Those fifty-nine Afrikaners who have triggered progressives, what explains the hostility and hysteria? Progressives are losing their shit over this. The Episcopal Church is terminating its partnership with the government to resettle refugees. That move ends a nearly four-decades-old relationship between the federal government and the Church. Why did the Church do this? Moral opposition to resettling white Afrikaners from South Africa who have been classified as refugees by President Trump’s administration. That’s what the Church said.
“Moral opposition”? Sounds like race prejudice to me. Yes, Virginia, whites can be the targets of prejudice and discrimination. That 1960s Black Power slogan “racism = prejudice + power” is a convenient ideological definition (so is the term “institutional racism,” which came into vogue after institutional racism was outlawed) that yields “Only whites can be racist.” Not a big step from there to “All whites are racist.” The slogan testifies to the power of progressives to socialize critical race theory, an ideology built on fallacious concepts (the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, blood libel, etc.).
While the “genocide” narrative is sketchy, Afrikaner concerns about violence and land loss are rooted in very real issues. Farm attacks and South Africa’s broader crime problem and inflammatory rhetoric like “Kill the Boer” exacerbates tensions. The Expropriation Act, while not yet used to seize land, fuels legitimate worries among Afrikaners about their future given their historical reliance on farming. I want to take a moment to provide the facts so you can understand why Afrikaners brought to the United States are legitimate refugees and why the double standard is rooted in anti-white sentiment. If racism is wrong, then what gives?
Afrikaners, particularly the farmers, face brutal attacks on their rural properties, involving assault, robbery, and murder. South African Police Service data reports 330 farm attacks and 45 farm murders in 2023/2024 alone. These incidents are often gruesome, with victims tortured and brutally murdered, leading Afrikaners to rationally fear targeted violence. The isolation of farms and perceived police ineffectiveness heighten their vulnerability.
Political slogans like “Kill the Boer,” chanted at rallies by figures such as Julius Malema of the Economic Freedom Fighters, are rightly seen as direct threats. The rallies and murderous sentiments expressed constitute incitement to violence, especially in light of farm attacks. In other words, there is follow through on the threats—they are not idle. The government’s reluctance to condemn such rhetoric deepens Afrikaner distrust and fear of being targeted. Afrikaners are few and the government won’t protect them.
Many Afrikaners feel culturally and economically sidelined in post-apartheid South Africa. Racially discriminatory policies that resemble our affirmative action limit job opportunities for younger Afrikaners. Combined with the threat of land loss and violence, this fosters a belief that Afrikaners are being pushed out of society. Progressives will argue that white people ought to be pushed out of Africa (they’re white settler colonizers, after all, just like the Jews in Palestine). They have no right to be there. Right, so that makes them refugees. The United States has a long history of taking refugees.
What’s wrong with Afrikaners in particular? Is it because they’re white Christians? Is there a problem with being white or Christian? Are progressives all for refugees as long as they’re non-white and not Christian? Is it because of the history of colonialism and imperialism (which has been rebranded “globalization”)?
I recognize the history of colonialism, but I reject completely the argument that the present should be governed by the ghosts of the past. Intergenerational reparations are immoral by the standards of universal human rights. It’s a primitive view to hold the living responsible for what the dead did.
So what did the ghosts do? The Dutch first settled in South Africa in 1652, when the Dutch East India Company established a refreshment station at the Cape of Good Hope. This marked the beginning of a permanent European presence. The settlers gradually expanded inland, laying the foundation for the Afrikaner population and culture in the region.
The Khoisan population in the Cape was small and quickly devastated by Dutch settlement. Smallpox epidemics, land dispossession, and violent conflicts with settlers reduced their numbers significantly by the 1700s. Sound familiar? The larger black African population, primarily Bantu-speaking tribes, lived further east and north. For a complex of reasons, Bantu-speaking groups grew in population. In time, black Africans came to represent the majority of the population. Apartheid was a strategy to deal with the situation.
