In case you were unclear about the seriousness of the South African refugee crisis, the South African government recently stated that Afrikaner refugees aren’t fleeing persecution but fleeing “racial justice.” The South African president Cyril Ramaphosa called them “cowards” for escaping. Does his rhetoric trouble you? No? Let me tell you why it should.
What do you think “racial justice” means in the context of the torture-murder of farmers? It means the expropriation of land and organized violence against whites. It means the systematic persecution of a racial minority. Let’s not mince words: the situation in South Africa is becoming a situation of ethnic cleansing. Genocide? Too soon to tell. But that’s the path South Africa is on. Didn’t we say “Never again”? How far down the line does the world allow the racist train to travel to a genocidal destination before the engineer pulls the handle? It is forever to America’s shame that it did not act sooner to save Jews from the Holocaust.
Are readers familiar with this history? During the 1930s-1940s, the United States failed to adequately respond to the plight of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. Despite widespread reports of the atrocities in Europe, the US maintained restrictive policies and strict immigration quotas. The refusal to loosen these limits, even in the face of mounting evidence of genocide, resulted in thousands of Jews being denied entry, with many ultimately perishing in the Holocaust. President Trump has implemented strict immigration rules to reduce illegal immigration (as he should), but he has opened the door to Afrikaners who are facing peril in South Africa.
In a meeting at the White House yesterday President Donald Trump directly challenged the South African president over the violence being visited upon white farmers there. The encounter turned tense when Trump dimmed the lights and played a dramatic video compilation. Alongside scenes of white crosses in a field, each representing murdered white farmers, the video included genocidal statements from South African political figures Julius Malema and Jacob Zuma. Malema is shown leading the crowd in a chant: “Dubul’ ibhunu,” Zulu for “Shoot the Boer” or “Kill the farmer.” Sometimes Malema chants it in English—just in case the audience beyond the mob doesn’t speak Zulu. Zuma chants “Umshini Wami,” which translates to “Bring me my machine gun.”
Who are these men leading their mobs in genocidal refrains? Malema is the founder and leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), a far-left South African political party. Zuma, former President of South Africa (2009–2018), now heads the uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) Party, named after the ANC’s former armed wing.
Dubul’ ibhunu has been the subject of several court cases aimed at determining whether it constitutes hate speech. Hate speech is not protected under South Africa’s constitution. In 2003, following a complaint from the Freedom Front, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) ruled that the song was hate speech. That ruling was upheld multiple times. But in 2022, the Johannesburg High Court ruled that the plaintiff (Afriforum, representing Afrikaners) failed to establish a causal link between the song and violence. The court also ruled the song did not incite hatred toward whites. The ban was lifted.
Regardless of what one thinks about hate speech laws (I don’t support them, for the record), the connection between Dubul’ ibhunu and anti-white violence appears clear. The white crosses are symbolic memorials meant to draw attention to the targeted killings of white farmers. These are not official graves, as Trump implied. Rather, they are public statements—acts of remembrance and protest. Those behind them want the world to know the statistics: a discernible pattern of violence against whites (more on that shortly).
Ramaphosa has distanced his administration from the figures in the video, insisting that their views do not represent government policy. He emphasized that crime in South Africa affects all races. This obfuscation is echoed by the legacy media. Yes, crime is rampant in South Africa—but the violence targeting whites is not typical street crime. The attacks on white farmers, largely by black assailants, have been ongoing for decades.
The South African government and the American media have deliberately downplayed this reality. Trump’s intervention forced it onto the front pages. The media’s reflexive dismissal of Trump’s “unfounded claims” only reinforces his charge that the Fourth Estate is peddling fake news.
While the media desperately spins reality, Trump once again bypasses them, prompting the public to investigate for themselves. And what they’re discovering confirms that indeed white South Africans are being persecuted in their ancestral homeland of nearly 400 years. A 2017 homicide study found that 87 percent of murdered farmers were white—though whites make up only 7.3 percent of the national population. A 2024 study raised that figure to 95 percent. Of the 635 farm murders recorded from 2014 to 2024—an average of 63 per year—the vast majority were white victims.
