Bob Woodward’s Yellow Journalism

Still from Citizen Kane

Bob Woodward’s Yellow Journalism 

By Ilana Mercer

It takes no time at all. You listen to Bob Woodward’s halting speech. You read his lumpen prose, and you get right away what undergirds his Trump-phobic tome, Fear: Trump in the White House.

Naively, the president expected to fulfill his revolutionary campaign promises to the American voters, an assumption that threw Woodward and the D.C. elites for a loop.

If past is prologue, voters don’t—and should not—get their way. After all, the views of Trump voters on American power are polar opposites from those held by the permanent state.

What does “Boobus Americanus” know? Nothing!

Woodward and the New York Times’ anonymous anti-Trump whistleblower consider the president to be stark raving bonkers for not grasping that Rome on the Potomac moves to its own beat. It does not respond to voters, except to mollify them with “bread and circuses.”

Mostly reflexively, not always consciously, The Powers That Be seek to retain and enlarge their sphere of influence. Nothing, not even the venerated vote, is allowed to alter that “balance.”

This means that established fiefdoms and the “thinking” underlying them are to remain unchanged and unchallenged. Foreign affairs, war-making, the post-war economic order and globally guided crony capitalism are examples.

Against this command-and-control apparatus, 60 million Americans rebelled. They liked Trump’s America First ideas enough to elect their champion as president.

The president promised to upend “the post-1945 rules-based international order,” and the Deplorables applauded him for it.

Had Woodward and his publisher missed the 2016 Trump Revolution?

Apparently so.

Incredulous, Woodward grumbled to one Fox News host, who shares his “concerns”:“People need to wake up to what’s happening under Trump.”

Again, Woodward is hardly original in his endeavor. In the tradition of the Never Trump Resistance within and without the administration, he and those for whom he speaks have resolved to thwart and discredit the political plank on which Trump ran.

The washed-out journalist then blurted out this in disbelief: “Trump said the ‘World Trade Organization is the worst organization in the world.’”

Hyperbole? Maybe. The FBI under James Comey, Andrew McCabe and now Christopher Wray are easily worse than the WTO.

Like the New York Times’ anonymous, op-ed writer, purportedly a member of the Trump administration, Woodward is exposing the Trump White House for nothing more than its attempts to fulfill voter demands.

Withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement was one such goal.

These senile subversives would like you to believe the president is insane for expecting to move on promises made to American voters. If not to withdraw from international agreements that have compromised ordinary Americans, at least to rework them so they don’t further pauperize our workers.

Who can deny that successive U.S. administrations had ceded the sovereignty of citizens to various supranational systems through international treaty making?

That Deplorables wished to reclaim their sovereignty is nevertheless news to seasoned newsman Bob Woodward.

The Woodwards of the D.C. Swamp want multilateral trade agreements maintained. The smart set call it “sovereign multilateralism,” which is Orwellian terminology for a loss of citizen sovereignty through undemocratic, international treaties.

American workers don’t want their interests lost in this maze of multilateralism.

Thank goodness, gasps Woodward, that the globalist grandees with whom he stands so courageously, and who surround the president (likely directed by his ambitious daughter and the “Kushner-Cohn Democrats”), saved the day:

“[D]rafts of a proposal to get out of the Paris climate accord … were removed from the president’s desk,” Woodward says. “[There were] draft statements about withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement—which would have been a disaster—and [former economic adviser Gary] Cohn just took it off the desk.”

To repeat, this was promised on the campaign trail and in Trump position papers. We now know who stole those promises from the American people.

In fact, until Woodward’s revelation, one was under the impression that, in June of 2017, President Trump had extricated the U.S. from the Paris Accord!

The thing was nothing but a wealth grab from the constituents Trump vowed to protect, with no benefits to the environment, which we all cherish. Besides, the U.S. has strong in-house environmental protections, including emission controls.

Thanks to Woodward, we now know that the ditching of the Paris Accord never happened.

The outrage animating Woodward—he insinuates that he’s driven by truth, not politics—is shared by the  aforementioned New York Times’ anonymous op-ed scribe.

This yellow-bellied purveyor of yellow journalism claims to be a “senior official in the Trump administration,” who “vowed to thwart parts of [the Trump voters’] agenda and temper the president’s “worst inclinations.” (All the good things listed above.)

