All Episodes
Previous Next
March 15, 2017 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
50:29
South African Whites Prepare for Anarchy
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to another installment of Radio Renaissance.
I have a very unusual guest, a South African.
His name is Simon Roche, and he runs the headquarters for an organization known as Saitlanders.
It's spelled in Afrikaans, S-U-I-D-L-A-N-D-E-R-S, and it's an organization that was founded in 2006, and it's The purpose is to implement a plan for protecting non-competent civilians should South Africa descend into civil war or chaos.
Mr. Roche is in the United States on a brief tour of our country, and he's agreed to speak with me about his background, about the organization, and about South Africa in general.
Mr. Roche was attending the University of Natal in the waning years of apartheid, He left the university for compulsory service, compulsory military service, and in fact supported the ANC, the African National Congress, for some years and ended up having a position of some trust and responsibility vis-a-vis the ANC before he ended up leaving his job and devoting himself full-time to St.
Landers That would have been in early this year, February of this year.
So, welcome, Mr.
Roche. I'm delighted to have you on the program.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Taylor. It's a pleasure to be here.
Yes. Can you tell me a little bit more about your background, how you ended up working for the ANC and what sort of things you did for the ANC? Mr.
Taylor, when I was at university in the death throes of apartheid, I was quite sympathetic to the idea of everybody having a place in the sun not least because there wasn't the option of a separate state for white South Africans.
So, either we were going to continue until there was nothing left of our economy and our country in that crisis and that ongoing sort of civil war, or we were going to try and nip things in the bud and make the best of them.
And I, at that time, believed that the best option was to make the best of them.
In fact, I'm sure that I would think the same way again, although it has turned out so very badly.
I'm not sure. What other possibility there was at the time?
So I was supportive of the ANC and I got into quite a lot of trouble with that at home, with my dad, with my friends.
I was a professional lifeguard for a short period of time during the summer holidays to make extra money and the lifeguards on the beach gave me a bit of a hard time.
But I'm not sure that there was any other option and so I I did what I thought was most sensible.
Besides being right or good, just plain sensible or realistic, And from there I earned some credibility within the ANC and I was tasked to be the project manager of a presidential inauguration and sometime later I did another presidential inauguration and then I was on the select team that did the famous ANC national conference, elective conference, at which Jacob Zuma, our current president, was elected.
And I wrote many budgets for the ANC for different projects, many pertaining to the presidency, for example.
And over time, people believed that I was someone who could be trusted to act in the interests of the presidency or of the ANC or of a particular event.
And so I gradually became more and more trusted and more heavily depended upon to do some sensitive work.
Can I interrupt you here and ask again about your reasoning at the time of the end of apartheid?
You believed that there was really no options for whites to have their own state, and therefore you thought the best thing to do was to give the blacks a chance to run the country in the hope that something could be worked out in that manner?
Yes, something like that.
There were no options on the table, I think is the best way of putting it.
Our government leaders, that is to say the white leaders, the national party, was not presenting that as an option.
It wasn't in the national dialectic, as it were, and of course the black leaders wouldn't have had that.
That would have been an intolerable proposition.
It wasn't on the table, yes, and therefore...
So at that time, you believed that an ANC-run or a black-run South Africa could be a place where blacks and whites could conceivably live together in some satisfactory manner?
Conceivably is the operative word there, Mr.
Taylor. There were question marks, of course, but conceivable.
It was conceivable, yes.
If things had been approached differently and done differently and there was greater diligence and conscientiousness and respect for the rule of law and if there were more nobler sentiments generally, I think that there was a chance of things being certainly a lot better than they are.
I see. Well, can you tell me which inaugurations were the ones that you organized?
I should think that's a very big job, putting together an inauguration of a president.
Yes, I was involved in Thabo Mbeki's inauguration and the first inauguration of Jacob Zuma, but a much bigger event was the The National Conference in 2007 at which the ANC elected Jacob Zuma as the President of the ANC and thus the nominee to be President of South Africa or the presumptive President of South Africa.
That was a very large event in our terms and our financial terms.
It was paid for by the Chinese or largely paid for by the Chinese.
I can tell you that as a matter of fact.
No matter who chooses to dispute me, I was somewhat involved with the budgets and I was present in many sensitive conversations.
I'm sure that they wouldn't readily admit to what I'm saying, but I can tell you now that that's a fact.
Well, that's quite fascinating.
