Sometimes clairvoyance is indistinguishable from deja vu. For instance, if South Africa defenestrated its white farmers we would all know the precise result. But would it be from perception or precedent? That’s one of life’s sweet mysteries. And since Anthony Kennedy’s crayon isn’t moving, I doubt we’ll soon be advised of the answer.
Though by whatever faculties we perceive these things, the past has a bright future in South Africa today. SA parliament passes land expropriation bill.
In some ways I can appreciate a dullard’s unintentional honesty. Expropriation is a formidable enough term on its own for 70IQs to conjure. It would be asking a bit much to eschew it in favor of platitudes more refined to the western palate. Something more gauzy and less obvious in intent. Perhaps the Democracy and Diversity Sod Liberation Act would ring a bit less jarring. But if such straightforward naming conventions persist we might be faced with the Hang All Whites By Their Entrails Act. And that might lead National Review to a cover story on the country’s completely unreasonable corporate tax regime.
Thankfully I can turn to the liberal press for less shoe gazing and more adherence to principle. Obviously white colonists brought nourishing diversity to Africa, along with the positive contributions of culture and perspective unique to immigrants everywhere. Europeans are also minorities in that continent, and thus safeguarded by liberal doctrine as if they were Faberge Eggs. Look, if liberals didn’t stand sturdy on these core principles they’d be laughed off Earth for the transparent racial hostility of their agenda. Christ, how dumb do you think people are?
Regardless, I can feel the fury building at Huffington Post as we speak.
The alarmingly named Expropriation Bill, passed on May 26th by South Africa’s parliament, is being hailed by the ruling party as a victory for blacks who were dispossessed of their land by white colonists.
Sometimes blacks do alarming things. And that’s precisely what page 27 of the local paper was designed to cover. Though I do wish the reporter would look up from the sidewalk long enough to discuss exactly what he finds alarming about a non-white majority confiscating the property (and lives) of a white minority. Maybe he is alarmed by the incipient awareness that nothing whatsoever prevents the same thing from occurring in Europe.
But I was personally alarmed by his vulgar characterization that blacks were dispossessed of their land by colonists. That’s supremacist incitement of hate against minority immigrants. Post that sentiment in Britain and you’ll get an extended stay voucher for the Crossbar Motel. Which makes it even more shocking that such bigotry appears in the formerly respectable Economist.
The African National Congress (ANC) has until now operated a “willing seller, willing buyer” policy of land reform. But this has proved slow and ineffective.
Slow and ineffective. So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it. It’s not that stealing productive land from those who hacked it out of brush is morally unjust in any way. The criticism is simply that the theft is proceeding a bit too languidly. A point that will require little belaboring to London’s non-white majority and muslim mayor.
The new bill, which still needs to be signed by the president, Jacob Zuma, aims to speed this up, by allowing the state to expropriate land by paying an amount determined by a “Valuer-General”.
Critics fear the bill could affect agricultural production at a time when South Africa is recovering from a serious drought, as well as suffering from creakingly slow economic growth and an expected downgrade of its credit-rating to junk status later this year.
There’s the fear of slow and ineffective, and then there’s impact on The Economy. I think that pretty much covers every possible vector of criticism.
Pierre de Vos, a constitutional law expert, notes that the expropriation of property will still be subject to the South African constitution, and that fair market prices will have to be paid. He thinks that “people get a bit hysterical” about the bill, and argues it is unlikely to make a major difference.
I expect few True Conservatives will be inclined to complaint upon realizing their homelessness and penury are strictly within constitutional bounds. And if Americans similarly decided to rejuvenate their cities by expropriating black slums for redevelopment, people would just need to realize that from a holistic standpoint it’s unlikely to make a major difference. So just stop with all the hysterics.
We could continue mocking this sort of magnificently bland hypocrisy until our fingers bled. And while none of it will ever penetrate the liberal virtue carapace, it is our hope that an occasional stray reader comes to clarity on the racket now in global implementation.
As for South Africa specifically, it would require preternatural credulity to believe that white landowners will receive “fair market prices” for what is taken from them. After all, if fair prices were on offer there would be little need to legally force a sale. My own neighborhood offers a pristine example of transitioning land ownership away from whites without a single eminent domain proceeding.
And as an aside, the bill does not specify land, but rather “property.” And that grants quite a wide berth to creative expropriators. So what’s the fair market value of a white man’s bank account? About 1% of its balance, if you ask the Constitution.
Of course none of this even broaches the topic of interest or ability in the hard work of farming. Neither of which are in the possession of many blacks. The notion that there are legions of African shanty-dwellers yearning to till the earth while meticulously managing crop irrigation and rotation is such a howler that its premise must always be carefully unmentioned.
Instead, what is a near certainty is that confiscated lands will quickly fall fallow and, like the shadow of neighboring Rhodesia, a country blessed with fertile soil will soon enough begin food importation. This followed, just as assuredly, by the begging bowl when it can no longer afford Western agricultural output. We can only wait anxiously in hopes that infant starvation won’t severely curtail that region’s robust TFR.
In light of legendary African reticence to cultivate their own sustenance, I imagine another wrinkle in the expropriation process will emerge. Almost certainly many recipients will acquire land they haven’t the foggiest idea how to manage. And so who could they sell to for a prompt profit? Why the white farmer whose home was just taken, naturally. The practical results of which would be simply to leave the productive farmer in place while stripping his family of any equity value in the property. Whether this would leave him with residual exposure to future expropriations is one of life’s sweet mysteries. Hopefully the answer lurks somewhere in a constitutional penumbra.
This is not to suggest there is no future for whites in Africa, but to say there is not one anywhere they do not maintain demographic hegemony. No other people are even vaguely interested in our precious concepts of legal neutrality. The Law of Rule governs the globe. And it’s traveling across the oceans as we speak.