We thank you, oh overlord who art in D.C.

In his piece of pomposity, this anti-Trump White House employee invoked scripted Republican policy for his screed, while congratulating himself for being a “first principles” guy or gal (or amalgam).

He, too, has cast as dangerous the Trump positions millions of American voters considered wise. To wit, diplomacy with “President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un” and a cessation of America’s hobby wars.

We Deplorables disagree with the New York Times’ unelected, “lodestar” for all things honorable and conservative.

Never Trumpers and Trump haters are on a quest to scuttle an agenda seconded by millions of American voters. To them, the positions emanating from the Trump White House are a crisis of crazy.

To these saboteurs of the president, “crazy” is, very plainly, keeping campaign promises.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016) &. She’s on Twitter, FacebookGab & YouTube.

The Quarterly Review is a free online journal. We have no source of income other than readers’ donations. If you enjoy reading QR, please consider making a one-off contribution today. This will help us continue to pay website costs and expenses to contributors.

Go to the Donations page from the Home page and use the PayPal link.

Posted in Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Apartheid, in Perspective, 2

Dr Hendrik Verwoerd

Apartheid, in Perspective, 2

By Ilana Mercer

Monomaniacal Westerners—they have one thing on their minds: it begins with an “R”—have come to think and speak of apartheid as a theory of white supremacy.

It was not.

The policy of “separate development,” as it was admittedly euphemized, was not a theory of racial supremacy, but a strategy for survival.

But first: to understand the fundamental way in which the Afrikaner and American creeds differed early on we must first examine the former’s ideas of what constitutes a nation and a state, respectively.

America, a rib from the British Adam, was built on liberal individualism; but Afrikaner culture was first and foremost grounded in the survival of the Volk.

This is not to say that Afrikaners were not fiercely individualistic; they were, even more so than early Americans.

For the Boers, however, the nation encompassed “the land, the culture, the terrain, the people.” The state, on the other hand, had no such prestige for the Boers, who regarded it as just “the coercive apparatus of bureaucrats and politicians.” Against this apparatus, above all, the Boer rebelled.

The 19th century found him still resisting majority rule, by which time Americans had thoroughly submitted to it. Although the Boer’s outlook remained passionately political, his preference was for parochial self-rule.

It might be said, then, that if the vagaries of the frontier bred in the Americans an atomistic individualism, those same vagaries bred in the Afrikaner a very different attitude, namely, a keen sense of the collective and the need to preserve it. “The worth of the nation is even higher than the worth of the individual,” exclaimed one Volk philosopher.

To the existential threat which they faced on the Dark Continent, Afrikaners therefore responded by circling the wagons metaphorically (much as they had done, literally, during the 1830s) and devising the corpus of racial laws known as apartheid.

“We shall fight for our existence and the world must know it. We are not fighting for money or possessions. We are fighting for the life of our people,” proclaimed Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd (1958-1966).

Prime Minister D. F. Malan (1948-1954) had already used different words for the same sentiment, announcing his devotion to, “My God, my people, my country.”

Malan’s successor, Prime Minister Strijdom (1954-1958), believed unswervingly that if they were to survive as a group, the whites of South Africa would need to retain a position of guardianship, and that ultimately, white hegemony was indispensable for the good of all.

The Cape Town-Stellenbosch axis of the nationalist intelligentsia, which was the most influential lobby in Malan’s National Party (NP), almost without exception defended apartheid not as an expression of white superiority but on the grounds of its assumed capacity to reduce conflict by curtailing points of interracial contact.

The intellectuals who hailed from the University of Stellenbosch phrased the issue thus:

“The granting of political rights to the Bantu, of the kind which would satisfy their political aspirations, was altogether impossible in a mixed community, since such a step would endanger the … survival of the European population. If this danger was to be avoided, and at the same time the Europeans were not to violate their own conscience and moral standards, a policy of separate development would prove the only alternative.”

To that end, a “tortuous social structure” was erected to keep blacks from forming a political majority in South Africa proper. Africans were assigned to homelands in accordance with tribal affiliation, still a central organizing principle across Africa. These “black satrapies” were to function as “national and political homes for the different Bantu communities”; in the “Bantustans,” blacks were to exercise political rights.

