We've detailed WorldNetDaily's renewed concern about the plight of whites in post-apartheid South Africa, complete with WND columnist Babrara Simpson manufacturing quotes by an anti-genocide activist to falsely claim they face a "genocide."
WND is back at it again in a July 15 article by Liam Clancy, who kicks things off by repeating the dubious talking point -- copy-and-pasted from an April WND article by Alex Newman -- that "White South African farmers are several times more likely to be killed than South African police officers or even American soldiers serving in Iraq. In fact, the murder rate for blacks in South Africa is still much higher than it is for whites.
Clancy calls in a couple of WND authors to complain -- including Newman, who has whitewashed apartheid in the past -- to push the idea that the U.S. should admit white South African farmers as refugees (the "real refugees" of the headline, as opposed to refugees of equal or worse violence who happen to be non-white and non-Christian):
[Charyl] Van Wyk agrees that President Trump should open up the United States for white South African refugees.
“They serve God, they’re hard workers and they believe their work ethic shows their love of God,” Van Wyk told WND.
Journalist Alex Newman, a former resident of South Africa, believes that the extent of violence against whites in South Africa is truly of “genocidal” proportions.
“What’s happening there now is just monstrous beyond words,” said Newman. “I think genocide is a very appropriate term to use there.”
Except, well, it isn't. Genocide Watch founder Gregory Stanton, who was the victim of Simpson's quote manufacturing, has said that while the situation in South Africa is concerning, it does not rise to the level of genocide.
Lest the pro-white tone of Clancy's piece be considered an accident -- he interviews no one for his article who is not a white South African native -- he goes on to fret: "The cultural heritage of white South Africans is also at risk, as student protesters around the country campaign to destroy monuments to white South Africans and any other representation of white South African culture."
Clancy -- and, in turn, Newman and Van Wyk -- don't explain that whole apartheid thing as a possible reason why the black majority would not be looking kindly upon "monuments to white South Africans and any other representation of white South African culture."