What was the reward for the Chinese for having contributed in that way?
Well, I don't know what the backdoor rewards might have been altogether, but I think that generally the Chinese have been permitted to engage in the South African economy on such a large scale in such a short period of time that within that there lies an explanation.
Another thing worth mentioning is that In the Western Cape of South Africa, we once had a thriving garment manufacturing industry and that industry is all but dead.
You can go to the manufacturing town of Atlantis and see for yourself factory after factory after factory and warehouse after warehouse after warehouse lying Derelict.
And those were all garment manufacturers and now practically everything that we wear, we import from China.
So the government has been very ready and willing To engage with the Chinese in preferential terms.
Trade restrictions being lifted and import duties and so on and so forth.
And I think that those little things add up to tens of millions of dollars and of course that recoups the cost of sponsoring a conference of three or four or five or six million dollars very quickly.
I see. I see.
So they've cooperated with the Chinese even if it meant the death of domestic South African industries.
Oh, absolutely, yes.
Well, what has it been like, really, to work closely with the ANC? Do you have the impression that most of the people who work for the organization are dedicated to their country, to their people, to the party, or do they seem self-serving?
What is your general impression of the people with whom you worked?
Well, I must confess that I've met one or two people who seem to be Noble spirits, for want of a better word.
People with whom I don't necessarily agree in terms of religion or political philosophy, not by any means, but they are certainly devoted to an ideal and they're willing to be self-sacrificing for that ideal.
But I think it's...
It's not an exaggeration to say that upwards of 95%, that is to say 19 out of every 20 people with whom I have dealt in the ANC, are venal and self-serving.
The amount of corruption is difficult to But I can give you one example which illustrates what I'm trying to say.
I was called upon to write a budget for a large international conference being hosted by the ANC about seven years ago or so.
And the budget came to approximately $5 million.
I'm doing a bit of mental arithmetic.
I might be out a little bit here or there, but approximately $5 million.
And I presented the budget to the people in question and they said to me, well, is there fat in here?
Meaning, is there money for brands?
And I said to them, well, there is a little bit.
I know what they expected of me.
I knew then and there was no two ways about it, no doubt about it.
And they said to me, well, about how much?
I said, well, these are the real figures of the costs of executing the entire international conference.
However, savings can be made, and if people need to have their palms greased with those savings, then so be it.
They then said to me, well, take it up by about 30%.
And, of course, if you increase anything by 30%, then that means that 25%, give or take, not exactly, but about 25% is then the net at the top, which I did, and I represented it to them, and they told me to increase it by 50% again, and then by one-sixth again.
So, in the end, it went from 77 million rands in our currency To approximately 199 million rands in our country.
So if you think for yourself of the scale of theft implied in that, 122 million rand of 199 is devoted strictly to To theft and corruption and nepotism and so on.
Then you can begin to get an idea for yourself of how rotten is the African National Congress government really?
Well, that is a remarkable story.
Would you say that the entire South African government budget is more or less expanded to that extent for purposes of corruption?
Or would you say that this is an extraordinary and particularly bloated budget?
No. I would say that if somebody put a gun to my head and said, come on, give us the best answer that you can, I would say that about a third of all the money that is collected is stolen.
And I'll tell you how it works generally is that they will put out a tender for a certain project to build a road or a bridge or a school or whatever the case may be.
And they will devote a certain amount of money to it.
Then, in order to win that tender, you should find a way to repatriate to the people on the tender committee around about 10 to 20 percent.
It's gone up a bit in recent years.
Let's say 20 percent at the most.
Beyond that, you are generally given license to take shortcuts.
So if you put too much sand in the cement, well, it's not your fault.
It's the fault of the sand.
It's the fault of the sand salesman.
There's always an excuse.
And so you're unlikely to ever have to assume some liability for cheating the system.
And that way, projects occur in South Africa.
They happen. But the school books are always written on a grade of paper less than the grade that was stipulated in the tender.
And there's always a backhander in a dark corridor.
The money is sort of shaved off in large proportions.
20%, I would say, is money.
Is safely the amount of money that gets given back directly, but probably 30%, about a third of all budgets, one way or another, do not reach the end project.
They are not manifest. They are not realized.
The money is not realized into the tangible goods that are meant to be provided.
I suppose under those circumstances, having some sort of political or administrative role is exceedingly tempting because people see it as a means to personal enrichment in this backdoor fashion.