Hermann Giliomee—author of the grand historical synthesis, “The Afrikaners: Biography of a People”—agrees that Afrikaner anxieties were overwhelmingly existential, rather than racial. Giliomee is adamant that the apartheid policy did not spring from “racist convictions or antiquated religious doctrines” (even if these convictions were at times present in specific Afrikaners themselves) but from an overriding need for security. For leading thinkers in the NP, such arguments almost completely missed the point because the security of the Afrikaners as a dominant minority, and not as a race per se, was what concerned them.

Giliomee, a liberal historian who opposed apartheid (as did this writer) contends that “apartheid was not uniquely abhorrent and had much in common with Western colonialism and American segregation.” Another of this historian’s assertions was that “attempts to depict the nationalist leaders as proto-fascists showed a poor understanding of both the Nazi and the Afrikaner nationalist movement.”

In retrospect, it is easy to see the merits of Giliomee’s argument for “the essential moderation of Afrikaner nationalism.” Anybody who lived among Afrikaners during the apartheid era can testify that crime and communism were foremost on their minds.

To rationalize the Kafkaesque laws of apartheid, Afrikaners spoke of the Swart Gevaar (which meant the “Black Threat”), and of the Rooi Gevaar (the “Red Threat”).

Afrikaners regularly admonished the American mindset for its incipient liberalism: “They demand majority rule, but look around you at the rest of Africa! Anglos simply don’t understand what’s at stake.”

Citations are from “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa” (2011) by Ilana Mercer, who has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s on Twitter, FacebookGab & YouTube

Posted in Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Afua-centrism

Afua Hirsch

Afua-centrism 

Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging, Afua Hirsch, Jonathan Cape, 2018, pp 318, reviewed by Bill Hartley

What is it like to be the descendant of immigrants to Great Britain? Such a person may never have visited the home country of their parents but is made aware on a regular basis that they are different to the majority. Skin colour is of course the great identifier but one can only the imagine the reaction of people like Afua Hirsch, a child of mixed English, German Jewish and Ghanaian ancestry, when asked by some well meaning person; ‘where are you from?’ Or, indeed, when  government departments, prodded by their ‘race relations advisors’, produce forms asking about one’s ethnicity, lumping the descendants of Africans and a host of other nations into a handful of categories such as ‘Black British’. Hirsch shows us the complexities of race and identity from her own perspective, augmented by research into the history of black migration.

Ms Hirsch’s ancestry is certainly varied and unlike those who may have undertaken homework to reveal a distant and varied lineage, hers is there to see, reflected in both skin colour and surname. She writes of the difficulty in pronouncing her first (Ghanaian) name, not just by others also but also by herself. She moves to Ghana, in a vain attempt to find herself. She deplores the British condescension towards a whole continent which she believes is widely misunderstood. There is now, she contends, a word to describe how people like her feel: otherness. Growing up as she did in an affluent corner of London, you evidently don’t need to start life in an inner city tower block to feel this way.

Being a Cambridge graduate from an advantaged background, then working at the Guardian has not shielded her from the more subtle forms of racism. She recalls visiting a school on a London council estate which had become an unlikely success story, only to be asked by the head (a black male) ‘what kind of black person are you, you’re not a proper black person!’

Brit(ish) contains a chapter on how slavery and black migration to this country are deeply interwoven. It takes us back to Empire in Africa and then to the present day where even in Kenya there is a colonial lite approach to tourism, allowing the better heeled visitor to re-enact the Robert Redford/Meryl Streep, Out of Africa, fantasy. Somewhat more historical balance could however have been achieved by reference to East African slavery stamped out in the main by teenage, Royal Navy midshipmen. Or, indeed, to that practised by the Ottomans, by whom white Europeans were sometimes held in bondage.

The book touches on but does not fully explore the intricacies and complexities of racism. Hirsch cites statistics which show that more black men marry white women than vice versa and records the experience of a high achieving black female friend, who frustrated by her inability to find a partner joined a dating agency only to have her money refunded because no-one was interested. Nor is the near invisibility of the Chinese population whenever the race question is raised addressed.

Hirsch does a good enough job of bringing to the attention of the majority population the unseen trials and tribulations of ethnic minorities and in particular a now discredited approach to fostering known as race matching. She cites the example of a foster child removed from a white family and placed with an abusive black family. When approving the adoption of say a mixed race child, the state ultimately takes responsibility for determining which experiences of identity he or she will have. Race matching policies made it three times less likely that black and mixed race children in the care system would be adopted.

