Once More Into The Heart of Whiteness
WorldNetDaily's insistence that whites in South Africa are being subject to a "genocide" is so fictional, a WND columnist used bogus quotes from an anti-genocide activist to try and further it.
By Terry Krepel
Now WND is cranking up its concern for South African whites again.
Alex Newman -- who likes to whitewash apartheid and the militancy of some white South Africans claiming to be victims -- wrote a Feb. 25 WND column about the Suidlanders, "Western-minded Christians" who are "preparing for the worst." It takes a few paragraphs before Newman admits that these are whites fearing persecution by the black majority. Despite Newman's portrayal of the group as primarily a "Christian organization," it appears that the Suidlanders are just right-wing preppers heavily into fearmongering.
Newman once again whitewashes apartheid to portray the current situation as much worse: "During the apartheid era, there were fewer than 20 race-based laws. Today, more than 100 race-based laws discriminating against whites have been created under the guise of 'empowering' blacks." Newman then writes:
The result has been hundreds of thousands of whites excluded from the labor market, living in squatter camps that have recently been garnering international media attention.
There are approximately 4.5 million whites in South Africa, which would mean that, according to Newman, there are more than 400,000 whites living in squatter camps. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Africa Check, less than 8,000 white households in the country are living in "shacks, informal settlements, caravans or tents."
Further, as CNN noted, unemployment among whites remains the lowest of all ethnic groups in South Africa.
Newman's column was followed by an anonymously written March 11 WND article that called on "international journalist Alex Newman" to complain about how "scandal-plagued South African president Jacob Zuma recently called for the unity of black parties to allow the expropriation, literally theft, of white-owned land without compensation." Newman doesn't explain that doing so would require a change in the South African constitution, so it's not as simple as he suggests.
It's not disputed that Zuma may very well be a bad, corrupt leader -- heck, "Daily Show" host and South African native Trevor Noah admits as much. But Noah also noted that Donald Trump has indicated a Zuma-esque approach to running America, something Newman and WND probably won't want to discuss.
Fake quotes from anti-genocide activist
Then, on March 12, Barbara Simpson devoted her WND column to ranting about "white genocide" in South Africa. She concluded with this (italics hers):
Dr. Gregory Stanton, with Genocide Watch, speaks openly about genocide, what leads to it and how to determine when it’s actually taking place
It's unclear where Simpson got her "100,000 white murders" claim from, but Africa Check reported that it may have originated by a South African musician, Steve Hofmeyr, who claimed that the number of white South Africans killed by blacks would fill a soccer stadium -- and is wrong. Africa Check points out that while South Africa does have a crime problem, whites are still much less likely to be murdered than other ethnicities. The number of whites murdered in South Africa between 1994 and 2012 may be as low as 6,498, and the rate of black-on-white murder is far lower than the "95 percent" Simpson claims.
Further, while Genocide Watch's Stanton has expressed concern about events in South Africa, he has explicitly stated that "white genocide" is not happening there now. The quotes Simpson attributes to Stanton seem unusually strident for him compared with other things he has written about South Africa, and a Google search turned up no original source for them.
ConWebWatch contacted Genocide Watch for a verification of the purported quotes Simpson used. Stanton responded:
Thank you for bringing to my attention an article claiming to "quote" me on "white genocide in South Africa."
ConWebWatch contacted Simpson through her WND email address to alert her to the false quotes she used. She did not respond; months later, the bogus Stanton quotes remain live and uncorrected., as do the other falsehoods in Simpson's column. (Fake news, anyone?)
The fearmongering continues
But why bother correcting the record and telling the truth when there's fearmongering to be done? An anonymously written March 19 WND article asserts without evidence that "white South Africans face even more race-based laws and regulations than existed under apartheid."
The article rehashed a 2015 video interview with Charl Van Wyk, a South Africa-based missionary who wrote a WND-published book claiming to make "a biblical, Christian case for individuals arming themselves with guns." In it, Van Wyk tries to baselessly frame the situation in Africa as a religious battle: "The Christian faith is what distinguished the Boer. ... The most important historical attribute of the Boer (Afrikaner) was the fact that he was Christian!”
Strangely, WND does not quote Van Wyk criticizing the apartheid system.
Newman returned for more fearmongering in an April 1 article, vaguely asserting that "There have been dozens of recorded farm murders so far in 2017, an average of one farm attack per day, according to South African media reports." He offered no direct evidence to back up this claim.
Newman went to cite "civil-rights group AfriForum" to support his pro-Afrikaner view; in fact, AfriForum is mostly an advocate for Afrikaner culture.
An anonymously written April 11 WND article detailed Newman's conversation with birther Carl Gallups about Newman's factually dubious claim that white farmers in South Africa are facing a "genocide." Once again, Newman ignored the fact that the murder rate for blacks in South Africa is much higher than for whites.
Nevertheless, Newman is allowed to claim that "There is no other group in the world that faces this kind of slaughter" than South African whites. Except, you know, for South African blacks, but he won't tell you that. Newman then tried to pass the buck:
Newman suggested the reason the media are ignoring the violence against white South Africans is because journalists played a large role in creating the political climate that led to the atrocities of today. He noted South Africa had many different options during the 1980s and 1990s about how to dismantle apartheid, but the “media and the Western establishment” demanded an immediate surrender of power to the communists and the terrorists.
At no point in the article is Newman quoted as saying that apartheid was a horribly racist and unfair system that warranted immediate replacement.
Also, Gallups blaming Obama for a "slow-building demonization campaign" against "police officers and Christians" is laughable given Gallups' own demonization campaign against Obama. Not only is he a hard-core birther, he introduced the meme that the Bible proves Obama is the literal Antichrist.
As might be expected from a white "former resident" of South Africa, Newman remains condescending toward blacks in the country and argues against multiculturalism, which appears to be a veiled argument for the return of apartheid because he certainly does not want the blacks running things:
“In South Africa, you have this Christian minority that brought Western Civilization to what was at the time an almost uninhabited land. I think people in America have a hard time understanding this because we have a different point of reference, but the chasm between the culture of the Afrikaners Western Christian farmers and some of these African people groups which exist to this day, which worship ancestors and things like that, is enormous. Imagine taking farmers from Kansas and dropping them into the middle of Rwanda and saying, ‘Now you guys are going to have a democracy.’ It’s a very hard thing to understand, but you could see where it would lead.”
Perhaps Newman should review a bit of South African history -- and accept apartheid for the evil it was -- if he wants to understand why some blacks have an animus against the Afrikaners who repressed them for decades and the "Western Civilization" they used in justifying their repression.
WND returned to the subject in a July 15 article by Liam Clancy, who kicks things off by repeating the dubious talking point -- copy-and-pasted from Newman's April WND article -- 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 called in a couple of WND authors to complain, including Newman and Van Wyk, to push the idea that the U.S. should admit white South African farmers as refugees (the "real refugees" claimed in the headline, as presumably opposed to refugees of equal or worse violence who happen to be non-white and non-Christian):
Van Wyk agrees that President Trump should open up the United States for white South African refugees.
Clancy did not seek out the view of Stanton, who credibly disputes that "genocide" assessment.
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."
A July 24 article by Clancy once again rehashed Van Wyk's inflammatory claims, adding: "South Africa’s murder rate has risen nearly 20 percent in four years, according to the Telegraph. In total, there were 18,673 homicides in 2016, up from 17,805 in 2015." Clancy is clearly implying that many of these homicide victims are white; his deliberate vagueness is furthered his failure to provide a link to his claim that would, if nothing else, explain what "Telegraph" publication from which this statistic came.
In fact, according to news agency AFP, police officials blame much of the increase on domestic violence and alcohol abuse, adding that "most murders occurred indoors, in urban areas and involved people known to each other."
Clancy followed up with an Aug. 13 article featuring Van Wyk fearmongering about a possible "civil war" in South Africa -- then bizarrely descends into an attack on Nelson Mandela. Why? Because Mandela was reportedly a brief member of the South African Communist Party and Zuma is purported descending into communism.
Clancy lamented that "The SACP led a guerrilla war against the South African government during apartheid," but he doesn't explain why apartheid was such a bad thing that it engendered a "guerrilla war" against it.