Don’t get me wrong, Apartheid was wrong. I have always condemned the practice. I’ve criticized Israel for having apartheid-like structures, and certainly in my own nation’s history with Jim Crow. But I also recognize that Apartheid (established in South Africa in 1948) was dismantled in South Africa more than three decades ago—much like Jim Crow was dismantled in the US more than six decades ago. Black South Africans have been in charge of the government since the end of apartheid. This doesn’t mean that South African society has colorblind society, however. As of right now, according to the Index of Race Law maintained by the South African Institute of Race Relations (IRR), South Africa has 142 race-based laws currently in effect. These laws are defined as statutes that make a person’s race, skin color, or ethnicity legally relevant.
So it matters very much in South Africa that one has white skin. Whites are a small minority in South Africa, approximately 7 percent of the country’s population. That this small number of whites holds a most of the farm land is beside the point. Roughly two-thirds of the farmland in the United States is owned by less than 1 percent of the US population. About 96 percent of US farm owners are non-Hispanic white.
In the past, the land non-Hispanic whites hold in the US was the land American Indians dwelled on. We would vigorously resist expropriation of that land for reparations to American Indians and we would not tolerate violence against the landowners. This is a capitalist society. So is South Africa. Conquered land is not stolen land. The past is not the present. Nobody born today is responsible for history. It’s a time order problem. One can only be responsible for what they do, not for the things other people do or people who came before them. We are not responsible for the sins of our fathers.
But we are responsible for the future. So I ask readers to imagine if whites were a minority in the United States and were facing threats like this. Could they hope for a country that would take them as refugees? Or will white loathing grow so great that whites will have nowhere to go—even to countries with a majority white population? That’s what progressives would like to have happened to those fifty-nine Afrikaners.
You may not see this in your lifetime (unless Democrats get back in power), but consider that, in 1950, England’s population was approximately 99 percent white British, whereas today white British comprise less than 75 percent of the population. What explains the relative decline of the white population? Immigration, higher non-white birth rates, and white British emigration (affluent white Brits are leaving the country). The decline from near-homogeneity to a quarter non-white British reflects significant demographic shifts over seven decades.
The situation has become so bad, in fact, that, on May 12, 2025, Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party delivered a speech in Downing Street immigration that aimed at reducing net migration, which he claimed had soared to 906,000 in 2023 under the previous Conservative government. He promised to “take back control of our borders” with stricter visa rules, including banning overseas care worker recruitment, raising English language requirements, and extending the path to settlement from five to ten years. It was a startling speech coming from a Labour Party leader. Sounds like populist-nationalism to me.
Thinking about the future, Starmer warned that without these measures, the UK risks becoming an “island of strangers,” a phrase criticized by some Labour MPs for echoing far-right rhetoric. Of course they did. Remember Enoch Powell, the British Conservative politician and scholar who delivered that so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968, in Birmingham? Powell warned that unchecked immigration would lead to racial conflict, quoting Virgil’s Aeneid to evoke a future of violence. Powell claimed that white Britons were becoming “strangers in their own country.” Although he was dismissed from the Shadow Cabinet for this, polls showed more than two-thirds of Britons supported Powell’s position.
You can dismiss the large majority of white British citizens who agreed with Powell as racist, but would you likewise dismiss the large majority of Japanese or Africans (pick any Sub-Saharan country) as “racist” for expressing the same sentiment? If Japan were colonized by Swedes and became majority Swedish would it be Japan anymore? Is it really about race or about culture and nation (i.e., ethnicity)? Do the English not live in a democracy where the people decide their fate?
My argument isn’t about whether England should be white in the sense of biological race (I am skeptical of racialism). My point is this: imagine the native English population dwindles to a minority and anti-white sentiment continues to grow—and the nation continues to be Islamized at the present pace. Should white Britons be concerned about their future and safety? Yes, I think they should. Like Powell, Christopher Hitchens warned his fellow countrymen about it (before migrating to the US and becoming an American citizen). “The barbarians are inside the gates,” the brave man said. South Africa is the paradigm of the dangers of being a minority out of power in a society dominated by those who do not share Western values of tolerance and justice.
What whites need to consider is whether in such a world they could in the future, if they needed to, find a country in which to seek asylum. If one is white, according to doctrine, then he is responsible for all evils in the world. His property is justifiably expropriated and his worth as a human nil. This is the rot of postcolonial ideology. This ideology is not about criticizing the deviation of colonialism that threatened the Peace of Westphalia, but a rejection of the substance the modern Western nation-state altogether. This is the threat to the Peace of Westphalia. The West is in peril. the time is late.
Who would be behind such a thing? And why are Europe politicians enabling those who are behind it? And, no, I’m not talking about the Jews. They’re in the same boat as the rest of the West. (Have you heard the pro-Palestinian rhetoric on our college campuses?) I’m talking about the globalists—the transnational corporations and their functionaries and intellectuals. They don’t care about nation-states only to the extent that they are fetters on their campaign to rule the planet. Indigenous populations meant squat to the imperialists and they mean squat to the new brand.
Think about it: If one argues that the indigenous population of England is analogous to the South African situation, that these are peoples who are being colonized (which one must if he rejects racist double standards), then why would the West support mass immigration? Those memes with cartoon American Indians depicted centuries ago condemning the new arrivals? Those cartoon Indians were right. Progressives know they were because they’re the ones who share those memes!
There’s a lot going on here but it operationally comes back to loathing of whites, whether they’re the majority or a minority. A great many whites argue themselves for anti-white hostility—we might deem these folks self-loathing. This was expressed during the BLM riots, when whites washed the feet of the black activists setting businesses on fire out of white guilt for being “oppressors.” Remember the Democratic congressmen, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, wore kente cloth while taking a knee for George Floyd?
Racism has been a strategy Democrats—the party of the slavocracy, Jim Crow, and now DEI—have used for centuries to divide the working class and disrupt worker solidarity. Proving it an effective tool for power, sowing division, and jacking animosity and envy, they’ve simply flipped the oppressor-victim script. So quite naturally, when Trump allows fifty-nine white Christian Afrikaners into the United States as refugees fleeing racist violence in South Africa progressives lose their shit.
They’re also losing their shit because among the criteria Trump is using for vetting refugees seeking asylum in our country is their ability to assimilate with our culture. The Democrat rank-and-file has been so programmed that when they hear the word they think there’s something untoward about it, as if it’s racism or something. But the huge problem that the West has been grappling with is migration from areas where populations are highly resistant to assimilation with western culture. More than resistant, they’re colonizing the West and culturally transforming our countries. This is what Hitchens warned us about back in 2009.
Do folks really not understand that progressives oppose assimilation because they seek to Balkanize the West? I promise you that elites understand this. It’s what they want. Multiculturalism is a strategy in the project of managed decline of the West: to disorganize the most advanced nations and undermine the solidarity that binds their populations together.
But assimilation should be one of the primary goals governing immigration. For those seeking asylum, the two questions we have to ask: (1) is there a legitimate claim to seek asylum; (2) are those seeking asylum compatible with American culture? If we answer yes to both questions, we have to take refugees in a small enough numbers to allow them to properly assimilate with our democratic-republican traditions and liberal values. We also have to consider whether the people who come here can make an economic contribution to our economy in ways that don’t harm the job opportunities and wages of native Americans and Europeans. In larger numbers, this consideration moves itself into the above list.
Europe has a huge problem with Muslim populations, idle in ghettos and dependent on taxpayers, separating themselves except to gather in masses and clog the streets with their praying. The Islamizing of European cities and towns is intensifying. Why should Americans follow suit and become culturally-disorganized welfare states for the world’s poor and open to those who mean to destroy the decadent West? Why should the West allow their countries to be colonized by culture-bearers who won’t respect our religious and secular traditions?
Let me go on record here and say that I am 100 percent supportive of Trump’s immigration policies. When I started writing in 2018 about the problem of mass immigration on this platform, I made these exact same arguments. I was skeptical of Trump in 2016. I’m not skeptical anymore.
freedom and reason 