FARMLANDS (2018) Official Documentary

You really couldn’t make this stuff up.. “it’s not the intention of the ANC to grab the land illegally, we will do it within the law, and if we can’t do it within the law we will introduce new laws so we can do it ‘legally’ “

Why do the West not introduce Economic Sanctions against South African Government? Where is the NATO? Or do NATO rescue only the murderers of Christians in Middle East as in former Yugoslavia? You know damn well why not, cause these people are whites, white people are being attacked and murdered, murder supported by their government.

Wake the FUCK up white America, cause your next!!

Invasion and Liberation of South Africa NOW!!

 

 

Will Russia Begin Accepting Boer Refugees? 15,000 White South African Farmers Seek Refuge in Russia

Roy Batty
Daily Stormer
July 10, 2018

Whenever the writer asks a question in the headline, you always know that the answer to it will be a solid “maybe.”

So yeah…maybe.

It is nice that the official state news is even covering this issue.

But from the report, it doesn’t seem that Russia is going to be going out of its way to encourage these farmers to come over. They need to buy their meal ticket.

RT:

A delegation of 30 South African farming families has arrived in Russia’s farmbelt Stavropol Region, Rossiya 1 TV reports. The group says it is facing violent attacks and death threats at home.

Up to 15,000 Boers, descendants of Dutch settlers in South Africa, are planning to move to Russia amid rising violence stemming from government plans to expropriate their land, according to the delegation.

“It’s a matter of life and death – there are attacks on us. It’s got to the point where the politicians are stirring up a wave of violence,” Adi Slebus told the media. “The climate here [Stavropol Region] is temperate, and this land is created by God for farming. All this is very attractive.” 

The farmers are prepared to make a contribution to Russia’s booming agricultural sector, according to Rossiya 1. Each family is ready to bring up to $100,000 for leasing the land.

Russia has 43 million hectares of unused farmland, and has recently begun giving out free land to Russian citizens to cultivate farming. The land giveaway program, which began in 2014, has been a huge success.

They’ve definitely got a rough situation. The ones who’ve already had their land taken live in squatter camps as bad as Old Calais.

Historically, Russia has had millions of Germans colonists… and Swedes and Italians and French come by as well.

When Peter the Great came to power, there were already thousands of German colonists in Russia. He enjoyed their company in his youth, and he ended up inviting thousands more.

Before the Red Terror and World War II, there were millions of Germans living in central and southern Russia as farmers. Even the aristocracies of Germany and Russia were closely related. Many intellectuals used to think that the Teuton and the Slav were cousin peoples. You even had Strasser and his people in Germany thinking about creating a super-race by mixing Russians and Germans. The war prowess and hardiness of the Russian mixed with the discipline and technical prowess of the German.

All of this is to say that it’s rather strange how history played out. Germans and Russians used to be best buds.

I mean you can still find their descendants in Russia today, but there are no colonies or settlements anymore.

And you really can’t tell the difference between them and an average Russian. I mean they’re both White, so there’s that. And they’re too culturally assimilated.

Anyways, what I’m trying to say is that accepting Boer immigrants – who are sort of German – isn’t a radical departure from Russian tradition. Hell, even the Bolkonsky character had Prussian roots in Tolstoy’s War and Peace.

It would probably benefit the country immensely to be quite honest. The only problem that I foresee is that these people might still harbor a grudge against Russia for the Bush wars. But on the other hand, Russia supported the Boer against the Brits in their war more than a century ago, so idk.

Obviously, as a White Nationalist, I think that this is a solid move.

Accepting several thousand hardcore race realists will make Russia more based if anything.

BUT.

There is that whole Protestant thing that these Boers have going on… and it’s not that I have anything against Protestants per se… but they’re prone to getting all into that kooky shit sometimes.

If it were up to me, I’d give them the land for free, but demand that they at least nominally accept Orthodoxy.

Clearly, Protestant Jesus hasn’t really delivered for them. I think its time to try out a different religion.

Seriously, I’d make it a top requirement for resettlement.