Well, the thing is that where there's smoke, there's fire.
And there is a general understanding within the ANC that the...
As I learned when I worked on a kibbutz in Israel, there's an expression in Hebrew which goes, the fish always stinks from the head.
If a fish begins to rot, the smell starts at the head.
And Mr.
Taylor, the reality is that our most senior levels of government are so rotten that the people beneath...
Merely follow an example.
I'm not saying that they're innocent or that they should be in any way exonerated, but it's become a culture, a pervasive thing.
I think that perhaps responds to your question or to your point.
Yes. Well, and certainly even in the West, we hear a great deal about the current head of the party, Jacob Zuma, the rather uninhibited way in which he has tended to misspend government funds.
And so I suppose, as you say, this is a kind of culture that percolates all the way down from the top to the very lowest levels.
And anyone who has an opportunity to Line his own pockets, by and large, takes that opportunity.
Yes, well, you know, one phrase that is used by the ANC is very instructive in this whole thing.
They don't talk about governing, they talk about ruling, ANC rule.
And it is a phenomenon in South Africa and elsewhere.
Whereby people believe that they are entitled to be in charge.
And if you spend time within the ANC, you'll begin to appreciate that the nomenclature used is very much one of entitlement.
They sincerely believe that they should be in charge, and democracy is just really a bit of a facade or a regrettable inconvenience, and that they are rulers rather than governors.
And they are far from servants of the people.
They believe that they are the bosses.
They are the most senior level.
They are approximately sovereigns.
Do they get this sense of sovereignty because of affiliation with a particular tribe, or simply because they happen to have the power, or do they even explain it in any abstract sense at all, or simply do they say, well, I'm here, I have the power, and therefore I deserve it?
I think that it's the latter.
You know, it is a phenomenon.
Somebody was talking recently, a black person, whom I know very well, was talking about the African big man.
And he was alluding to this phenomenon, this phenomenon of if you're in Africa and you have power, you are meant to be the big tough guy.
If you don't conduct yourself as the big tough guy, you are perceived to be weak.
And therefore, you always avoid erring on the side of generosity, tolerance, patience, sharing.
You more than fill a role, you fulfill a role.
You fulfill a role of being the big man, being in charge.
And not allowing yourself to be perceived to be weak by sharing one for you, one for me, one for you, one for me.
No. You take the lion's share and then you let the rest share it between themselves and that permits you to sustain an aura and an image, a persona of strength and power.
And this was told to me quite interestingly by somebody who is a member of a royal family of a very prominent, let me say, the second most senior member of the royal family of a very prominent tribe in South Africa.
So it was quite interesting for me to hear that candor, that frankness, which corresponds so directly to what we observe.
And I suppose this mentality, the big man, it trickles down to the various smaller men who work for the big man.
So if you are in a bureaucracy, but you're the head of a particular office with maybe a dozen employees or something, you still act the big man with respect to your underlings.
I have what I think is quite a nice response for you.
I did a project in Nigeria some years ago for President Olushigan Obasanjo's lawyer, the man who negotiated the oil contracts with Shell or Mobil, whoever, BP, on behalf of the Nigerian government.
Being a plutocracy, it's In practical terms, it was actually President Olushigen Obasanjo's lawyer rather than the government's lawyer.
And one day we went out around the city of Lagos in Nigeria in his big fancy car for about 16 hours or so, and we came home at something close to midnight.
And as we got out of the car, he said to the driver, Now you've got to go and stand God duty, and God forbid that I should find you sleeping on duty.
There'll be hell to pay.
You know, this sort of strong language.
Not exactly those words, but certainly the equivalent.
And I couldn't help being slightly startled.
You know, I didn't mean to be impolite.
When in Rome, do as Romans do.
But I instinctively reacted to this sort of tyranny, this servitude.
And he saw that I reacted, I kept my mouth shut, but he noticed that I started as I stood there listening to the conversation.
So he turned to me after he dismissed the driver and he said to me, you whites have forgotten things that we have not yet forgotten about our own culture.
He said, in our culture, if I show any of my staff or servants any mercy, they will perceive me as weak.
The way that I ensure that I don't have people undermining me all the time is to be strong so that they're terrified of me.
And so if that means the staff working literally 24 hours a day, driving from 6 o'clock in the morning...
Well, I've often heard that People who work for blacks in South Africa and people who work for whites.
