What Will Happen When the ANC Takes My Farm

Renegade Editor’s Note: This is a bit defeatist in my opinion, but a likely scenario. This comes to use from Riann in a comment. It could have originated here.


I have no doubt that the ANC Govt has given a lot of thought to the topic of Expropriation Without Compensation (EWC) however I think they might not have fully comprehended the consequences of such a policy. As a farmer I thought it might be useful to enlighten them as to the course of action I would take once my farm is targeted for EWC. Before I continue I would like to emphasize that this is not a threat nor delivered with the mindset of a saboteur, it is merely a description of the sequence of events that would unfold in the event of such a policy being enforced.

  • I would immediately identify all the moveable assets on my farm and start selling them or placing them in a suitable storage facility. I list these below simply to demonstrate to non-farmers what makes a farm functional and profitable. The first to go would be all the livestock followed by all the machinery including tractors, pumps, silos, centre pivots, electrical transformers, irrigation equipment, water troughs, implements and piping. I would strip the dairy and sell the bulk tanks, milking machines etc. I would take down all internal fencing on the farm and recoup what I could. All sheds would be disassembled and all houses and other buildings would be stripped of anything sellable, including their roofs.
  • I would disconnect/cancel the 5 Eskom points on the farm and obtain refunds on the deposits I’ve paid on them.
  • I would re-trench all my staff and pay them off in accordance with the Labour Act. I would then strip all the staff accommodation on the farm and sell what I could.
  • With the sale of all my livestock and cessation of the farming operation I would immediately default on the R5.5m I owe FNB but I wouldn’t worry as the farm is the loan’s security and I don’t really own anything else.
  • When the day came to leave the farm I would hand the ‘keys’ over to the new ‘owners’ but I’m not quite sure what they would do as there’d be no roof on the farm house and there would be nothing to ‘farm’ on the farm. It would just be a piece of land, but that’s ok because the ANC says owning land makes you wealthy.

When you take the sequence of events described above and multiply it on a national scale you see another sequence of events unfolding.

  • The new ‘farmers’ arrive on the farm but there is no livestock, machinery or working capital to continue the operation.
  • They go to the banks to borrow money (A good farming habit) but the banks are sitting on a R160 Billion defaulted debt book from the ‘old’ farmers and won’t lend a cent to agriculture. They’re fighting for their own survival now.
  • The Govt doesn’t have the money, which would be far more than the R160 Billion mentioned above, to re-capitalise and finance all the farms so most of the farms either fall derelict or are farmed at a subsistence level.
  • There is a massive but short-term surplus of Beef, Sheep and Poultry products due to the sell-off by the previous farmers. This brings prices down drastically in the short term but eventually the meat runs out and there is nothing to replace it. Meat prices skyrocket.
  • Dairy products cease almost immediately after the livestock cull/sell-off and within weeks there is a critical shortage of all dairy products. Importing is impossible due to the Govt’s actions which have decimated the value of the Rand.
  • Maize lasts quite a bit longer and with careful rationing will endure until the next season but there is no crop in the ground for next year due to the new ‘farmers’ lack of machinery, experience and access to credit.
  • All agricultural Co-Ops and suppliers very quickly cease operation and/or go bankrupt and re-trench all their staff. They cannot survive by selling single bags of seed and fertilizer to subsistence farmers.
  • All processors of agricultural products such as meat, dairy and maize cease operation due to lack of product and re-trench all their staff.
  • Rural Municipalities start to feel the pinch as there are no longer any farmers paying rates and the agricultural businesses in the towns have also sold up and left.
  • Smaller rural towns that depended on agriculture eventually collapse and rural communities are forced to travel long distances to major centres to find ever dwindling supplies.
  • Ironically the EWC movement creates more Urbanisation as the rural folk flee the agricultural desert that has been created.
  • All food dependent enterprises such as fast food chains and restaurants either disappear or are greatly reduced…along with all their staff.
  • With all the unemployed farmworkers, as well as those who have lost their jobs from other sectors, there is an unsustainable demand on the UIF system and it soon collapses.
  • The Social Grant system teeters as the ripple effect from the agricultural collapse enters all sectors and the tax-base is shredded.
  • Food riots become common and genuine hunger and poverty widespread.
  • Unlike Zimbabwe the South African population has nowhere to run.
  • With the White Farmer no longer an available target and the true ‘value’ of land revealed in all its fallacy the masses turn on the only target they have left. The ANC, and any whites left around who are not armed and able to defend themselves.

Welcome to the post collapse future, where there will be two worlds, the walled white ethno-states/white nationalist enclaves, and the post apocalyptic non-white world.

China fires SIX WARNINGS to US Navy in South China Sea ‘This is China…LEAVE IMMEDIATELY’

THE Chinese military told a US Navy plane flying over the highly-disputed island in the South China Sea to “leave immediately”.

The US Navy P-8A Poseidon jet was flying at 16,500 feet to get a view of low-lying coral reefs that have been turned into garrisons with five-storey buildings, large radar installations, power plants and runways sturdy enough to carry large military aircraft.

During the flight that was giving journalists from CNN a rare look at the islands, the crew was warned six times by the Chinese military to get out of their territory.

A voice said: “US military aircraft, this is China … leave immediately and keep out to avoid any misunderstanding.”

Each time the aircraft was challenged by the Chinese military, the US Navy crew’s response was the same.

The response was: “I am a sovereign immune United States naval aircraft conducting lawful military activities beyond the national airspace of any coastal state.

“In exercising these rights as guaranteed by international law, I am operating with due regard for the rights and duties of all states.”

CNN was granted the chance to see how the Chinese government is rapidly expanding its militarisation efforts from a US reconnaissance plane when the harsh threat was issued.

The US Navy jet had flown over four key artificial islands in the Spratly chain where China has built up fortifications: Subi Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Johnson Reef and Mischief Reef.

China has threatened the US

China has threatened the US (Image: GETTY)

The Navy jet's sensors picked up on 86 vessels on the Subi Reef

The Navy jet’s sensors picked up on 86 vessels on the Subi Reef (Image: GETTY)

Before the crew were warned, the jet’s sensors picked on 86 vessels on the Subi Reef that included Chinese coast guard ships. On the Fiery Cross Reefs, rows of hangars stood alongside a lengthy runway.

LT. Lauren Callen who lead the air combat crew on the Navy flight said: “It was surprising to see airports in the middle of the ocean.”

Beijing has said it is necessary for the Asian powerhouse to keep growing its military presence in the South China Sea in order to protect its sovereignty.

China also blames Washington and its allies for tensions in the region.

The crew also flew over the Mischief Reef in the South China Sea

The crew also flew over the Mischief Reef in the South China Sea (Image: GETTY)

On the Fiery Cross Reefs rows of hangars were spotted on a runway

On the Fiery Cross Reefs rows of hangars were spotted on a runway (Image: GETTY)

It says that the regular US Navy patrols and flyovers of the South China Sea are efforts for the US to provoke China and therefore the country is justified in increasing its military presence.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said: “By playing up the so-called China’s militarisation in the South China Sea, certain people in the US are staging a farce of a thief crying ‘stop thief’.

“It is self-evident to a keener eye that who is militarising the South China Sea.”

Parts of the South China Sea are claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei.

The South China Sea a highly-disputed part of the world

The South China Sea a highly-disputed part of the world (Image: GETTY)

The sea spans 3.6million square-kilometres and Beijing’s claims extend more than one thousand kilometres from its southernmost province, which is almost the entirety of the waters.

The United Nations has estimated that a third of global shipping passes through the waters.

The South China Sea is also believed to be rich in oil and natural gas reserves that have yet to be explored.

China reinforced its claims by constructing the artificial islands which are militarised with airfields and radar equipment.

The US Navy also flew over Johnson Reef

The US Navy also flew over Johnson Reef (Image: GETTY)

In April the military placed missiles on the Spratly island chain during naval exercises.

This broke a promise by President Xi Jinping to then US-President Barack Obama in 2015 that the Chinese government would not militarise the artificial islands.

Experts claim that time is running out to challenge China’s claims in the South China Sea.

Admiral Philip Davidson said in April that China is already very firmly entrenched.

He said: “China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.”

In response, the US has stepped up its military exercises as well as a way to show Washington’s naval power.

The Cheap Labor Lobby

Doesthatincluderapists
July 31, 2018, 10:53 AM

>From the NYT Opinion Page:

In My Iowa Town, We Need Immigrants

Some state Republicans were for building a border wall before Donald Trump gave it a thought. But in many rural areas, immigrants are keeping the place alive.

By Art Cullen

Art Cullen, the editor and co-owner of The Storm Lake Times in Iowa, won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing in 2017 and is the author of the forthcoming “Storm Lake: A Chronicle of Change, Resilience, and Hope From a Heartland Newspaper.”