We don’t want them importing Africans through Christian charities two generations from now like all the other Protestant sects.

Besides, the cash is just going to disappear into a few bureaucrats’ pockets anyways. I say, at least focus on nipping any nascent separatism in the bud, and not on enriching some useless government parasites short-term.

But whatever, I’m not the Tsar.

‘A Matter of Life & Death’: 15,000 White South African Farmers Seek Refuge in Russia

Source: rt.com

A delegation of 30 South African farming families has arrived in Russia’s farmbelt Stavropol region, Rossiya 1 TV channel reports. The group says it is facing violent attacks and death threats at home.

Up to 15,000 Boers, descendants of Dutch settlers in South Africa, are planning to move to Russia amid rising violence stemming from government plans to expropriate their land, according to the delegation.

“It’s a matter of life and death — there are attacks on us. It’s got to the point where the politicians are stirring up a wave of violence,” Adi Slebus told the media. “The climate here [in the Stavropol region] is temperate, and this land is created by God for farming. All this is very attractive.”

The new South African government lead by President Cyril Ramaphosa has pledged to return the lands owned by white farmers since the 1600s to the black citizens of the country. The government said it is planning to put an end to what it calls the legacy of apartheid, where most of South Africa’s land is still in the hands of its minority white population.

Rights groups have said the initiative incites violence. There were 74 farm murders and 638 attacks, primarily against white farmers, in 2016-17 in South Africa, according to data by minority rights group AfriForum.

The farmers are ready to make a contribution to Russia’s booming agricultural sector, according to Rossiya 1. Each family is ready to bring up to $100,000 for leasing the land.

Russia has 43 million hectares of unused farmland. The country has recently begun giving out free land to Russian citizens to cultivate farming. The land giveaway program, which began in 2014, has been a huge success.

Heart of Darkness: South African Land Confiscation Will Probably Go Ahead

Roy Batty
Daily Stormer
July 2, 2018

This is pretty sick.

No one wants to out and out say that this is a genocide.

Those news agencies that cover the news talk about how the death and dismemberment of White farmer communities will be bad for niggers – who it is heavily implied – are too retarded to feed themselves.

RT:

The South African economy and the nation’s food production could collapse if the government seizes land from white farmers and redistributes it to black citizens, a local race relations organization has told RT.

The move, approved by the ruling African National Congress (ANC) earlier this year, is aimed at redistribution of wealth and “radical economic transformation.” The government is reportedly planning to put an end to what they call the legacy of apartheid, where nearly 95 percent of the South African wealth was kept in the hands of 10 percent of its white population.

Some organizations have claimed the initiative incites violence against white farmers. According to statistics from minority rights group AfriForum, 74 murders and 638 attacks primarily on white farmers had taken place in 2016-17.

The thing is, there’s a lot more to South Africa than meets the eye.

A solid portion of Whites in South Africa are pretty liberal and live in the cities. Furthermore, they don’t really identify with the Boer, who I think they think are hicks and rednecks who had it coming.

Also, for some reason, the South African government always had a close relationship with Israel, even though it was mostly Marxist Jews that were agitating for the end of Apartheid and trying to destroy South Africa.

The whole situation there seems pretty convoluted.

Either way, it’s pretty sick that the Boer farmers basically have to justify their existences by pointing out how many niggers they can feed.

The Institute of Race Relations has urged the international community to step in, as the South African government denies that the land expropriation, and the violence the bill allegedly sparked, are a problem.

“The white farmer in South Africa is part of a minority group. It is also unaccepted that property be expropriated without compensation. The international community should pressure the South African government to address the problem of crime in South Africa,” the TLU SA spokesman said.

“They should also pressure them not to take away the legal property of its citizens without compensating them.”

The experts highlight that international investments are vital for growing South Africa’s economy, while a constitution allowing expropriation without compensation creates uncertainty and chases investors away. In March, TLU SA President Louis Meintjes said that the reform sends a negative message to international investors.

