburg linked to Buenos Aires, Argentina, hope the coming food insecurity would lead to lucrative grain contracts paid for by US and European taxpayers.