Interestingly, the NYT wrote just last year about the wage-depressing impact of immigration on the major industry in Storm Lake, meatpacking, where inflation-adjusted wages are only 35% of what they were in 1980,

STORM LAKE, Iowa — When Dan Smith first went to work at the pork processing plant in Storm Lake in 1980, pretty much the only way to nab that kind of union job was to have a father, an uncle or a brother already there. The pay, he recalled, was $16 an hour, with benefits — enough to own a home, a couple of cars, a camper and a boat, while your wife stayed home with the children. …

We were just discussing in the comments why in large parts of the country outside the Southeast, it seems like you don’t see boats being towed down the highway today as often as you did a generation ago. Lagertha mentioned that a common sight in rural areas these days is old boats decaying in yards.

We used to have hog bellies rotting in the slaughterhouses, but now we have boats rotting in the driveways. As the George Mason Econ dept. would point out, who needs a boat when you’ve got a smartphone? Anyway, ask not what The Economy can do for you, ask what you can do for The Economy.

The union is long gone, and so are most of the white faces of men who once labored in the broiling heat of the killing floor and the icy chill of the production lines. What hasn’t changed much is Mr. Smith’s hourly wage, which is still about $16 an hour, the same as when he started 37 years ago. Had his wages kept up with inflation, he would be earning about $47 an hour.

[Comment at Unz.com]

https://vdare.com/posts/the-cheap-labor-lobby

For the first time in decades, the US is moving to develop new nuclear ICBMs

As the first nation to develop atomic weapons, the United States has long enjoyed its status as among the premier nuclear powers on the globe, second in total nuclear weapon count only to its Cold War-era competitor, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union). Within the United States, Americans tend to assume that America not only possesses the most capable weapons but the most powerful and advanced — unfortunately, however, in the nuclear arena, none of that is true.

As SOFREP recently covered, America’s dated nuclear arsenal, although still frighteningly powerful, has lost the lead in nuclear weapon development to its competition in Russia and China. Much like hypersonic missile technology, long-range artillery, the narrative facets of hybrid warfare, and more, America’s two-decade-long investment into counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency warfare has drained the force of its ability to keep pace with lesser funded competitors that have not had to invest in the same breadth of continuous combat operations. In a nutshell, America’s military simply stopped emphasizing the development of new weapons platforms as it focused on fighting terrorism, and its opponents were given the opportunity to watch the U.S. military operate, and pursue technologies based on where they felt they could best counter America’s combat tactics.

As a result, both Russia and China have unveiled new nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the past few years, and the new weapons touted by each nation positively dwarf the destructive capacity of America’s aging Minuteman III missiles, which have seen updates but no replacements since the 1970s. The argument has been made that America’s overall nuclear strength still serves as deterrent enough and that further investment into the program is unnecessary when the use of nuclear arms in a national level conflict would almost certainly mean the end of humanity regardless of the individual yield of outbound warheads — but the point of developing new and more capable platforms isn’t really about delivering even greater levels of destruction (though in all likelihood, America’s new ICBMs will need to carry quite a bit more oomph than its current missiles), the real point behind these new missiles is all about the likelihood that they’ll reach their intended target. A high likelihood of success is absolutely integral to an effective deterrent strategy.

Because the vast majority of missile defense systems now employed by America’s competitors were developed after the Minuteman III came into service, it stands to reason that they were developed with America’s nuclear arsenal in mind. By logical extension, that means America’s dated nukes likely have a higher probability of being intercepted than Russia’s RS-28 Sarmat or China’s DF-41, both of which were developed with America’s three-tiered missile defense apparatus specifically in mind, and both employ a variety of tools aimed at countering or inhibiting the efficacy of kinetic intercepts of the sort America utilizes. In short, America needs ICBMs that are just as capable of beating missile defense systems in order to maintain the status quo we’ve come to know as mutually assured destruction.

With dated ICBMs, the destruction remains assured, but there would be questions pertaining to just how mutual it would be. America could launch more than enough nukes to inundate and overwhelm any nation’s missile defense systems — but the highest value targets would likely be saved as the target nation prioritized its defensive endeavors. America needs to ensure it can match the destructive capacity of its competitors in a singular launch precision strike (no matter how unlikely that may be) or in a full-scale nuclear war in order to maintain a solid footing in the nuclear staring contest that is this sort of posturing.

Armed with that understanding, the Air Force recently awarded technology maturation funds to both Northrop Grumman and Boeing — both of whom are already at work developing their bids at the next generation of American nuclear ICBMs, which the Air Force is calling the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD. These new missiles are expected to reach testing phases in the early 2020s, with plans to have a winner chosen and fielded in silos around the country by the end of that decade. While the Air Force has not addressed the expected yields of these new weapons, they have pointed out that they will be equipped with significant upgrades in targeting and guidance abilities as well as the overall durability of reentry vehicles.

“GBSD will provide a safe, secure and effective land-based deterrent through 2075,” Capt. Hope Cronin, Air Force spokeswoman, told reporters. The company that secures the contract to build the next generation of American ICBMs will be tasked with building as many as 400 of the new platform.

Featured image: Airmen from the 90th Missile Maintenance Squadron prepare a reentry system for removal from a launch facility, Feb. 2, 2018, in the F. E. Warren Air Force Base missile complex. The 90th MMXS is the only squadron on F. E. Warren allowed to transport warheads from the missile complex back to base. Missile maintenance teams perform periodic maintenance to maintain the on-alert status for launch facilities, ensuring the success of the nuclear deterrence mission. | U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Braydon Williams

The End Of World Revolution

What Is Coming…

This is a particularly interesting article on the end of the Bilderberg era in light of some of the rumors that are supposedly coming out of the most recent Bilderberg meeting. And notice how it all just keeps going back to ((((((Leon Trotsky)))))):

The beginning of the end of the Bilderberg/((((((Soros)))))) vision is in sight. The Old Order will cling on, even to the last of its fingernails. The Bilderberg vision is the notion of multi-cultural, international cosmopolitanism that surpasses old-time nationalism; heralding the end of frontiers; and leading toward a US-led, ‘technocratic’, global economic and political governance. Its roots lie with figures such as James Burnham, an anti-Stalin, former Trotskyite, who, writing as early as 1941, advocated for the levers of financial and economic power being placedin the hands of a management class: an élite – which alone would be capable of running the contemporary state – thanks to this élite’s market and financial technical nous. It was, bluntly, a call for an expert, technocratic oligarchy.

Burnham renounced his allegiance to ((((((Trotsky)))))) and ((((((Marxism)))))), in all its forms in 1940, but he would take the tactics and strategies for infiltration and subversion, (learned as a member of ((((((Leon Trotsky))))))’s inner circle) with him, and would elevate the Trotskyist management of ‘identity politics’ to become the fragmentation ‘device’ primed to explode national culture onto a new stage, in the Western sphere. His 1941 book, “The Managerial Revolution,” caught the attention of Frank Wisner, subsequently, a legendary CIA figure, who saw in the works of Burnham and his colleague a fellow Trotskyite, ((((((Sidney Hook)))))), the prospect of mounting an effective alliance of former Trotskyites against Stalinism.

But, additionally, Wisner perceived its merits as the blueprint for a CIA-led, pseudo-liberal, US-led global order. (‘Pseudo’, because, as Burnham articulated clearly, in The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom, his version of freedom meant anything but intellectual freedom or those freedoms defined by America’s Constitution. “What it really meant was conformity and submission”).

In short, (as Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth ((((((Gould)))))) have noted), “by 1947, James Burnham’s transformation from Communist radical, to New World Order American conservative was complete. His Struggle for the World, [converted into a memo for the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS, the forerunner of CIA)], had done a ‘French Turn’ on ((((((Trotsky))))))’s permanent Communist revolution, and turned it into a permanent battle plan for a global American empire. All that was needed to complete Burnham’s dialectic was a permanent enemy, and that would require a sophisticated psychological campaign to keep the hatred of Russia alive, “for generations”.

What has this to do with us today? A ‘Burnham Landscape’ of apparently, ‘centrist’ European political parties, apparently independent think-tanks, institutions, and NATO structures, was seeded by CIA – in the post war era of anti-Sovietism – across Europe, and the Middle East – as part of Burnham’s ‘battle plan’ for a US-led, global ‘order’. It is precisely this élite: i.e. Burnham’s oligarchic technocracy, that is facing political push-back today to the point at which the Liberal Order feels that it is struggling for its very survival against “the enemy in the White House”, as the editor of Spiegel Online has termed President Trump.

“Burnham renounced his allegiance to ((((((Trotsky)))))) and ((((((Marxism)))))), in all its forms in 1940.”

Sure he did. The Scarlet Pill, redder than red, is to grasp the fact that the Trotskyite communists, the World Revolutionaries, the Neoliberal world order, the New World Order, Bilderberg, the neoconservatives, the Never Trumpers, NATO, the European Unionists, and the Silicon Valley technocracy are all different aspects of the same thing. And their latest vision for global empire has observably failed, and failed faster and more conclusively than anyone would have imagined.

It will be very interesting to learn if the elite can learn from its failures or not. There have been rumors floating around that the European migration is to be reversed for fear that the whole thing will come crashing down amidst a series of large-scale civil wars. Maybe saner minds have prevailed, maybe the God-Emperor is behind it, or maybe it’s just fake news.

Interesting times, to be sure.

The $247 trillion global debt bomb

The $247 trillion global debt bomb


A port in Lianyungang in China’s eastern Jiangsu province. (AFP/Getty Images)

The untold story of the world economy — so far at least — is the potentially explosive interaction between the spreading trade war and the overhang of global debt, estimated at a staggering $247 trillion. That’s “trillion” with a “t.” The numbers are so large as to be almost incomprehensible.

Households, businesses and governments borrow on the assumption that they will service their debts either by paying the principal and interest or by rolling over the debts into new loans. But this works only if incomes grow fast enough to make the debts bearable or to justify new loans. When those ingredients go missing, delinquencies, defaults and (at worse) panics follow.

Here’s where the trade war and debt may intersect disastrously. Since 2003, global debt has soared. As a share of the world economy (gross domestic product), the increase went from 248 percent of GDP to 318 percent. In the first quarter of 2018 alone, global debt rose by a huge $8 trillion. The figures include all major countries and most types of debt: consumer, business and government.

But to service these debts requires rising incomes, while an expanding trade war threatens to squeeze incomes. The resort to more tariffs and trade restrictions will make it harder for borrowers to pay their debts. At best, this could slow the global economy. At worst, it could trigger another financial crisis.

Note that the danger is worldwide. It’s not specific to the United States. In a new report, the Institute of International Finance (IIF), an industry research and advocacy group, says the debts of some “emerging market” countries (Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina) seem vulnerable to rollover risk: the inability to replace expiring loans. In 2018 and 2019, about $1 trillion of dollar-denominated emerging-market debt is maturing, the IIF says.

Debt can either stimulate or retard economic growth, depending on the circumstances. Now we’re approaching a turning point, according to Hung Tran, the IIF’s executive managing director. If debt growth is not sustainable, as Tran believes, new lending will slow or stop. Borrowers will have to devote more of their cash flow to servicing existing debts.

At a briefing, Tran described the change this way:

“[We had] a Goldilocks economy, with decent economic growth. Inflation was nowhere to be seen, allowing central banks [the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank] to be more accommodative [i.e., keeping interest rates low]. You could always roll over your debt. However, the probability of this continuing is much less now. . . . Trade tensions are on the rise, and this has already impacted [business confidence] and the willingness to invest.”

Inflation is also creeping up. To stall its rise, the Fed is raising interest rates. Trade protectionism compounds the problem, because many non-U.S. companies borrow in dollars. (Dollars are widely used in trade even if neither the importer nor the exporter is American.) But these loans must be repaid in dollars. If tit-for-tat protectionism dampens trade, getting those dollars will become harder. Loan delinquencies and defaults may rise.

Tran isn’t predicting a full-scale panic resembling the 2008-2009 financial crisis, and there are some reasons for optimism. Banks are better capitalized now than before the crisis. (Bank capital — shareholders’ funds or loans — protects against losses.) People are also more sensitive to the dangers than a decade ago.

Evidence of this comes from a recent “stress test” performed on 35 large bank holding companies by the Fed. A deep recession was simulated; the unemployment rate rose to 10 percent. Despite large losses, no bank failed. Since 2009, these banks have added $800 billion in common equity capital, the Fed says.

What Tran is suggesting is a global shift away from debt-financed economic growth. The meaning of the $247 trillion debt overhang is that many countries (including China, India and other emerging-market countries) will be dealing with the consequences of high or unsustainable debts — whether borne by consumers, businesses or governments. There will be a collective drag on the global economy.

“If you are in a high-debt situation, you need to bring the debt down, either absolutely or as a share of GDP,” Tran said at the briefing. “[Either] will result in slower economic growth. You don’t have the borrowing needed to maintain strong investment and consumption spending.”

This may represent a final chapter to the financial crisis. The low interest rates adopted by central banks were justified as necessary to avoid a worldwide depression. Critics worried that cheap credit would rationalize risky lending that couldn’t survive higher rates. We may soon discover who’s right.