I just wanted to hear leftist views concerning the removal of whites in south africa...

I just wanted to hear leftist views concerning the removal of whites in south africa. Is killing and kicking them out justified? Also is it true that if the whites are gone, blacks will starve?

Here the thread on 4pol. There has been actual africans in the thread.

Attached: 1564084233510.gif (360x239, 10.87K)

Other urls found in this thread:



Obviously not, no socialist would support ethnic cleansing. I note that the Zig Forums thread you link is actually about expropriating property, not expelling or killing whites. The EFF does seem pretty shit though.

Based leftist

Attached: Screenshot_20190726-142639.png (540x960 181.89 KB, 145.52K)

It is a bit cringe to see EFF mix so much idpol with their class struggle but I can sorta understand it due to how tightly race is tied to class there.

Would still be better if EFF just drop their idpol though.

If you are expropriating capital that’s fine

boers make the claim that white south african farmers are being murdered in enormous rates per capita, they back this up with statistics, and anecdotally there are certainly many extremely horrific examples of boer families being brutally tortured, raped and murdered on their farms.
as a non south african i can't speak as an authority, but the distinction between "land expropriation" (as if that's not a form of genocide) and violent, state sanctioned ethnic cleansing is looking pretty tenuous. we saw this basically play out in all the former European colonies, Rhodesia being the most obvious example.
it's really not limited to them, the ruling party is bad enough. watch some South African public television, the rhetoric being used isn't even attempting to veil what's really going on. remarkably they're still finding plenty of white, south african liberals who publicly kow-tow to the blacks there and what's going on, it's pathetic.

It should be noted that the predominance of the party, the ANC, is typically associated with laxity when it comes to the deeply triggering and problematic racism of a number of municipalities. Since the functional liberation from apartheid and the introduction of international market capital, the development predominant in urban spaces was not seen in the countryside of a mostly rural-centered social life.

While the formerly radical ANC has retained it's pan-African facade, it has contributed massively to the economic destitution of the countryside and compromised heavily as far its "core ideology" to compete with the urban resurgence of the democratic alliance (known previously as the primary opposition to the Apartheid-era National Party) amongst urban liberals.

The countryside, great bastions of consistent political support for the ruling ANC, have grown weary of unkept promises and the non-diversification of economic assets that they view as being held by an elite that is just as entrenched now, under the legality of modern property laws, as they were under the Apartheid laws. This conflict has dulled in its previous economic precision, but retained its most troublesome African-populist character. To preserve and cement electoral power from further erosion, the ideological and political prerogatives of these areas - unfit and ill-equipped, much less actually disposed to the idea of genuine economic productive development in these area - have resolved to nurture these great and bitter antagonisms to term, that they might reap the harvest of a strong, consistent constituency once more in the poorest areas of the country.

With regards to the EFF, we must note the presence of this inconsistent 'Popular-Africanism', in reality a new grand myth of a nascent national chauvinism. Reliant on the popular history of struggle, evident in his distinction between the Cuban and the 'white' (the difference between those who aided the abolishment materially and financially and those complicit, the Boers, Rhodesians, etc.), we may notice that there is a certain porous nature to their indictment of the 'white'. It is for good reason, to strive and embody the strident spirit of combat against the Apartheid system - EFF attempts to fully co-opt this living legacy, but without its fully emancipatory economic dimension, they are, as most movements that have attempted to tame this legacy, themselves the greatest agents of the miasma and stultifying of the nation.

Reactionaries should understand that this is all happening because of how LAX the post-apartheid government has been. As capitalists they could not bring themselves to mass expropriation so even if apartheid is gone, large amounts of land are still in the hands of settlers and this keeps causing tensions which are more between poor blacks and Boers with the state trying to mediate it than between Boers and BIG COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT. If they were the big evil African communist boogeyman that Zig Forums makes them out to be they would've nationalized all land in the 80s and kick out any Boer who refused to collaborate.

I think the most based party in South Africa is the SRWP which seems from my reading to be interconnected with the National Union of Metalworkers.

Attached: SRWP_4.jpg (3600x2400 431.84 KB, 1.43M)

Like it basically just the political wing of the Metalworkers. Seems pretty based.