Ultimately, Brit(ish) is a subjective record of one woman’s experience, marked from birth by British society, as she puts it. It is a compelling analysis of the complexities of identity in modern Britain and of the inept attempts by the powers that be to prove themselves colour blind. However, we could have done without Hirsch’s otiose comments on Brexit. As the late Tony Benn used to say, if you don’t like the government you can vote to get rid of it.

 BILL HARTLEY is a former deputy governor in HM Prison Service

Posted in Book Reviews, Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

ENDNOTES September 2018: Commemorating Debussy

Marc Chagall, The Violinist

ENDNOTES, September 2018
Commemorating Debussy

 by Stuart Millson

Claude Debussy – often referred to as the founder of Impressionism in music – is being commemorated extensively, in the concert hall and on record, in this, the centenary of his death. Born at St. Germain-en-Laye on the 22ndAugust 1862, Debussy was described by The New Oxford Companion to Music as: “… one of the most influential figures of his generation”. He brought to life a new, spell-like style or “timbre” of music – works for orchestra, piano, the opera house, and for odd combinations of chamber instruments (a Sonata for Flute, Viola and Harp, for example) which combined a sensuous mysticism, with a sense of fleeting, delicate colour. And in works such as the slow movement of his String Quartet (1893) and Cello Sonata from 1915, a sense of melancholia and regret pervade his astringent sound-world.

His most famous work is, perhaps, the “three symphonic sketches”, La Mer, written between 1903 and 1905, with its famous Jeux de vagues middle-movement, in which maritime light, wave movements and sudden changes of tide and tempo create an atmosphere both exciting and almost supernatural. Yet for all of the work’s haze of colour and intoxicating feeling, Debussy himself did not see himself as the Impressionist of the orchestra. When describing his large-scale Images (brilliantly recorded, incidentally on the Naxos label some 25 years ago by the Belgian Radio and Television Symphony Orchestra under Alexander Rahbari), Debussy stated that he was attempting “…something different, in a sense, realities.

In Images (19051912), the listener becomes aware of a traveller, or onlooker, describing a scene but converting the “realities” into a dreamscape: the everyday folk-tune, the heat of an Iberian trackway at noon, the distant chimes of the morning bell heralding the start of the festival – all churning into kaleidoscopic reveries.

Trois Nocturnes (1897-99) also inhabits this sound-world. The first movement, Nuages, is as close to a depiction of time standing still as it is possible to find: clouds move slowly across the heavens, but an overpowering sense of a nightscape that may never end, takes hold of the listener. There is a profound sense of peace in this movement and yet a nagging afterthought of something unresolved, even sinister, in the shadows and landscape. The bright lantern-lights of the second movement, Fetes, break the spell. A whirl of activity, a flow of energy (with an effortless, fluid flow to the orchestral writing, as if borrowed from sketches from La Mer) takes hold – but with a sudden (temporary) stop. From the darkness comes  the slow tread of a procession; a lone trumpet (distant, muted) begins to summon a march, and new revelry breaks out as the orchestra builds to a crescendo: the march beginning to distort and explode into light, as rushing strings threaten to overpower it all. The last movement creates a classical, mythical atmosphere, as if on a Mediterranean or Aegean shore. The title is Sirenes and the movement is a ravishing sequence for orchestra and wordless female voices – which achieves an intensity in a classic recording by Bernard Haitink and the Concertgebow Orchestra, Amsterdam, on the Philips label from the early-1980s.

Yet despite the majesty and dazzling colour of his great orchestral works, it is in chamber music that you arguably find the true Debussy. On the ‘Musidisc – Richesse Classique’ label,  a budget-priced record of the Quatuour à Cordes (the four-movement String Quartet), and the two great sonatas referred to earlier in this article – for Flute, Viola and Harp, and for Cello and Piano, is one of the best interpretations of all three works. With a more jagged, quicker touch than normal in the languid, but sometimes deceptive Flute, Viola and Harp piece; and a bare-boned, ritualistic, feverish pizzicato in the String Quartet second movement, with the composer’s marking: “Assez vif and bien rythme” fully realised, the performers are Georges Tessier, first violin; Maurice Hugon, second violin; Jacques Balot, viola; and Robert Cordier, cello.