The American legacy media has pushed anti-white sentiment for over fifteen years. They can’t afford to let that frame be challenged—not just because it risks their credibility (long gone), but because they’re advancing an agenda they cannot afford to derail.
They tell you that most victims of crime in South Africa are black, killed by other blacks. That’s true. But the same is true of the US, where more than 50 percent—and always a plurality—of murderers are black, though blacks constitute just 13 percent of the population. And since most murderers are men, that means 6 percent of the population accounts for at least half of all murders and robberies. Acknowledging this is taboo. It’s “racist.” White supremacists cite these stats—so they must be invalid? White supremacists also breathe air.
Are progressives at all curious why this is the case? Do Black Lives Matter? That’s the deeper issue, isn’t it? Why are black people killing each other in such large numbers? They can’t explore that because it would mean progressive urban policy has been a failure—or, perhaps worse, that it’s working as intended. Are readers aware that 40 percent of black Americans live in urban centers run overwhelmingly by Democrats? That’s down from 57 percent in 1990. The exodus of more affluent black families to the suburbs has only worsened inner-city conditions.
In America, a white person is far more likely to be killed by a black person than vice versa. Per capita, a black person is 12.5 times more likely to kill a white person, and 20 times more likely to rob one. Why does the rare case of a white-on-black killing make front-page news, while black-on-white murders are met with silence—or crowdfunding for the perpetrator? The same is true of mass murder. The popular image is a white lone-wolf racist. In reality, the typical mass murderer is an inner-city gangbanger. These killings are common in Democrat-run cities, but the media doesn’t cover them. The press is run by allies of the Democratic Party. This same press does not tell you that there are no racial disparities in lethal police encounters. They led you to believe the opposite. So who are the real white supremacists? I’d argue it’s those in power who maintain urban poverty and deny black Americans access to better models for success.
If you think anti-white sentiment doesn’t motivate black-on-white crime or drive the media frame, you’re in denial. What we are witnessing is street-level reparations, stoked by academic and media rhetoric: “All whites benefit from white privilege.” “All whites are racist.” “America is a white supremacist nation.” These mantras manufacture resentment—and resentment drives action. A double-standard attempts to conceal the consequences of rhetoric. BLM burns a police station? “Mostly peaceful protests.” Rioters loot stores, destroy cities, kill people—response? “But January 6!” Meanwhile, black-on-white crime is met with silence. Whites and police are portrayed as threats to black lives, even though most whites live in the suburbs and vote Republican—the party not responsible for urban policy.
This pattern holds for antisemitic rhetoric as well. Jews are painted as oppressors of Arabs, which, predictably, results in violence. Two Israeli Embassy employees, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, were murdered yesterday outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington DC. The shooter, Elias Rodriguez, shouted “Free, free Palestine.” Witnesses heard it. I watched the video. During his arrest, Rodriguez declared, “I did this for Gaza.”
This ideology loaded the gun. White supremacy? No—leftist antisemitism. Rodriguez, it turns out, donated to pro-Palestine campaigns and is a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. This is what the left calls “propaganda of the deed”—violent acts inspired by “propaganda of the word.” The word arms the deed. Rodriguez had no prior criminal record but posted radical content: “De@th 2 Amerikkka,” “Bring the war home.” A manifesto linked to him reads: Escalate for Gaza, Bring the War Home.
It was not only a matter of time before this rhetoric killed Jews—it already has. October 7. Now this. “Free, free Palestine” is code for the extermination of Jews. “From the river to the sea” means a Palestine without Jews—despite their indigenous presence in the region for thousands of years.
I’m not saying we should censor antisemitic protests (though we should revoke visas for foreigners who participate in them). I’m a free speech absolutist (for citizens). I’m calling for counter-speech—challenging speech that motivates violence. The left either participates in antisemitism or fails to denounce it. History tells us where that leads. The murders of Lischinsky and Milgrim confirm the rising threat of leftwing antisemitism.
This is the nature of all propaganda of the word. Two attempts have been made on Trump’s life, inspired by rhetoric comparing him to Hitler. People believe absurdities—and some act on them. That’s how you get dead Jews and assassination attempts a leading candidate for the highest office in the world.
In his 1886 work Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche observed, “Madness is rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs, it is the rule.” With this line, Nietzsche expressed his deep distrust of collective behavior. His goal was not merely to challenge moral systems, but to uncover the irrational and often dangerous cultural forces that uphold them—forces shaped more by instinct and emotion than by reason. This is the essence of propaganda of the word—ideas that spread not by argument, but by emotional contagion. Today, we see this dynamic in real time. There have already been two attempts on Donald Trump’s life, each motivated by rhetoric that compares him to Hitler. When people absorb dangerous absurdities as truth, some inevitably act on them. This is how antisemitic violence and political assassination attempts happen.
Thus Nietzsche’s warning about the madness of crowds remains relevant. Mass movements are rarely guided by critical thought; they run on conformity, emotion, and resentment. The individual reasons—the mob reacts. And when ideology casts certain groups as permanent oppressors—whether whites, Jews, or any other—violence is never far behind. The 2020 riots showed how quickly emotion and mythology can ignite chaos. Propaganda doesn’t just persuade; it mobilizes. And what it mobilizes is often fury.
Legacy media is complicit in all this. They compare Trump to Hitler. They equate MAGA hats with Klan hoods. Afrikaners are similarly vilified. Inferior cultures are excused by blaming their failures on more successful neighbors. Demagogues say that success comes at the expense of others. There needs to be a racial reckoning. Yes, the left has the right to say these things. And yes, we have the right to respond. Speech isn’t dangerous—people are. That’s why we challenge ideas. Bad ideas inspire bad actions. You’re supposed to doubt that anti-white and antisemitic rhetoric drives violence. But I’ll show in a forthcoming essay that it does. None of this is accidental. The left wants this outcome.
If nothing is done, South Africa will do to whites what the Arab world did to Jews: strip them of rights and drive them out. There’s been a 97 percent decline in the Jewish population of the Arab world since the 1960s—nearly a million down to about 26,600 today. Israel, the US, and other Western nations became safe havens. South Africans need similar refuge now. The US has stepped up, but Europe must follow. The situation is deteriorating fast. Afrikaners are only 7 percent of the population—and they face a campaign to eliminate them.
Trump’s administration won’t get credit for acting, but they saw this coming. The President’s instincts were right. The media called his confrontation with Ramaphosa an “ambush.” But it was necessary. The world had to know. Did Trump get a few things wrong? Yes. But he got the matter directionally right. Beyond humanitarian aid, the administration has directed agencies to halt cooperation with the upcoming G20 in South Africa. Sanctions may follow. This is now a diplomatic flashpoint.
The message for Americans and Europeans? Anti-white hysteria has consequences. The Democrats push it. So do the elites in Europe. They pursue mass immigration and the managed decline of Western civilization. They call resistance to these developments “racism.” But defending whites in America, England, and South Africa is not about racism. It’s about recognizing that identity politics is part of a global strategy to disorder the West. We didn’t want this fight. But we have no choice but to engage it.
I want to close with a case that has recent brought to my attention: a Danish man named Kasper Juul Eriksen detained by ICE. In April 2025, Eriksen was taken into custody by US immigration authorities during what was meant to be a routine citizenship interview in Memphis, Tennessee (this is where my wife and I had our routine citizenship interviews).
A legal resident of the United States since 2013, Eriksen was detained due to an alleged paperwork error from 2015. He is now being held in an immigration detention facility in Louisiana. With four children and no current household income, the family is seeking his release and calling for support from the community and lawmakers. The case has raised concerns about immigration enforcement practices and the impact of administrative errors on law-abiding residents. I agree that he should be released.
But something is conspicuously missing in the reporting. The controversy over the Afrikaners who sought refuge in the United States was contrasted with the refusal of the Trump administration to grant asylum to other alleged refugees. The Afrikaners were white, critics said; the others were black and brown. The implication was that Trump’s policy is racist, favoring whites and disfavoring nonwhites. But here is a Danish man, as white as can be, and ICE took him into custody—and has kept him there for a month. The fact that he was treated this way contradicts the thesis that the present policy favors whites over nonwhites.
freedom and reason 