Attached: numsa_3.png (3500x2318 1.17 MB, 4.55M)

Yeah I sometimes wonder if the EFF is a front for something since their beef is with the boer petit-bourgeoisie while not dealing with the real issue which is South Africa's exploitation through mining.
I'd be like in teh west going after cornershops while ignoring Amazon. It seems a bit bizarre.

I don't know enough about South Africa to say. There are good critiques of the EFF here but on Zig Forums I just see deceptive stuff designed to intensify racism. One common thing that I see spread around a lot is a deceptive video of a white student at a college putting trash in a trash can and some EFF cadres taking it back out and dumping it on the ground in front of him. Now this is presented as out-of-control black women pushing around the poor little white do-gooder, but the context was the EFF working with a university's janitorial union that was striking as the university was attempting to privatize the janitors and pay them lower wages, so they were trashing the place as a strike tactic.

Another common thing is Malema talking about how if there's a revolution a bunch of white people are gonna get killed. But when he was asked about that he said that the revolution is coming anyways like a train without brakes and if it's not led then that is what's going to happen and that will be a *bad thing*. But he may still play to demagoguery, but like I said I don't know enough. He seems to look to China as a model.

And I think Malema said in the same context that if that unled revolution happens, the revolutionaries will kill him too because he's sitting in parliament; i.e. he's saying the race-war nightmare on the horizon is also a war in which the blacks doing the killing will take his head off as well.

It doesn't have to be that way. Taking property from the rich and collectivising it is leftist, taking it from 'whites' and giving it to 'blacks' is not.

Yeah but the EFF is a leftist party so they should know better than to inflame racial tension. I wouldn't expect the ANC to be anything other than cancer because it sold out to the bourgeoisie decades ago..

It's just another case of a leftist movement being subverted by idpol. Dumb fucks focus on white farmers because they're more visible and an obvious legacy of colonialism. Meanwhile the South African elite is shadowy, hidden in the big cities (or abroad), and while still disproportionately white is now heavily mixed up with the black heroes of the anti-apartheid movement.

do you honestly believe it could've really gone otherwise? ie not devolved into the revolutionaries using their positions of power to accrue wealth for themselves while fucking over everyone they rule over, using whites vs blacks as the wedge. seemed like a foregone conclusion to me, which is why i'd tend to argue in defence of Apartheid, just seeing what happened as a result of its collapse, the Boers should've warred for whatever piece they could foredoomed as they were.
liberation and equality are just memes used in the power grab, they're a nonsense.
do you think poor white south africans and poor black south africans would be able to form a coalition?

Yeah no, apartheid continuing (moral objections aside) would not have prevented it, because this
Is exactly what apartheid was. Using the fear of the "uncivilised blackies" as a means to lord over the whites. It should be noted that South Africa just following WWI was a hotbread of Labour activism and one where the Boers were nowhere near power: the Nasionale Party used the threat of blacks to play up their power not just with the boer community but with whites in-general, then gained dictatorial power. It should be remember that apartheid wasn't just "black vs white", but an entire racial caste system with blacks, coloureds (which are a specific group of mixed race south africans), Indians, jews, immigrant-whites, anglo whites, and boer whites in that order. The reason the Immigrant and Anglo whites put-up with getting shit on by the Boers was because they were told they would be lynched by the blacks. The Jews and the Indians were told the same thing but mostly sided with the anti-apartheid resistance instead.

Isn't this what the EFF says, though?

Good post. I've heard the National Party described as basically a fascist structure, and not coincidentally was the pro-Axis faction of the South African whites in World War II rooted mainly the Afrikaner population (with the Anglos being pro-British).

Less fascist, more Putinite or Orbanite. Sure it cultivated fascism as a street-politics opposition to the anti-apartheid movement but the NP itself was not ideologically fascist in of itself. It is not just the political system or ideology that resembles Putinism but also the oligarchic corporatism. One thing people forget is that the NP itself was basically run by a boer version of the Freemasons/Orange Order made-up of rich boer landowning families.
Not even a fucking joke.

you a christian or something?
that's interesting, i can see the logic.
is this not true though? when the choice is between a hierarchical European state maintaining order versus angry negroes with a revolutionary bent they'd be foolhardy not to support the existing government. unless they were utopian third worldists or something, which would be a difficult ideology to maintain amidst the reality of African ghettoes. their self interest must've laid with the Apartheid state, Jews being standouts for the usual reasons.
i suppose we'll be arguing at cross purposes as you're likely not racialistic.
it's interesting seeing the demographic map of South Africa over the centuries and seeing the negro population grow many fold as the white population stayed completely still in relative terms, one has to wonder why exactly the ruling class believed this to be necessary or good, or whether it was driven entirely by the profit motive coupled with short term thinking. seems suicidal in hindsight.