Many blacks are quite candid about explaining that they'd far rather work for a white person because they are treated more fairly.
Yeah, there are no two ways about it.
We've had a number of scandals over the past few years whereby members of parliament, you know, these people who shriek from the rooftops about justice and freedom and equality and you name it, you know, it turns out that they pay their maid no money.
You know, the maid just gets food and a place to stay, for example.
Or the cow herd lives in a hovel and doesn't get paid at all, but they get one day off a year.
I'll tell you another very interesting anecdote.
I know a person who worked for an international organization, a big international organization for many, many years. And this person was chatting to me about slavery.
And I said to them, oh, you've got to be kidding me.
And he said, well, look, in our tribe, in our specific tribe, there is still slavery.
I said, you've got to be joking, man.
There's no such thing in South Africa.
And he said, I'm telling you, I'm telling you, I have slaves.
He said, they don't wear manacles or anything like that.
They don't get whipped over the back, but they are obligated to me and they're not allowed to leave my employee.
And they work 365 days a year minus one.
He said one day a year is their day and then we give them lots of meat and milk and what have you to celebrate.
So in response to what you're saying, there are many myths about the utopia that is the modern South Africa or the efforts towards utopia that South Africa is trying to be.
But there's also dirty laundry that is hidden from the eyes of The world.
I'm sure that's true.
It's often the case that people in the United States who have some understanding of race, they look at the way that, for example, the South African farmers have been tortured before they've been murdered.
Just the kind of horrible, brutal treatment that some whites have faced at the hands of blacks.
And they imagine this as some kind of just vicious animus towards whites, but It seems to me that when Blacks can be equally cruel to each other, there's just a different sensibility about understanding the pain that someone else feels or imagining one's self in someone else's shoes.
Would I be accurate in that respect?
Yes, I don't know.
It's hard to tell. I suppose it's like I heard recently a story told by a black guy.
What is his name?
He was a minister in the United Kingdom government, Sir Trevor Phillips.
And he was describing the sine wave, the bell curve.
Normal distribution, the mathematical concept of normal distribution as applied to any concept.
And he was talking about how, you know, 8 out of 10 of the people who run in the 100 meters final at the past London Olympics will be black and two of them will be white, more or less.
So one has to be cautious about generalizations.
I can tell you of some black people I know who outshine practically any white person I've ever met.
However, if you speak about cultural generalizations, then we must be, as white people, perhaps not harsh, but we must be realistic when confronting the circumstances that we are in.
And I'll illustrate again with another anecdote.
In 1950, the population of South Africa was approximately 5 million black people and approximately 2 million white people.
That is now approximately 5 million white people.
A little bit less, but many people have emigrated.
So it could be just a little bit more as well, depending how you look at it.
And then approximately 40 to 45 million black people.
So in the time that the white population has increased by two and a half, the black population has increased between eight and nine times.
Now, if you take that backwards...
It's fairly safe to say that the gross population of South Africa in the early to mid-1800s was something like 2 to 3 million, 3 million being the utmost possibility.
And in fact, it's improbable, mathematically improbable.
It's almost certainly closer to 2 million.
Now, if people debate or dispute how white people stole black land, I'm not saying that every white person was as pure as the driven snow in every case.
However, it's reasonable.
If you then consider the reports of the infetane that was caused by King Shaka Zulu, The minimum number of people killed in the Mfitani, according to all reports, all Observer reports, including Liberals from the London Missionary Society, who were hell-bent on undermining the settlers, the white people of South Africa, the resident white people, the minimum number of people killed in the Mfitani was one million.
If you look into the matter closely, the numbers become very much higher.
In response to what you were saying, once you start to apply your mind to the facts rather than the rhetoric, you begin to get a far better idea of Of certain truths, and I'm wary of making generalizations about cultural sensitivities about death and pain and that sort of thing, but I think that these statistical parables that I'm telling do shed some light on the fact that there are realities, huge realities, about different cultures in South Africa that are completely swept under the carpet.
It's as if they don't exist.
But they are, in fact, more relevant to the broader debate than any of the nonsense that is in the mainstream media.
Well, I suppose this is the sort of thing that you must bear in mind in planning for a possible breakdown of any kind of civilization, the arrival of chaos as a possibility in South Africa.
In terms of how your organization might prepare for this.
Can you tell me a little bit how you imagine chaos would occur?
Do you have any particular scenarios as to what might bring about the kind of situation in which your organization would swing into action?
We anticipate a broad race-based civil war.
If it doesn't happen, so much the better.
God willing, it won't happen.
I don't wish it on my children.
My mom, my sister, my elderly father, my brothers.
However, in realistic terms, we believe that the tension in South Africa has become so great that when the bubble bursts, it's going to be quite a messy affair.
We don't foresee a simmering low scale or low intensity, as they call it, civil war.
We expect, our reasonable expectation, this is not a dramatic thing, it's a considered analysis.
Our reasonable expectation is that the tension is being built up to the point where when it snaps, as it were, when it gives, the result is not going to be a moderate thing.
So we believe, to give the simple answer to your question, we believe we are anticipating a A full-scale, as it were, civil war.
But what role would the armed forces take in this?
Would they split along racial lines as well?
I think that they would in the end.
This is merely a personal opinion.
I think that the few remaining whites within the armed forces are unlikely to support the government because the government has been so openly racist in recent years.
I think you would have to have A severe case of liberal indoctrination to believe that there's any hope for white people of sympathy from the government.
You know, the president sings a song, Kill the Boers, that is to say, kill the Afrikaner people.
He sings the song, Bring me my machine gun.
Father, bring me my machine gun, meaning to go out and slaughter whites.
He sings those songs. He has sung them very many times.
Julius Malema, the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters Far Left Party, said on the 7th of November in the town of Newcastle last year, I am not calling for the slaughter of all whites yet.
Two days later, one of his henchmen, Mbuisen Indlozi, said Are we really going to have to slaughter all of the whites to get this right?
And they are referring to the repatriation, so to speak, the expropriation of all land being given back to whites.
A few days later, I beg your pardon, being given to blacks.
Not back to blacks. I should correct myself because much of that land that was purportedly stolen simply was not.
I beg your pardon for digressing, Mr.
Taylor, but this might be valuable for some of your listeners.
Bear in mind that there were no black-skinned, broad-shouldered, born-to-people west of the Great Fish River in South Africa when whites were present there.
So something like 45% of South Africa simply was not and never had been.
Populated by blacks.
The first blacks were discovered by the commander of the fort in Cape Town, Captain Robert J. Gordon, later Colonel Robert J. Gordon, in 1777, 120 years after the arrival of the first whites, and they were on the east bank of the Great Fish River.
In 1780, those black people struck a treaty with the whites saying that they would remain on the East Bank in perpetuity.
The Great Fish River would forever be a dividing line between black and white people.
So, to return to the point, I think that any average A white soldier or policeman, white soldier or white policeman in South Africa probably recognizes that in an all-out conflict, they would not be deemed by their colleagues to be part of the kith and kin, let's say.
They would be outsiders within the police and armed forces.
I see. So if it really came to the kind of conflict you're describing, those remaining white police officers or white military would have guns turned on them, whether they felt loyal to the white group or not?
Well, I should think so.
I don't want to speak out of turn.
It's a bit of a speculation, but my instinctive answer to you is yes.
I see. Under those circumstances, your organization, then, would not play a competent role.
Is that correct? You, I believe, in accordance with the Protocols 1 and 2 of the Geneva Convention, you would be organizing a non-competent group to look after civilians who are not involved in the conflict.
Is my understanding correct? That's 100% correct.
That is completely correct.
And can you tell me some of the activities that you would envisage St.
Landers being involved in?
Well, our plan is a comprehensive civil defence plan to safeguard the welfare of non-combatant civilians.
So we would seek the protection of international law, having been constituted under the aegis of international law and having conformed all the way along to the particular requirements of international law.
We would then endeavour to bring people into one location, And to declare that location out of bounds to combatant parties, parties to the conflict as they are called in the international law and to say here and no further.
Don't enter here.
These are our people and under international law we have established a sanctuary.
Whether or not I should add this.
Whether or not that will be respected by the parties to the conflict is another matter altogether.
And we've met a number of people in the United States who've said to us, oh, you know, that's ridiculous.
You're naive. We're not as naive as we might sound, Mr.
Taylor. But these things have to be taken one step at a time.
We have no intention of being a combatant party to a conflict.
However, should it happen that our backs are against the wall and we are attacked and our women and children are attacked in a sanctuary, what should be a sanctuary under international law, needless to say, we would stand up and sacrifice life and limb for their welfare.
But I gather the plan would be to have a certain number of supplies, have evacuation routes already worked out, locations where you could establish this sanctuary.
Is that a correct description of your plan?
Yes, it is. I see.
Well, yes, I think the reaction of most American listeners would be, but if you have supplies there, if you have food, if you have fuel, then certainly we can at least imagine one side of the conflict wanting to come and take it away from you.
There's no doubt about it.
And as you are aware, our primary purpose in coming to the USA on the speaking tour, to meet different groups of people and engage with individuals and speak on the radio and so on, is to raise funds to increase those supplies, those vital necessities for civilian non-combatants.
So, there is a likelihood that people would want to get those supplies for themselves, and we are aware of the risks.
Yes, I think that says it all, really.
Well, can you tell me, for those listening who would wish to make some kind of contribution, can they go to website and make a donation?
Yes, they can, Mr.
Taylor. The website to go to is St.Lunders.org.
I'll spell it in a second.
There's no www.
It's just S-U-I-D L-A-N-D E-R-S dot org.
And there, there is a donate button which works via PayPal and so on.
And if there are any listeners whose hearts are moved to donate to Large sums, and I hope that this doesn't sound presumptuous, but we are aware that there are some people of means and who may have some sympathy for our unique cause as possibly the last white nation in the history of the world, in history, who will stand as a nation, and that is the key rider or caveat to the statement, who will stand as a nation in a final conflict in And we are aware that some of those people seek greater safeguards when it comes to donating money,
so they can contact me and I can provide them with a system that is governed by legal trust and is audited by two independent auditing firms.
And, you know, for larger sums of money, if people don't want to just send money via PayPal and they would like to know about legal trusts and ensuring that larger sums of money are handled well and safely and properly, my email address is hk at stlanders.co.za.
So it's hk at s-u-i-d-l-a-n-d E-R-I-S dot C-O dot Z-I-D-A. Not S-A, Z-I-D-A. Well, thank you very much.
It is not difficult for those of us in the United States who pay attention to current events to imagine the black population turning on the white population.
And in some respects, we see the white population of South Africa as kind of harbingers of the future.
If whites all around the world do not take measures to prevent it, they too will become minorities, just as whites are minorities in South Africa.
You are only about 8% of the population at this time, is that correct?
That's about correct, yes.
Yes, and we are certainly not reduced to that number now, but there are places in the United States where whites are very much a small minority, perhaps 8, 10, maybe even smaller percentages.
And those are not pleasant places to be.
And when we imagine an entire country faced with this kind of lopsided predominance of non-whites, non-whites with a record of anti-white violence, anti-white animus, it seems like a very ominous picture to us.
And I'm afraid that many of us see you as the The canaries in the mine, you're the ones who are going to face this problem more quickly than perhaps anyone else in the world.
Well, I think so.
I think that we're not long from a crisis now.
It's clear, and Dr.
Gregory Stanton, ironically, Who is a liberal and former anti-apartheid activist, Dr.
Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch in Washington, D.C., speaking as a liberal and anti-apartheid activist, says that we are one phase away from absolute genocide.
It's a fascinating thing to hear him speak on this, this guy who's not on our side, saying that it's a matter of fact That the whites in South Africa are going to be there's going to be an onslaught against them and that it has already begun in a low-key manner and that what has begun is orchestrated.
He said this is not accidental.
This is not coincidental that these whites are being murdered.
There is no doubt in his experience and he's quite good at his chosen profession.
He's predicted a number of of genocides or attempted genocides long before they began.
He has a talent for, an instinct for, and knows for this kind of thing.
And he says that it's any minute now that it's going to begin with us.
And I'd like to add, if I may, Mr.
Taylor, that I'm trying to figure out how I can say this in a way that doesn't give offense to anybody, but you've got to be somewhat foolish To believe that the trend to which you are referring in the USA and in Europe is going to reverse miraculously or stop or even slow down.
It's accelerating. The reality is that people, more and more migrants will come to your successful economies to leech off them.
And the greater opportunity that those people have, the more again will come.
It's never ever going to stop unless somebody does something about it.
Why would it stop?
It just simply doesn't stand to reason.
So your culture will become more dilute.
That's the nature of the thing.
People are not going to adopt your culture completely.
So your culture will become more dilute and you will become weaker.
And that is by definition almost mathematical or empirical.
Definition. It's not a sentiment.
It's not an opinion. It's not a racial epithet.
It's an empirical certainty.
Well, that is, in some respects, the definition of genocide, the disappearance of a people, a culture, and it doesn't have to take military means.
But could you repeat to me again the name of this fellow at Genocide Watch who has taken this surprisingly sympathetic view of the white South Africans?
His name is Dr.
Gregory Stanton, S-T-A-N-T-O-N, of Genocide Watch in Washington, D.C. And so he is a liberal, and so he was very much opposed to apartheid, no doubt.
But he now realizes that the consequences of ending apartheid have put the white South Africans in a terrible crisis that could ultimately lead to genocide.
Well, he in fact, if I may just correct you slightly, is asserting or professing that The genocide has begun in a low-key, low-intensity, orchestrated, deliberate attack on whites.
So he's saying that the murders, rapes, and robberies, with their viciousness, are in fact deliberate.
That there is a hidden hand That is instigating it.
It's not crime and it's not spontaneous.
That there is a deliberateness behind it.
He says that it is clear.
There is clear evidence for this assertion.
He doesn't say who it is that is the The hidden hand or the third force, if you like, in this crisis.
But he says that it is a deliberate, orchestrated onslaught against whites, but it's not the, I'm trying to think of the correct term, the full-scale thing.
So he says we are one phase away from full-scale, where it's open, open battle, open conflict, open civil war.
Unfettered genocide, but he insists that it has begun deliberately already.
Well, it's a remarkable recognition of what most of us who have an understanding of race certainly seem to have some sense of, especially after what happened in the former Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, whites were just chased out of that country basically, and the kinds of assaults on South African farmers, It is easy for someone like me to imagine the kind of full-scale combat that you describe in the attempt to just simply wipe out the white population, but it's the rare liberal who is able to see what is happening,
it seems to me, so clearly on the ground.
Yes, it is very rare.
I think that because he's in that field, in that profession, his logic has gotten the upper hand I think he's instinctively a liberal, but over time he's realized that one and one equals two.
It looks like eleven, but actually it's just two.
You know, that sort of liberal, we were taught at university that liberalism is an idealism.
We believe in ideals.
And that all liberals should look towards ideals.
And of course, so liberal thinking is very much tainted by the ideal.
It's not a pragmatic way of thinking, which is why you tend to find, as a rule of thumb, that people in humanities, studying humanities, tend to be more liberal, and people studying sciences tend to be more conservative, because they are participating in an environment In which their minds are not permitted to think in idealistic terms.
You can't build a bridge upside down or back to front just because it's politically correct or fashionable.
You have to build a bridge in a scientific way.
And so such people who are forced to confront reality in their lives tend, as a rule of thumb, to be far more conservative, whereas people who participate in humanities, where you can write anything, say anything, believe anything, draw anything, paint anything that you like, tend to be liberal thinkers.
Yes, I think you're certainly correct about that.
I tend to think of The current forms of liberalism and egalitarianism as essentially a religion that's impervious to fact.
And so it's especially remarkable to find someone who is probably in most other respects an acolyte of the religion, suddenly realizing, or at least perhaps a gradual case for this Gregory Stanton, but eventually realizing that his views of things actually come apart when you take the facts seriously.
Well, we're coming about to the end of our allotted time here, but it certainly does seem that you are taking the future very, very seriously.
And I assume that you're working full-time for St.
Landers at this point? Well, as of two weeks ago, was it two weeks ago?
Well, in any case, at the end of February, I have left my employment.
Where I was employed by a black business, lovely black people, wonderful people, doing a fair amount of work for the ANC, which wasn't quite so wonderful.
Nevertheless, I am now devoted to this mission, really, Mr.
Taylor. Somebody has to do it.
And so we have chosen to do it.
I'm with my peer, my colleague, Andre Kutzia, who is the head of security for our organization.
And we're just throwing ourselves at this thing and seeing what comes of it, seeing what we can do before the pawpaw strikes the fan.
Well, for years I have had this nightmare vision of South Africa in which some of the things that you described begin to take place.
And I'm delighted to hear that some of you are making practical preparations for this.
I wish you every success in your work in South Africa and your continuing tour here in the United States.
And I must thank you very much for the time you've taken to appear on this edition of Radio Renaissance.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Taylor. It has been our privilege.
Andre is with me here.
He's not a public speaker, but he's sitting right beside me.
So on his behalf and my own, and on behalf of St.
▲
Export Selection