“The ultimate result of what the government is currently introducing is the collapse of the economy and the redistribution of poverty which will affect all of us. International business will invest where profit could be made, and they are clearly not willing to risk investments to support a failed ideology,” Meintjes said. “It is not possible to send out a clearer message by expressing the intention to expropriate without compensation. In any developed society, this is regarded as theft, and efforts to disguise the intention to do so constitutionally, will not change that fact.”

I’m reminded of the scorpion and the frog parable that William Luther Pierce used to tell.

Naggers are the same thing really. They’re willing to take things to such a low-level of civilization that it’s not really worth playing that game of mutually assured destruction with them. They can’t think critically, and they won’t be won over with economic arguments.

But I have a constructive suggestion for the farmers.

Why not just shut down production NOW and watch them scramble to feed themselves. These farmers, if they’re really that crucial to the South African economy, should just hunker down for a year or two and watch the nogs destroy themselves.

What do they have to lose at this point?

It’s Wrong to Ignore Violence Against White South Africans

Helen Raleigh, The Federalist, 27 March 2018

The more radical wing of South Africa’s ruling party has long pressured its leaders to redistribute wealth from the white minority to the black majority in any way they can. They’ve begun that process, violently.

White farmers in South Africa face an existential threat, yet the governments of most Western democracies, including the U.S., remain largely silent. This appalling situation must change.

Legalized Land Confiscation

Today in South Africa, white farmers control 73 percent of arable land compared with 85 percent when apartheid ended in 1994. The more radical wing of South Africa’s ruling party, ANC, the African National Congress, has long pressured its leaders to redistribute wealth from the white minority to the black majority in any way they can.

Being a farmer in South Africa, especially if you are a white farmer, can be a life-threatening occupation. The exact numbers of crimes against white farmers are hard to come by, because South African police doesn’t track farm related crimes by race. According to BBC, the best available data shows that overall farm murders are at their highest level since 2010-2011. Saying “enough is enough,” South African farmers, mostly white, staged a protest against farm murders in October last year.

The situation for white farmers has gotten worse since the end of February. Julius Malema, leader of the Marxist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party in South Africa, brought a motion that called for a constitutional amendment to allow the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation. To open his motion, he declared, “The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice.”

The parliament passed the motion with a 241-83 vote. Gugile Nkwinti, one of the ministers of South Africa offered this support: “The ANC unequivocally supports the principle of land expropriation without compensation. There is no doubt about it, land shall be expropriated without compensation.” Now the bill is referred to the Constitutional Review Committee, which must report back to Parliament by August 30.

When Malema presented his case to expropriate white farmers’ land, he claimed, “We are not calling for the slaughter of white people — at least for now.” But some people on the ground took the parliamentary vote as an open invitation from the government to do whatever they please with white farmers. Since then, white farmers reportedly have been beaten, raped and killed. Yet South African authorities seem to have done little to either denounce Malema’s radical rhetoric or address violence against white farmers.

Yanking Land From Its Rightful Owners Has Never Worked

Since the end of the apartheid in 1994 and after the ANC came into power, laws were put in place to try to right the historical wrongs through various land reforms. For example, if an African can supply proof his or her ancestors were buried on the land or that the family held it in control before 1910, they can file an ownership claim with the government. If they win, the current landowners must sell the land back to the government, which will then give the land to the claimant.

These past efforts often have mixed results because, according to FarmFutures.com, “The new owner is often unprepared for the capital and equipment needed to farm the land; within a year or two the land ends up back in government hands and the original farmer buys it at a discount.”

Current legalized land confiscation from white farmers without compensation represents the most radical effort by South Africa government, and it echoes similar measures taken by Robert Mugabe, the former dictator of Zimbabwe. In 2000, Mugabe forcefully seized land from mostly white farmers (a few black farmers who were critical of Mugabe were impacted too) without compensation for resettling poor black farmers. Some white farmers were beaten and killed, hundreds more were forced to flee to other countries.

In total, about 4,000 commercial farms were confiscated and redistributed to poor and inexperienced black farmers. Prior to this land grab, the commercial farming sector provided 40 percent of Zimbabwe’s export earnings. Since the land grab, the agriculture sector has fallen apart. The production had dropped so much that Zimbabwe became a net importer of grain between 2000 and 2016.

After blaming bad weather and western sanctions for over a decade, even Mugabe admitted in 2015 that his land reform was deeply flawed. Since Mugabe was ousted in 2017, new president Emmerson Mnangagwa has striven to revitalize the agriculture industry by acknowledging the chaotic and violent nature of the land reform that took place 20 years ago. He also promised to restore respect for property rights by offering compensation to wronged white farmers in order to lure them back.

The ANC Needs To Reexamine Its Failed Policies

Unfortunately, these real life lessons failed to register with the left-leaning ANC, the ruling party in South Africa since the end of apartheid in 1994. Their socialist economic policies such as central planning, government subsidies and grants has lifted some black South Africans out of poverty, but the economic growth has been stagnant in the last decade.

The size of the South African economy in 2016 was about the same as in 2009. GDP growth in 2017 was only 0.3 percent, making it one of weakest economies during a time when there has been a worldwide economic expansion. The poverty rate and unemployment rate have been rising. About a quarter of the nation’s 55 million people still don’t earn enough money to afford sufficient food.

Countries like China and South Korea turned their economies around within two decades through market-oriented economic reforms. The ANC has been in power for a quarter of a century. South Africa’s economic woes today are largely the result of ANC’s failed economic policies.

The ANC today doesn’t have the same kind of moral authority as when it was led by Nelson Mandela. It has become a network of patronage and corruption. Its policies enriched a few at the expense of its people. Its former party leader and former president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, is facing 16 counts of corruption, money laundering and racketeering. Yet, rather than examine its own failed policies, the ANC continues down the same path of blaming historical wrongdoings and inciting racial conflict to explain away their policy failures. The vote to legalize land confiscation from white farmers without compensation is the latest example of the ANC doubling down on a wrongheaded economic policy.

As Friedrich Hayek said, “the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.” Until the ANC stops its war on race and property rights, it won’t turn the economy around.

Efforts To Help South African White Farmers

The South African white farmers’ plight has generated a very muted response from the international community. Somehow the color of their skin makes their suffering less visible to most western politicians, human rights groups, and media. The only strong response came from Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, who called for plans to fast-track humanitarian based visas for white South African farmers who are being persecuted.

He was promptly called a “racist,” by some of his countrymen, liberal media and ironically, by South African politicians. Even some human rights groups argue that they can always find another group of people who suffer more than these farmers. Thus, these farmers don’t deserve any special treatment.

There is an active White House petition to call for immigration priority for these farmers. I hope President Trump will heed the call. The U.S. should help them not because of their skin color, but because of the gross violation of their human rights and property rights, and our nation’s role as the beacon of hope for those who suffered persecution and injustice.

My only suggestion is that rather than offering them refugee visas, we should grant them skill-based immigration visas. These farmers have the skills and experiences we need and mostly importantly, they have the desire to work. They will be self-sufficient and make contributions to our nation rather quickly. What we shouldn’t do is continue to remain silent.

In 1996, Charlize Theron Admitted She Left Black-Run South Africa Because “there was no future for a white South African…”

Shot. [That Thing She Does, People, October 14, 1996]:

CHARLIZE THERON STRETCHES HER LITHE, 5’9″ frame over her purple couch and smiles as she remembers the first time she rented the movie Splash. “I was in love with Tom Hanks instantly,” she says. “I hated Daryl Hannah. I was sitting there saying, ‘I could have done that part so much better. That should be me!’ ”

Deep in her heart, Theron knows the truth, but to have a career in Hollywood, she sold her racial soul for momentary glory.

At the time, Theron was all of 9 years old and watching the film on the living room floor of her parents’ farmhouse in the remote South African village of Benoni. But if her dreams were big, she wasn’t afraid to pursue them: Twelve years later, the actress, now 21, is appearing with Hanks in his directorial debut, That Thing You Do!, the story of a ’60s rock band. Theron plays Tina, the prim, self-absorbed girlfriend of the lead character, played by Tom Everett Scott. Meanwhile she is blowing away critics as the hit woman Helga in the violent 2 Days in the Valley.