It's inevitable under capitalism. What South Africa got in the early 90s was the co-option of the ANC by white capital, which was always going to lead to 'the revolutionaries using their positions of power to accrue wealth for themselves while fucking over everyone they rule over, using whites vs blacks as the wedge'. White capitalists now retain effective control over the South African economy without having to worry about the threat of revolution or international sanctions.

Apartheid was always doomed, because white South Africa was equally dominated by capital. The only way for white rule to survive in the long term was with genuine apartheid, with South Africa being properly separated into ethnostates and blacks being expelled from the white territories. But the capitalists didn't want that because they wanted blacks for their labour. The growth of the black population made white rule unsustainable, just like in Rhodesia.

The EFF does have white members.

The EFF is at heart a proper leftist movement but there's always a tendency for such movements to be drawn into idpol. I understand that a lot of what they say is misrepresented but it's still troubling how much they talk about their struggle in racial terms.

do you think the black migration -> fall of apartheid -> coopting of the ANC was planned in advance? or is that giving them too much credit? it does remind one of the story of the fall of many of these hierarchical states in pursuit of an alleged liberty that merely results in an even more exploitative oligarchy that is immune to moral criticism thanks to the various veils they've donned.
big agree.
does it? the soccer stadiums where they hold their rallies always looked to be 100% black, though i never looked that closely.

Yes, and in-fact I know a vicar who trained under apartheid: his ministry was regularly raided by the government because he had the gall to train and worship with black priests.
I don't think you quite get apartheid. Apartheid wasn't the continuation of the colonial rule of the Dominion of South Africa: in fact the anglos that perpetrated such rule were inherently set against it (including Jan Smuts). Apartheid was a deliberate system to establish the racial control of society by the boer minority: it wasn't designed as some means to protect the whites against the evil blackies, but to specifically ensure boer supremacy. This is why Anglos were pushed out of the state apparatuses. The Dominionists as they were known, for all their faults, believed in a racially integrated South Africa, just that it would take time to do so: as with much of british decolonisation.
Also a lot of those ghettos were created by the apartheid government: it was the result of the apartheid government literally doing like neighbourhood population exchange programmes where they "deported" whites from black neighbourhoods, blacks from white ones, Indians from black ones, indians from white ones and etc. There used to be a neighbourhood in Capetown which was working class and mostly multiracial: for some batshit reason it was designated as a "black neighbourhood" (even though it was plurality indian) and people were dragged out of it. There you have an organic community that was destroyed by the racial ideology of the apartheid government.
That's the thing about apartheid, it was all about "seperation", which is what the term itself means. It was about creating a system where the boer was on top, and everyone was kissing his feet. Why this came about? Well mostly because of their experiences of the Boer war. The Boer didn't see the anglo white as his friend, just someone else that would oppress him. He feared everyone, so decided he must control everything, for his own protection

okay, sorry i'm just used to folks on here being materialists/nihilists.
i'll cheerfully admit to that, my knowledge is very limited
you say this as if it were the correct path to take where i'd disagree, i'm no believer in multi-culturalism or multi-racial societies insofar as they can be avoided/mitigated, as the conflict there is baked into the cake and necessitates a greater force applied both underhandedly and openly in order to maintain order, as you describe in the Boer's actions in the 20th century. Boers and blacks ought not live in the same society, though if they must both will likely seek to dominate the other. mass migration for slave labour is a terrible policy.
i don't like the sound of that, without knowing the actual example. i dunno, i think race matters, both in its fundamental biological realities and its resulting social functions, you guys tend not to so i'm not sure if we can see any of this in the same way. i don't much like the sound of a state social engineering and manipulating its population in unnatural ways, but i'd also argue that multi-racial neighbourhoods tend to sort themselves out along racial lines, people self segregate, nowadays we see the social engineering move in the opposite direction with forced desegregation etc.
that wouldn't be unreasonable.
seeing the situation post-Apartheid maybe you can understand the Boer's perspective, as an all or nothing where if they ceded control of their state they would eventually be removed from it entirely, as is now happening.

There is also the fact that the farm murders stopped during the football world cup. No white farmers were murdered during that year. Meaning the murders stop when they stop paying the murderers to torture families to death

The EFF was always about racial tension

Wonder why these shits care about south africa and never the rest of it

To weaponize it.

No, obviously not, land redistribution from the ones that hold large amounts of land arguably is.

But let's take a look at this from the perspective of Zig Forums's worldview just to see how hypocritical it is. In the Zig Forums narrative of national identity and endless ethnic conflict, what the South African government is doing is merely expelling a foreign invader ethnic group from its borders with the aim of revitalizing its nation, in other words what Zig Forums desperately wants European countries to do. If Zig Forums was committed to their moralistic propaganda about love for your nation and culture, and ethno-separatism as opposed to ethnic domination they would support the SA government and probably call for Europe to mimic them.

The only honest rightists complaining about circumstances in SA are the ones who think whites are superior and therefore have some spooky "right" or "duty" to exterminate what they see as inferior people so Europeans can inherit the Earth. Obviously, that's what most of them believe, but that isn't marketable at all so they resort to the comparatively bleeding heart rhetoric.

What Zig Forums means when they say this is, "blacks are too dumb to farm". In reality, there is a possible issue of insufficient numbers of inexperienced black farmers replacing the very experiences white farmers that inevitably leave the country. If the government goes all in on the policy that issue will be avoidable, not that they realistically will, unfortunately.

eff goons are killing small little white kulaks with impunity

do you think they will ever go against the jewish controlled diamonds interests? will they ever expropriate the Chinese controlled rare earth mineral extraction businesses?

nope. they're just killing small time whites. probably being finances by the very same Chinese and Jewish interests to look for minerals on the land they "expropriate"

I hate you people so much. your naivete makes me physically ill. i sincerely hope one day your monkey nigger baboon pets eat you alive. you are literally too stupid to live.

You quite wholly decided to skip the whole of the thread just so you could regurgitate the same take you have about literally every geopolitical situation, slightly tinted for the specific occasion. Fuck off. You give as much of a fuck about the Boers as you do about honest and meaningful discourse, meaning not at all.

die screaming nigger


there was only 3000 locals when whites landed.
then they swarmed because being around magical whitey make life better.
is just codeword for too dumb.
niggers are incredibly retarded.
eating pygmies or albinos is what they do, because "it gives magic power".
try to justify why niggers should be kept around? pros & cons.

because it's allways the same shit, and you idiots never get it, which leads to the inevitable "it wasn't real gommunism"

Jesus fucking Christ Zig Forumsyps desperately need to be Holodomor 2.0'd

I'm for the socialist aspect of the left, but Im against open borders and identity politics.

With the exception of every socialist on this, everyone know that the EFF is a black supremacist party, and the same with the ANC. The only "saving" grace ANC has is that it is so corrupt they won't stick to their beliefs. When everyone who votes for the ANC is voting for the ethnic cleansing of whites from SA, and specifically the Boers, you know what the party stands for. ANC gets no votes from whites, coloreds or Indians, it is the same dynamic that you see with the Republican party. Like the Republican party is a white party in anything but name, so are the ANC and EFF the black parties. One more explicit than the other

fuck em

the narrative that it's about whitey being killed because whitey is right wing made up bullshit to support the racist apartheid like conditions there. Whites own 72 percent of private farmland in southafrica while making up a population of 9 percent, this is because the white families that came there as settlers and colonialists got rich of slave ownership and colonies and after that through apartheid wich forbid black people to work in specific sectors or own land, forcing them to get jobs with low pay and stay poor. Now the children of those people inherit the land and the cycle continues, it is only just to expropriate those farmes, not because they're white but because they are exploiting african land and profit off past colonialism and apartheid

why don't the farmers just poison the nigs with "free food" ;P

me too, we shouldn't let in white south africans who are trying to flee the long overdue justice they're facing

if you do care about the plight of white south africans you're cucked by idpol and open borders, these are just facts bucko

Hey Zig Forums, here's an example you can understand:
The Boers in SA are no different than the Zionists in Israel. They must be forced to leave. Period, the end. If they don't leave willingly, then they should be killed.