Tracking down a copy of this record would be next to impossible, but if you are seeking a brilliantly-recorded, modern CD version of the three sonatas, the Athena Ensemble on the Chandos label bring an ethereal quality to these essential pieces by one of the world’s greatest late-19th/early 20th-century composers.

A final word about the legacy of this French master-musician and innovator, from the (anonymous) writer of the sleeve-notes for the Musidisc record, issued nearly 40 years ago:

As to the three sonatas… they seem to seal an inner mystery, they constitute the musical will and testament of Debussy.

Stuart Millson is Classical Music Editor of Quarterly Review

Debussy, Images and other orchestral works, BRT Philharmonic Orchestra, Brussels, Alexander Rahbari, Naxos, 8.550505

Chamber music, Athena Ensemble, Chandos, 8385

String Quartet, two sonatas. Musidisc label (France) – RC 694

Trois Nocturnes etc. Bernard Haitink, conductor, Philips label, 478 4796

Posted in Cultural Matters, QR Home | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Lament for a Nation

 

Poussin, Landscape with a man killed by a snake

Lament for a Nation

By Mark Wegierski

George Parkin Grant (1918-1988) was Canada’s leading traditionalist philosopher. The main expression of George Grant’s thought occurs in four major books: Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (1965), Technology and Empire: Perspectives on North America (1969), English-Speaking Justice (1974/1985), and Technology and Justice (1986). Philosophy in the Mass Age (1959), and Time as History (1969), are his two major earlier works. Grant was a complex philosophical critic of technology and of America.

Lament for a Nation is one of Grant’s more accessible books and it has remained almost continuously in print in Canada. It expresses a profound pessimism, and certainly does not offer any pat answers in regard to what is to be done to redeem Canada. Lament for a Nation mourns what George Grant sees as the end of real Canadian independence in the 1960s. As Grant tells the story, Canadian Tory Prime Minister John Diefenbaker refused to accept U.S. nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. In the 1963 Canadian federal election, accordingly, all the instrumentalities of the North American managerial capitalist classes were turned against him. Diefenbaker’s lost campaign is characterized in the book as “the last strangled cry of his pre-modern Loyalist ancestors”. Liberal Lester B. Pearson won the election. Continue reading

Posted in Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Apartheid, in Perspective, 1

 

Bust of Paul Kruger

Apartheid, in Perspective, 1

Essay in two parts, by Ilana Mercer

In a recent translation of Tacitus’ Annals, the question was raised as to whether “there were any ‘nations’ in antiquity other than the Jews.” Upon reflection, one suspects that the same question can be posed about the Afrikaners in the modern era.

In fact, in April of 2009, former South African President Jacob Zuma infuriated the “multicultural noise machine” by stating: “Of all the white groups that are in South Africa, it is only the Afrikaners that are truly South Africans in the true sense of the word. Up to this day, they [the Afrikaners] don’t carry two passports, they carry one. They are here to stay.”

Indeed, the Afrikaners fought Africa’s first anticolonial struggles, are native to the land and are not colonists in any normal sense. Yet the liberal world order has only ever singled out Afrikaners for having established apartheid, considered by the Anglo-American-European axis of interventionism to be “one of the world’s most retrogressive colonial systems.” Continue reading

Posted in Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Eisner’s Choice – Reform or Revolution?

Kaiser Wilhelm II

Eisner’s Choice – Reform or Revolution?

Kurt Eisner, a Modern Life, Albert Earle Gurganus, Camden House, 2018, HB, 576 pp., reviewed by LESLIE JONES

Kurt Eisner, a Modern Life, is a fitting title for this compelling biography of the campaigning journalist and critic. Eisner led the bloodless revolution in Bavaria in November 1918 that toppled the Wittelsbach dynasty, thereby “effectively ending both the Second German Empire and the First World War” (p. 2)*. According to the Marxist historian Arthur Rosenberg, Eisner’s objective as head of state of the Bavarian Republic, until his assassination on the 21st of February 1919, was “…the execution of a radical bourgeois revolution…to bring down the military power and dynasties, to secure immediate peace, and to enable an effective democracy…” (Rosenberg, cited p. 440). At least 100,000 mourners followed his funeral cortege.