“She’s this Amazonian beauty,” says James Spader, Theron’s lover in Valley. “She carries an enormous presence.” Director John Herzfeld was equally impressed with Theron’s acting debut, particularly in light of her quick recovery after a mishap during a fight scene with co-star Teri Hatcher. “Teri actually hit Charlize with the first punch,” he says. “When you see Charlize’s head go back, that’s real.”

According to Theron, that was just her first experience with screen combat. “I got smacked in the face, kicked in the ribs and thrown into walls,” she says. “But it’s fun!”

Theron also enjoyed the collegial atmosphere on the set. Growing up an only child on her family’s farm, Theron says, her pet goat Bok “was like my best friend.” As an outlet for her boundless energy, she took up ballet at age 6 and soon was dancing professionally in Johannesburg. But at 15, she says, “everything just went wrong.”

Her father, Charles, died, leaving the family’s road-construction business in the hands of her mother, Gerda. Theron had little time to grieve; with the dismantling of apartheid and the creation of new affirmative action laws, she became convinced “there was no future for a white South African.” One week after turning 16, she accepted an offer from an Italian model scout, and—with her mother’s blessing—headed for Milan. Looking back, she says, “I just ran.”

So Charlize Theron left South Africa because once blacks took over the country in 1994 she feared “there was no future for a white South African.”

Chaser. [Charlize Theron Considers Leaving America as ‘Racism Alive and Well’, Breitbart.com, 4-13-18]:

South African actress Charlize Theron has revealed she is considering leaving the United States because of a perceived increase in racism under the Trump administration.

“I don’t even know how to talk about the last year under our new administration,” Theron said in an interview for Elle conducted by the comedian ((((((Chelsea Handler)))))).

“But racism is much more alive and well than people thought. We can’t deny it anymore. We have to be vocal. ”

Theron, who was born and raised in apartheid South Africa, went on to claim that she fears for the safety of her adopted children, both of whom are African-American.

“There are places in this country where, if I got a job, I wouldn’t take it. I wouldn’t travel with my kids to some parts of America, and that’s really problematic,” she said.

“There are a lot of times when I look at my kids and I’m like, if this continues, I might have to [leave America]. Because the last thing I want is for my children to feel unsafe,” she continued. “But they’re going to have to know that it’s a different climate for them than it is for me, and how unfair that is.

So Charlize Theron left South Africa because once blacks took over the country in 1994 she feared “there was no future for a white South African.”
She then sold her soul to act in Hollywood, and now owes her entire career to spitting in the face of her people and white Americans.

Theron left South Africa because it was unsafe for white people (under black rule, she correctly ascertained white people had no future) and she now parrots the anti-white lies our elite mandate all of their puppets espouse.

She surrendered her racial soul for a few decades of glory.

South Africa Nearing the Point of No Return

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, 20 February 2018

For those ostensibly interested in building a multiracial democracy, the recent history of Zimbabwe should be a warning, not a model. However, South Africa appears poised to follow its northern neighbor’s disastrous policies of land confiscation and white scapegoating, accelerating the former First World nation’s decline. International observers are cheered by the departure of the “Rainbow Nation’s” famously corrupt president Jacob Zuma, but the new South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, faces the all but impossible task of repairing the country’s crumbling economy while appeasing a black electorate that wants to seize white farmland.

President Ramaphosa, leader of South Africa’s dominant African National Congress (ANC), is taking office with sky-high expectations from both South Africans and the international community. However, there has been so much economic damage from Mr. Zuma’s administration that both S&P Global and Fitch have downgraded South Africa’s long term debt to “junk,” and Moody’s has put the country on review. If Moody’s follows S&P and Fitch, South Africa’s government will have to spend more on debt payments, and investment capital would flee the country, making it even more difficult to fund social programs. South Africa’s finance minister (who is seen as a Zuma loyalist and whose job is in doubt) says repairing South Africa’s credit rating will be a top priority for the new government.

The markets are responding positively to Mr. Ramaphosa’s inauguration; the rand increased in value and stocks soared after Mr. Zuma was forced out. Optimistic press reports claim South Africa is ready to “explode” economically. Also, racial tensions are said to be exaggerated, since Mr. Zuma failed in his attempt to cling to power by blaming white people. South Africa’s legal process functioned as it should, and Mr. Zuma was forced out peacefully, despite fears he was going to use militant tactics to stay in power. Since Mr. Ramaphosa’s main priorities are economic, he hardly sounds like a radical.

JOHANNESBURG, March 14, 2017 South Africa’s Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa addresses the Global Entrepreneurship Congress (GEC) 2017 at Sandton Convention Center, Johannesburg,?South?Africa, on March 14, 2017.?The Global Entrepreneurship Congress (GEC) 2017 opened on Tuesday in Johannesburg by South Africa’s Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa with the aim of sharing ideas on how small businesses can grow and make positive contributions to their countries. (Credit Image: © Xinhua via ZUMA Wire)

Nevertheless, Mr. Ramaphosa’s margin for maneuver is far narrower than enthusiastic coverage would suggest. While trying to calm international markets, he has also called for confronting “inequality,” a question that in South Africa carries major racial overtones. He will find it hard to do both.

First, more than anything else, Mr. Ramaphosa has to tackle the problems of corruption and mismanagement in state-owned companies, problems that got worse under Mr. Zuma. Mr. Zuma built his power on a network of patronage and political obligations, and rooting out his loyalists will take time. It is also likely to be divisive for the already fragmented ANC, since Mr. Zuma still has supporters, especially in his stronghold of KwaZulu-Natal. Mr. Zuma is reported to have had corrupt partnerships with the Guptas—an Indian immigrant family with a huge holdings in South Africa’s resources—and his upcoming trial will only heighten tensions within the ANC.

The very trait that makes Mr. Ramaphosa attractive to foreign investors—his perceived friendliness to the free market—also opens up a line of attack for his opponents inside and outside the ANC. Mr. Ramaphosa is, by South African standards, soft on the question of race and redistribution of wealth. The main division is around the term “white monopoly capital.” Mr. Zuma and his allies wanted the term, with its explicit racial identification, designated in party propaganda as an enemy to be fought. Mr. Ramaphosa argued that the term, which once formed part of the ANC’s revolutionary lexicon, should be left in the past. Others still use such language. For example, Jacob Zuma’s son Edward, even while calling for party unity behind Mr. Ramaphosa, declared his father’s fall a victory for “white monopoly capital and the Western agents who are hell-bent on destroying our country.”

Julius Malema of the leftist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party has vowed to give Mr. Ramaphosa even more trouble than he gave Mr. Zuma. He recirculated reports of Mr. Ramaphosa’s involvement in a massacre of striking mine workers in 2012 and reportedly said that he “wanted to show white capitalists that Ramaphosa will not save them.” Since Mr. Malema is already blasting Mr. Ramaphosa for having “no plan,” the new president will be under pressure to act quickly. While the EFF has a small political following compared to that of the ANC, the fact Mr. Malema is a former head of the ANC Youth League shows the potential for the ANC to splinter on questions of economic redistribution and race.

Mr. Malema is already finding something to cheer about, since Mr. Ramaphosa has declared his support for a program of taking land without compensation. This would seem to conflict with his promise to increase economic growth and attract foreign investment. Foreign capital shies away from countries where it can be seized without recompense, but Mr. Ramaphosa probably felt he had to offer the Left something. However, he suggests farmland should be taken only in a way that “increases agricultural production, improves food security.”

It is not clear how this can be done.

The agricultural association Agri SA has warned that any attempt to change the constitution to legalize taking land without compensation would be economic suicide. Some analysts suggest such a plan wouldn’t even do much to reduce economic inequality but would simply harm investment and food security. Even ministers from Zimbabwe are telling South Africa that following the Robert Mugabe model is a bad idea.

Mr. Ramaphosa seems to be trying to have it both ways. He has recommended in the past that people remain calm about the land issue. In January, he acknowledged that it was a “delicate” problem, distancing himself from the Mr. Malema’s EFF and the radicals. Yet telling white farmers their land could be taken and that without them South Africa could be a “garden of Eden” is hardly conducive to calm. The Boer Afrikaner Volksraad, an Afrikaner activist group, said any land seizure would be a “declaration of war” and promised retaliation. Since Mr. Malema told his followers last year to simply “take” land they like, there is a strong possibility of either a violent confrontation or a political debacle.

If confidence in Mr. Ramaphosa is shattered, that could be the final blow to South Africa’s rickety credit ratings. Even if Mr. Ramaphosa succeeds in one aspect of his economic program, that may increase pressure for him to confiscate land. One of South Africa’s most important industries is mining, where there are especially high expectations for Mr. Ramaphosa. However, as mining operations expand, they may spill over onto arable land, which edges out tribal communities and could increase demands for redistribution of white farms.

What’s more, it’s questionable whether any redistribution program can be efficiently administered until corruption is rooted out, since redistribution would probably spawn new forms of fraud and bribery. Given the confusion about who actually owns a great deal of South Africa’s farmland, even the most careful tallies would be marred with inaccuracies and arbitrary judgments.

White South Africans are facing more immediate threats than the legal ones coming from the new head of state. After the ANC takeover, the South African government implemented strict gun control and outlawed the “commandos,” or Afrikaner self-defense groups, making it far harder for farmers to protect themselves. Not surprisingly, the murder rate for Boer farmers is famously high. On October 30, 2017, white South Africans hosted nationwide #BlackMonday protests, which Afrikaner advocate Dan Roodt credits with creating a “sense of community and solidarity” among whites, who now realize the ANC government will not protect them. Organizations such as the Suidlanders claim they will be able to safeguard the white population in the event of a crisis, but there is already a constant low-level crisis. Just last Friday, there was yet another farm murder, with a 73-year-old man killed after three gun-toting men broke into his house.

The violence against white South African farmers is already on the brink of mainstream attention. Well-known British columnist Katie Hopkins created a media hubub after being banned from South Africa earlier this month for “racist views”—that is, for pointing out the frequency of farm murders—and Lauren Southern’s firsthand reporting on violence against white South Africans is already in post-production as a documentary entitled “Farmlands.” Last summer, Ann Coulter said “White South African farmers facing genocide” were “the only real refugees.”

There’s another major crisis looming for Mr. Ramaphosa. Cape Town is on the verge of running out of water. “Day Zero,” the day when the municipal water supply will be cut off, has been set for June 4. Cape Town has dramatically increased in population over the last two decades, adding more strain on an already buckling infrastructure. Like the rest of South Africa, Cape Town faces huge divisions between its white and black population. Although there has been so much advance warning that serious civil disorder seems unlikely, the spectacle of one of the country’s greatest cities running out of water will hardly inspire investor confidence.

The situation of white South Africans is nearing a turning point. Lawless violence and “lawful” confiscation could end Afrikaner farming. Whites are being increasingly scapegoated for the country’s problems by the likes of Mr. Malema’s EFF and the left wing of the ANC. And while Mr. Ramaphosa may symbolize a return to sanity, his call for land confiscation suggests he fears losing the left wing of his party. Even if he does not follow through with confiscation, raising the hopes of black leftists could have dangerous consequences for white South Africans, who are now essentially hostages in their own country.

However, apocalypse is probably not around the corner. Some of the more excitable conservative and white advocacy websites have long warned of impending “white genocide,” but the handover of power to the ANC did not trigger mass extermination. There was no Haitian-style orgy of bloodletting after the death of Nelson Mandela. Though the ANC continues to sing violent songs such as “Bring Me My Machine Gun,” President Ramaphosa is trying to strike a conciliatory tone and even suggests land confiscation will be done in an orderly way after a process of study, not through Mr. Malema’s preferred tactic of arbitrarily claiming land. The main priority of the South African government is appeasing the international financial system, not slaughtering white farmers.

If Mr. Ramaphosa succeeds, it would make South Africa’s political situation more repressive. South Africa’s ANC seems to have found a model to emulate in China’s political system, which unites the interest of the ruling party with that of the state. The rightist Democratic Alliance and the forthrightly leftist Economic Freedom Fighters EFF gained ground at the expense of the ANC as South Africans revolted against Jacob Zuma’s corruption. Now that Mr. Zuma is gone, there is a possibility the ANC will be able to reestablish its all-but-all-powerful place in South African politics. If Mr. Ramaphosa can give the ANC political hegemony, South Africa could gradually become a de jure, rather than a de facto, one party state. Whites would have even less power under such a system than they have now.

For now, the most likely outcome is that Mr. Ramaphosa will to try to please “white monopoly capital” abroad while appealing to leftists at home through land confiscation, ultimately satisfying no one. Black crime and violence will rise, and public trust will diminish. Whites are already in danger, with each house operating as a kind of fortress. Private security services are practically a necessity.

As long as the violence proceeds at a level low enough not to draw mainstream media attention, there will be no real political pressure to change. Ultimately, South African whites pose little political threat to the South African elite. The government will be indifferent to their welfare, provided they are not killed suddenly enough to cause a media outcry. Whites will simply be whittled down. Eventually, to speak of a Boer “people” will be as fanciful as speaking of a Rhodesian “people.”

The solution is for white South Africans to break away from the ANC-controlled system. A number of white leaders during the final months of apartheid did commit to seceding from South Africa and creating a “Boer Volkstaat.” However, one of the most influential right-wing leaders, General Constand Viljoen, betrayed the movement at the last minute, instead suggesting participation in “democratic elections”—a strange strategy when facing an overwhelming black majority. Gerneral Viljoen supposedly extracted a promise from the new government to “consider” a Volkstaat, but, predictably enough, none was ever really considered. He dedicated himself to creating an Afrikaner political party, “Freedom Front Plus,” which generally wins less than 1 percent of the vote. Boers cannot vote their way out of this problem.

But votes do count for something, and there is one place where the Freedom Front Plus wins landslides: the thriving Boer community of Orania. And Orania’s leadership believes now is the time to start pushing for a homeland, arguing that conditions are more favorable than ever. Julius Malema has made a cordial visit to the town, and, incredibly, the EFF won four votes there.

Yet, there is great antipathy towards Orania, and the South African government is unlikely to let the Boers go their own way. South Africa’s powerful trade unions are urging the government to crush Orania and its plans to introduce a new e-currency. It is so obvious that a Boer Volkstaat would be a success that even a National Review columnist has called for a white South African city-state. But that’s precisely why the ANC can’t let the Afrikaners go. Losing their resources and tax revenue would be a heavy blow to South Africa’s struggling economy.

There will be no easy road to Afrikaner freedom. This great people must be ready either to seize a sudden opportunity in the midst of violence or continue cautiously to build a community as the country grows more desperate and divided.

White advocates around the world ought to be deeply concerned with the fate of the Afrikaners, even aside from humanitarian reasons. South Africa shows the future for white people in a majority non-white world. Whites are rendered collectively powerless, politically oppressed, and somehow still labeled as privileged. And while the government provides some minimum level of protection of property to keep the economy going, leftist political parities representing the non-white masses are constantly urging—and gradually getting—an ever larger share of white property.

The Boers can’t fight this battle alone. The status quo is untenable and dangerous, and the only likely alternatives are worse. White advocates must denounce the constant violence against the Boers, ensure no action is taken against Orania, and lobby for white South Africans to be treated as refugees if they flee their homeland. Most importantly, white South Africans need support from our people’s larger diaspora, whether the attack continues against them at its current pace or whether it accelerates as Mr. Ramaphosa moves to seize their land.

White South Africans have inhabited their country as long as white Americans have inhabited ours. In the long run, their fate will be our fate. Mr. Ramaphosa must learn there is a line not to be crossed. Land confiscation is that line. If he decides to fight the Boers, whites around the world must send him a message: He’s fighting us all.