As Thomas Mann prophetically commented in a diary entry dated November 8th 1918, “Both Munich and Bavaria governed by Jewish scribblers. How long will the city put up with that?” Eisner’s assassin, Lieutenant Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley, considered himself “a loyal monarchist until death!… [and] a loyal Catholic”. “I hate Bolshevism!”, he proclaimed in his testament, “I hate the Jews!” Profound historical forces placed Eisner and Arco-Valley on collision course. Eisner, a secularised Jew and an incisive critic of Weltpolitik and of Prussian-Junker militarism, personified German modernity. His nemesis, conversely, personified monarchist Bavarian politics. He commanded the 5th company of Freikorps organizer Colonel Franz von Epp’s Bavarian King’s Own Regiment. Continue reading

Posted in Book Reviews, Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Richard Wagner’s Die Walküre

Brünnhilde

Richard Wagner’s Die Walküre

Richard Wagner’s Die Walküre, Bayreuth Festival, Germany, Saturday 18th August 2018, directed by Frank Castorf, conducted by Plácido Domingo, reviewed by TONY COOPER

In the second part of Wagner’s Ring cycle, Die Walküre (in repertoire from 2013 to 2017 as part of the complete cycle to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Richard Wagner’s birth), Berlin-based, avant-garde theatre director Frank Castorf dumped the opera’s traditional romantic Rhineland setting for the rough-and-tumble world of oil prospecting, transporting the scenario to the city of Baku on the Caspian Sea in pre-Revolutionary Russia. ‘Black Gold’, a political tool like no other, became the treasured Nibelung hoard. Oil, of course, was a big influence on Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War, the era in which Castorf grew up and it remains high on the agenda in Putin’s Russia.

Wotan, played by Swedish bass-baritone John Lundgren, has travelled to the Baku oil-field to assume his new position as boss. Lundgren proved to be an excellent choice for the role delivering a strong and authoritative performance in an interesting and detailed production that employed and merged stagecraft and video work skilfully created by Andreas Deinert and Jens Crull. Continue reading

Posted in Cultural Matters, QR Home | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

An Inspector Calls

Prison Van Interior

An Inspector Calls  

by Bill Hartley

An inspection report into HM Prison Birmingham was released on August 16th. What the inspectors found made the front pages of several newspapers. It illustrates the short corporate memory of Prison Service Headquarters and a knack for getting into trouble that could have been avoided. They can’t say they weren’t warned either. The 2016 riot at the prison ought to have been an indicator of something being seriously wrong but afterwards attention seems to have wandered. A riot tends to leave a legacy of staff feeling demoralised and fearful. To put this right, strong and visible leadership is called for.

Whilst the privatisation or ‘market testing’ of prisons ended some time ago the legacy is still embedded in the system. Originally it tended to be obscure ‘training’ prisons or new builds that were that were contracted out to private security companies. The big Victorian local prisons which mostly lie in our larger cities were left alone. These jails carry out the core work of the Prison Service: holding remand prisoners, getting them to court and, post sentence, allocated on to a training prison. They are complex institutions which also have to live with significant overcrowding. Continue reading

Posted in Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Land “Reform” in South Africa

Tucker Carlson, by Gage Skidmore

Land “Reform” in South Africa

by Ilana Mercer

He who believes he has a right to another man’s property ought to produce proof that he is its rightful owner. “As the old legal adage goes, ‘Possession is nine-tenths of the law,’ as it is the best evidence in our uncertain world of legitimate title. The burden of proof rests squarely with the person attempting to alter and abolish present property titles.” (From “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa”.)

It is to this potent principle that democratic rule in South Africa has taken an axe—or, rather, an assegai.

Here is how taking land legally currently works, in South Africa, a place that the US State Department has just lauded as “a strong democracy with resilient institutions…,” a country merely  “grappling with the difficult issue of land reform.” “Land reform,” of course, is a euphemism for land distribution in the Robert Mugabe mold.

The process currently in place typically begins with a “tribe” or group of individuals who band together to claim vast tracts of private property. If these loosely and conveniently conjoined groups know anything, it’s this: South Africa’s adapted, indigenized law allows coveted land, owned and occupied by another, to be obtained with relative ease. Continue reading

Posted in Current Affairs and Comment, QR Home | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment