Fifty-nine refugees. In terms of raw numbers, when you consider the scale of America’s refugee resettlement operation over the years, it’s a rounding error. Last year alone, according to the most conservative estimates available, something like 100,000 officially recognized refugees arrived in this country as part of an explicit, government-sanctioned resettlement program. Fifty-nine refugees isn’t even close to one half of one percent of that figure. It is an astronomically small number of people, in context. Under the Biden administration, four times that number of refugees entered the United States every single day, from places like Africa and Central America and the Middle East. Even if the media wanted to cover every batch of new arrivals, they simply couldn’t do it. They were arriving too quickly, and from too many countries. So instead, they’d just tell us that all refugees are good, and that must we accept them without any questions because a crappy poem on the Statue of Liberty says so. And of course, if you compare 59 to all of the unofficial refugees — all of the illegal immigrants who the media treats as refugees and “asylum seekers” — then 59 represents something like .00002 percent of the total. It’s not even a rounding error. It’s a microscopic number of people in comparison.

But just for the sake of argument, if you had to imagine a hypothetical scenario where 59 refugees somehow *did* get the media’s attention — and triggered a massive outrage cycle in the process — what do you think might be the reason? What would it take for CNN, MSNBC, and all the networks to lose their minds over 59 refugees who are resettled into this country by the federal government? What kind of heinous terrorist attack would those 59 people have to be plotting? What Chinese-developed bat virus would they have to be carrying? How many Kanye West lyrics would they have to sing on the plane, in order to make the national news media, for the first time in recorded history, demand that the plane full of refugees be turned around and sent back to where it came from?

Yesterday, we learned the answer to those questions. It turns out that, if you want the media to adopt a hardline anti-refugee stance, the refugees don’t actually have to do anything. They don’t have to say a word, even a naughty one. Instead, the refugees just have to commit the unforgivable cardinal sin of being white. Yes, if the federal government takes a break from importing hordes of ungrateful Somalis and Haitians and Venezuelans, if only for a second, and decides instead to rescue 59 well-mannered white people for a change, then all hell will break loose. And we know that because of the response to this scene from Dulles airport the other day, where 59 Afrikaners were greeted by senior Trump administration officials and formally accepted into this country as refugees. Watch:

Before we even get into the specifics of why these particular white people are fleeing South Africa, and why the Left is so enraged by them — just look at these people. They’re waving American flags. They’re holding their children. They speak English. They’re coming over as intact family units. They’re respectful as they’re spoken to. They’re not demanding better accommodations or better food, like so many foreign nationals who come to this country. They’re acting like responsible, well-adjusted people.

And under the circumstances, this is no small feat. These people have been subjected to decades of persecution in their native land of South Africa, solely based on their skin color. And make no mistake: South Africa is indeed their native land, at least if that term has any meaning at all. Afrikaners, like the ones who just arrived at Dulles, are descendants of Dutch settlers who first arrived in South Africa in the 17th century. That’s a very long time ago. These people can trace their roots in South Africa back 400 years. That’s something like 15 generations. If you cannot be considered native to a land after 15 generations, then the word “native” has no meaning. But now the white descendants of these Dutch settlers are being persecuted by black Africans, most of whom are descendants of the “Bantu.” The theory is that these white people deserve to be persecuted because they’re colonizers. But the funny thing about the “Bantu” is that they, themselves, displaced and conquered the people known as “Khoisan,” who were living in South Africa first. In other words, if the white South Africans are colonizers, then so are the black South Africans who are now persecuting them.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

We’ve talked before about how exactly these white South Africans are being persecuted. By some estimates, one white farmer is killed every five days in South Africa. And some of these executions are brutal. Quoting from Newsweek: “Gabriel Stols, 35, [said that] his younger brother Kyle, 21, was shot dead by four people on a game reserve … ‘What is happening to us is torture, it is slaughter, it is brutal, it is revenge. The world doesn’t know what is happening in South Africa,’ he said. [Meanwhile, a 56-year-old woman], from Pretoria, [said] that three armed men broke into her family’s house, stole money and raped her.”

In response to these reports of rampant farm invasions and sexual assaults, the government of South Africa has repeatedly claimed that, overall, the statistics show that it’s safe for white people in the country. And activists on the Left have mostly repeated the same line. They’ve accused Afrikaners of inventing all the homicides and torture that they’ve been subjected to.

The problem with this argument is that, even if you pretend for a moment that it’s true, it wouldn’t change the fact that Afrikaners are clearly being subjected to overt persecution on the basis of their race. And we know that’s true because the government of South Africa just enacted a law that permits the government to seize land from white farmers without compensating them for it. That is the express purpose of the law: to steal land from white people and give it to black people. And predictably, in South Africa, white people think this is evil. And many black people support it. Watch:

This is actual, verifiable persecution. The Afrikaners are not being coached by some Left-wing NGO to make up a sob story so that the administration lets them into the country, when all they really want is access to the U.S. labor market so they can get a better job, or even worse and more common, access to the US welfare state. That’s normally how “asylum claims” work. They’re pretty much all fraudulent, and everyone knows it.

But this is a very different situation. The government of South Africa has just given itself the authority to seize land without compensation in order to punish white people for the alleged crimes of their ancestors. Meanwhile, chants of “Kill the Boer” — as in “Kill the white farmer” — are being led in massive stadiums by black politicians in South Africa. The purpose of asylum laws and refugee programs is to protect people in precisely this scenario. They’re being targeted based on characteristics that they cannot control.

But across the corporate press, we’re told that these Afrikaners should stay and take it, essentially. They need to lose their land (and in some cases, lose their lives) because of the alleged sins of their ancestors. Watch:

It’s just a “small handful” of white farmers that have been killed, claims the MSNBC expert. So what’s the big deal? A certain amount of sexual assault and murder, apparently, is a reasonable punishment for the supposed sins of your great-grandfather. Think about that for about five seconds, and you can imagine what kind of torture these people have planned for you.

But actually, the most insufferable part of his answer came at the beginning. He describes apartheid as a horrific example of racial injustice that we should never repeat, which of course, is accepted liberal orthodoxy. He says it was so bad that, even today, white people who had nothing to do with apartheid should suffer for it. That’s about the safest sentiment you can express on television these days. What he doesn’t address — and it’s a very noticeable omission — is what came after apartheid. He doesn’t say whether South Africa is a better country now than it was under the previous regime. And it’s clear why he doesn’t address this. It’s the third rail of international politics — it’s the one question you’re not supposed to ask. A lot of people fear that, if you ask that question, then you’re justifying racial segregation. But actually you’re not doing that. You’re just interested in how the world works. You’re interested in observable and provable facts. So with that in mind, here are some of the conclusions of a recent paper from the Center for International Development at Harvard University about the current state of South Africa.

“Income per capita has been falling for over a decade. Unemployment at over 33% is the world’s highest, and youth unemployment exceeds 60%. Poverty has risen to 55.5% based on the national poverty line, yet many more households depend on government transfers to sustain meager livelihoods. Most cities are failing to adequately connect people to productive opportunities and are failing to innovate, grow, and drive inclusion. Rural areas in former homelands, where almost 30% of South Africans live, exhibit dismally low employment rates and remain exceptionally poor. … Critical network industries, including electricity, transport infrastructure and services, security, and water and sanitation have experienced major deteriorations over the last 15 years. … Rail and port capacity has declined, generating large losses in exports. … Urban crime is very high, and theft and sabotage undermine the functioning of many national infrastructure systems.”

How did all of this happen? How exactly did post-apartheid South Africa become a disaster zone? How did everything fall apart the moment the country became the ultimate embodiment of anti-white race-based governance? Of course, the answers here are contained within the questions. In South Africa, post-apartheid, people are awarded positions of power based on their skin color. This is a far more extreme system than apartheid, which literally meant “separation.” This is something else entirely. This is a system that says, if you’re not white, then you get to run the power grid and the trade policy and every other vital function of the country. Identity trumps merit in every single case. And of course, catastrophe follows. We’ve shown this chart before, but it’s worth looking at again:

Source: Index of Race Law, South African Institute of Race Relations

As you can see, it shows that South Africa today has even more laws involving race classifications than it did during apartheid — only these laws are targeted at white people specifically. And the country has become even more dysfunctional as a result.

It’s enough to make you wonder — If, as MSNBC claims, white people are responsible for the sins of their ancestors, then what should happen to the current rulers of South Africa? They’ve done far more damage to that country than anyone that came before them. They’ve engaged in far more pervasive racial violence. They’ve made the economy stagnant. They’ve collapsed the power grid and killed the export markets. So if the white people deserve to get murdered on their farms, what exactly should happen to the black Africans who have been entirely responsible for the total decay of South Africa in the 21st century?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course, because no one in the corporate press is capable of engaging in an ounce of introspection about anything that’s happened in South Africa for the past thirty years. Instead, they’re happy to tell you that, according to South Africa’s government, everything’s fine.

“We checked with the people doing the persecuting. And they say everything’s fine. So nothing to see here.” These people know what they’re saying is ridiculous. They also know what will happen to them if they step out of line.

Seven years ago, Australia’s minister of “home affairs” — their equivalent of our Department of Homeland Security — became one of the first major Western political figures to call for the resettlement of Afrikaners. The minister, whose name is Peter Dutton, made a public declaration condemning the persecution of white farmers in South Africa. Additionally, Dutton stated that these white farmers deserved the protection of what he called a “civilized country,” saying that they should be offered emergency visas so that they could flee to Australia. If the white farmers remained in South Africa for much longer, Dutton said, the consequences would be “horrific.” In the end, he was shouted down and humiliated on the international stage for wrongthink. And the brutality in South Africa continued.

Donald Trump is the first major Western figure to offer Afrikaners an alternative. And that’s led to meltdowns like this one. Watch:

The relevant distinction here is that Central and South Americans want to come to this country so that they can get better jobs or exploit our entitlement programs. They’re not being persecuted because of their skin color. That’s a very big difference under our laws. It’s also a big difference from a logical perspective. We cannot rescue every poor person in the world. We simply don’t have the capacity to do that, even if we wanted to. But we can save people who are being explicitly targeted on the basis of their skin color.

And in this instance, the Left is making it very clear they don’t want to do that. In many cases, they’re coming up with all kinds of bizarre rationalizations to avoid saying it out loud, but it’s pretty clear. For example, here’s one reporter pretending that rescuing intact, stable families from South Africa is somehow just as risky as accepting single military-age foreign nationals from Venezuela. Watch:

It’s “appalled” many people, we’re told. But it happens to be completely reasonable. It’s clearly better for this country to accept patriotic refugees who want to be here, from intact families. Period. Anyone who denies that is operating with an ulterior motive.

That would include the Episcopal church, which has just made its intentions pretty clear on the topic. Because the Trump administration dared to save white people from persecution, the Episcopal Church is now ending its long-standing partnership with the federal government to help resettle refugees. This is one of the most extraordinary “mask-off moments” you will ever see. These people have no problem resettling Somalians and Haitians and tens of thousands of other people who hate this country and want to abuse our charity. But the moment they’re asked to resettle white people, they completely shut down. Here’s the relevant portion of a letter from the leader of the Episcopal Church:

“Just over two weeks ago, the federal government informed Episcopal Migration Ministries that under the terms of our federal grant, we are expected to resettle white Afrikaners from South Africa whom the U.S. government has classified as refugees. In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step. Accordingly, we have determined that, by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the U.S. federal government.”

You can read that paragraph ten times, and it’s still hard to believe they put that in writing. They’re saying, about as explicitly as they possibly can, that they’re not willing to save white people from persecution because it doesn’t align with the ideals of “racial justice and reconciliation.” What this episode is revealing, pretty clearly, is that the word “refugee” has always been a cover for the great replacement. The idea behind refugee programs (as far as the Left is concerned) is to make the country less white. They view the replacement of white people as a necessary step towards “racial justice.” Any other explanation has always been a complete and total scam intended to obscure the fact that they despise white people, and delight in their suffering, death, and displacement.

That’s not a conspiracy theory. We now have confirmation, directly from the corporate media and the refugee resettlement industry. For many years, conservatives have made this point. And every single time, they’ve been shouted down by an extraordinarily well-coordinated propaganda machine on the Left. In the end, all it took to short-circuit this propaganda machine — to get these ghouls to tell the truth about their motivations — was for an administration to actually save the lives of just a few white refugees. Fifty-nine. That’s it. The sight of just 59 white people being rescued from systematic persecution was too much for them to bear. They couldn’t continue the facade any longer. That’s how profound their anger and racial resentment really is.

But no matter how much anti-white vitriol these people spew, the fact remains that, as more and more Afrikaners flee to the United States, the total collapse of South Africa might now be inevitable. We are witnessing the end of the failed post-apartheid experiment, as well as the public exposure of the longstanding “refugee” scam in this country. Two of the biggest leftist myths of the past century have just been obliterated for everyone to see. None of these refugee scams should receive another dime of taxpayer money, whether they’re affiliated with a “church” or not. Anyone who demonizes Afrikaners should be given a one-way ticket to South Africa to see how well that’s worked out for them. And all the rest of us — those of us who actually care about this country — should embrace these Afrikaners, and regardless of what some fake churches and the corporate press desperately want, and no matter how many times those frauds all beat their chests and scream about apartheid, we should welcome them to our home.

​[#item_full_content]  

​[[{“value”:”

Fifty-nine refugees. In terms of raw numbers, when you consider the scale of America’s refugee resettlement operation over the years, it’s a rounding error. Last year alone, according to the most conservative estimates available, something like 100,000 officially recognized refugees arrived in this country as part of an explicit, government-sanctioned resettlement program. Fifty-nine refugees isn’t even close to one half of one percent of that figure. It is an astronomically small number of people, in context. Under the Biden administration, four times that number of refugees entered the United States every single day, from places like Africa and Central America and the Middle East. Even if the media wanted to cover every batch of new arrivals, they simply couldn’t do it. They were arriving too quickly, and from too many countries. So instead, they’d just tell us that all refugees are good, and that must we accept them without any questions because a crappy poem on the Statue of Liberty says so. And of course, if you compare 59 to all of the unofficial refugees — all of the illegal immigrants who the media treats as refugees and “asylum seekers” — then 59 represents something like .00002 percent of the total. It’s not even a rounding error. It’s a microscopic number of people in comparison.

But just for the sake of argument, if you had to imagine a hypothetical scenario where 59 refugees somehow *did* get the media’s attention — and triggered a massive outrage cycle in the process — what do you think might be the reason? What would it take for CNN, MSNBC, and all the networks to lose their minds over 59 refugees who are resettled into this country by the federal government? What kind of heinous terrorist attack would those 59 people have to be plotting? What Chinese-developed bat virus would they have to be carrying? How many Kanye West lyrics would they have to sing on the plane, in order to make the national news media, for the first time in recorded history, demand that the plane full of refugees be turned around and sent back to where it came from?

Yesterday, we learned the answer to those questions. It turns out that, if you want the media to adopt a hardline anti-refugee stance, the refugees don’t actually have to do anything. They don’t have to say a word, even a naughty one. Instead, the refugees just have to commit the unforgivable cardinal sin of being white. Yes, if the federal government takes a break from importing hordes of ungrateful Somalis and Haitians and Venezuelans, if only for a second, and decides instead to rescue 59 well-mannered white people for a change, then all hell will break loose. And we know that because of the response to this scene from Dulles airport the other day, where 59 Afrikaners were greeted by senior Trump administration officials and formally accepted into this country as refugees. Watch:

Before we even get into the specifics of why these particular white people are fleeing South Africa, and why the Left is so enraged by them — just look at these people. They’re waving American flags. They’re holding their children. They speak English. They’re coming over as intact family units. They’re respectful as they’re spoken to. They’re not demanding better accommodations or better food, like so many foreign nationals who come to this country. They’re acting like responsible, well-adjusted people.

And under the circumstances, this is no small feat. These people have been subjected to decades of persecution in their native land of South Africa, solely based on their skin color. And make no mistake: South Africa is indeed their native land, at least if that term has any meaning at all. Afrikaners, like the ones who just arrived at Dulles, are descendants of Dutch settlers who first arrived in South Africa in the 17th century. That’s a very long time ago. These people can trace their roots in South Africa back 400 years. That’s something like 15 generations. If you cannot be considered native to a land after 15 generations, then the word “native” has no meaning. But now the white descendants of these Dutch settlers are being persecuted by black Africans, most of whom are descendants of the “Bantu.” The theory is that these white people deserve to be persecuted because they’re colonizers. But the funny thing about the “Bantu” is that they, themselves, displaced and conquered the people known as “Khoisan,” who were living in South Africa first. In other words, if the white South Africans are colonizers, then so are the black South Africans who are now persecuting them.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

We’ve talked before about how exactly these white South Africans are being persecuted. By some estimates, one white farmer is killed every five days in South Africa. And some of these executions are brutal. Quoting from Newsweek: “Gabriel Stols, 35, [said that] his younger brother Kyle, 21, was shot dead by four people on a game reserve … ‘What is happening to us is torture, it is slaughter, it is brutal, it is revenge. The world doesn’t know what is happening in South Africa,’ he said. [Meanwhile, a 56-year-old woman], from Pretoria, [said] that three armed men broke into her family’s house, stole money and raped her.”

In response to these reports of rampant farm invasions and sexual assaults, the government of South Africa has repeatedly claimed that, overall, the statistics show that it’s safe for white people in the country. And activists on the Left have mostly repeated the same line. They’ve accused Afrikaners of inventing all the homicides and torture that they’ve been subjected to.

The problem with this argument is that, even if you pretend for a moment that it’s true, it wouldn’t change the fact that Afrikaners are clearly being subjected to overt persecution on the basis of their race. And we know that’s true because the government of South Africa just enacted a law that permits the government to seize land from white farmers without compensating them for it. That is the express purpose of the law: to steal land from white people and give it to black people. And predictably, in South Africa, white people think this is evil. And many black people support it. Watch:

This is actual, verifiable persecution. The Afrikaners are not being coached by some Left-wing NGO to make up a sob story so that the administration lets them into the country, when all they really want is access to the U.S. labor market so they can get a better job, or even worse and more common, access to the US welfare state. That’s normally how “asylum claims” work. They’re pretty much all fraudulent, and everyone knows it.

But this is a very different situation. The government of South Africa has just given itself the authority to seize land without compensation in order to punish white people for the alleged crimes of their ancestors. Meanwhile, chants of “Kill the Boer” — as in “Kill the white farmer” — are being led in massive stadiums by black politicians in South Africa. The purpose of asylum laws and refugee programs is to protect people in precisely this scenario. They’re being targeted based on characteristics that they cannot control.

But across the corporate press, we’re told that these Afrikaners should stay and take it, essentially. They need to lose their land (and in some cases, lose their lives) because of the alleged sins of their ancestors. Watch:

It’s just a “small handful” of white farmers that have been killed, claims the MSNBC expert. So what’s the big deal? A certain amount of sexual assault and murder, apparently, is a reasonable punishment for the supposed sins of your great-grandfather. Think about that for about five seconds, and you can imagine what kind of torture these people have planned for you.

But actually, the most insufferable part of his answer came at the beginning. He describes apartheid as a horrific example of racial injustice that we should never repeat, which of course, is accepted liberal orthodoxy. He says it was so bad that, even today, white people who had nothing to do with apartheid should suffer for it. That’s about the safest sentiment you can express on television these days. What he doesn’t address — and it’s a very noticeable omission — is what came after apartheid. He doesn’t say whether South Africa is a better country now than it was under the previous regime. And it’s clear why he doesn’t address this. It’s the third rail of international politics — it’s the one question you’re not supposed to ask. A lot of people fear that, if you ask that question, then you’re justifying racial segregation. But actually you’re not doing that. You’re just interested in how the world works. You’re interested in observable and provable facts. So with that in mind, here are some of the conclusions of a recent paper from the Center for International Development at Harvard University about the current state of South Africa.

“Income per capita has been falling for over a decade. Unemployment at over 33% is the world’s highest, and youth unemployment exceeds 60%. Poverty has risen to 55.5% based on the national poverty line, yet many more households depend on government transfers to sustain meager livelihoods. Most cities are failing to adequately connect people to productive opportunities and are failing to innovate, grow, and drive inclusion. Rural areas in former homelands, where almost 30% of South Africans live, exhibit dismally low employment rates and remain exceptionally poor. … Critical network industries, including electricity, transport infrastructure and services, security, and water and sanitation have experienced major deteriorations over the last 15 years. … Rail and port capacity has declined, generating large losses in exports. … Urban crime is very high, and theft and sabotage undermine the functioning of many national infrastructure systems.”

How did all of this happen? How exactly did post-apartheid South Africa become a disaster zone? How did everything fall apart the moment the country became the ultimate embodiment of anti-white race-based governance? Of course, the answers here are contained within the questions. In South Africa, post-apartheid, people are awarded positions of power based on their skin color. This is a far more extreme system than apartheid, which literally meant “separation.” This is something else entirely. This is a system that says, if you’re not white, then you get to run the power grid and the trade policy and every other vital function of the country. Identity trumps merit in every single case. And of course, catastrophe follows. We’ve shown this chart before, but it’s worth looking at again:

Source: Index of Race Law, South African Institute of Race Relations

As you can see, it shows that South Africa today has even more laws involving race classifications than it did during apartheid — only these laws are targeted at white people specifically. And the country has become even more dysfunctional as a result.

It’s enough to make you wonder — If, as MSNBC claims, white people are responsible for the sins of their ancestors, then what should happen to the current rulers of South Africa? They’ve done far more damage to that country than anyone that came before them. They’ve engaged in far more pervasive racial violence. They’ve made the economy stagnant. They’ve collapsed the power grid and killed the export markets. So if the white people deserve to get murdered on their farms, what exactly should happen to the black Africans who have been entirely responsible for the total decay of South Africa in the 21st century?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course, because no one in the corporate press is capable of engaging in an ounce of introspection about anything that’s happened in South Africa for the past thirty years. Instead, they’re happy to tell you that, according to South Africa’s government, everything’s fine.

“We checked with the people doing the persecuting. And they say everything’s fine. So nothing to see here.” These people know what they’re saying is ridiculous. They also know what will happen to them if they step out of line.

Seven years ago, Australia’s minister of “home affairs” — their equivalent of our Department of Homeland Security — became one of the first major Western political figures to call for the resettlement of Afrikaners. The minister, whose name is Peter Dutton, made a public declaration condemning the persecution of white farmers in South Africa. Additionally, Dutton stated that these white farmers deserved the protection of what he called a “civilized country,” saying that they should be offered emergency visas so that they could flee to Australia. If the white farmers remained in South Africa for much longer, Dutton said, the consequences would be “horrific.” In the end, he was shouted down and humiliated on the international stage for wrongthink. And the brutality in South Africa continued.

Donald Trump is the first major Western figure to offer Afrikaners an alternative. And that’s led to meltdowns like this one. Watch:

The relevant distinction here is that Central and South Americans want to come to this country so that they can get better jobs or exploit our entitlement programs. They’re not being persecuted because of their skin color. That’s a very big difference under our laws. It’s also a big difference from a logical perspective. We cannot rescue every poor person in the world. We simply don’t have the capacity to do that, even if we wanted to. But we can save people who are being explicitly targeted on the basis of their skin color.

And in this instance, the Left is making it very clear they don’t want to do that. In many cases, they’re coming up with all kinds of bizarre rationalizations to avoid saying it out loud, but it’s pretty clear. For example, here’s one reporter pretending that rescuing intact, stable families from South Africa is somehow just as risky as accepting single military-age foreign nationals from Venezuela. Watch:

It’s “appalled” many people, we’re told. But it happens to be completely reasonable. It’s clearly better for this country to accept patriotic refugees who want to be here, from intact families. Period. Anyone who denies that is operating with an ulterior motive.

That would include the Episcopal church, which has just made its intentions pretty clear on the topic. Because the Trump administration dared to save white people from persecution, the Episcopal Church is now ending its long-standing partnership with the federal government to help resettle refugees. This is one of the most extraordinary “mask-off moments” you will ever see. These people have no problem resettling Somalians and Haitians and tens of thousands of other people who hate this country and want to abuse our charity. But the moment they’re asked to resettle white people, they completely shut down. Here’s the relevant portion of a letter from the leader of the Episcopal Church:

“Just over two weeks ago, the federal government informed Episcopal Migration Ministries that under the terms of our federal grant, we are expected to resettle white Afrikaners from South Africa whom the U.S. government has classified as refugees. In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step. Accordingly, we have determined that, by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the U.S. federal government.”

You can read that paragraph ten times, and it’s still hard to believe they put that in writing. They’re saying, about as explicitly as they possibly can, that they’re not willing to save white people from persecution because it doesn’t align with the ideals of “racial justice and reconciliation.” What this episode is revealing, pretty clearly, is that the word “refugee” has always been a cover for the great replacement. The idea behind refugee programs (as far as the Left is concerned) is to make the country less white. They view the replacement of white people as a necessary step towards “racial justice.” Any other explanation has always been a complete and total scam intended to obscure the fact that they despise white people, and delight in their suffering, death, and displacement.

That’s not a conspiracy theory. We now have confirmation, directly from the corporate media and the refugee resettlement industry. For many years, conservatives have made this point. And every single time, they’ve been shouted down by an extraordinarily well-coordinated propaganda machine on the Left. In the end, all it took to short-circuit this propaganda machine — to get these ghouls to tell the truth about their motivations — was for an administration to actually save the lives of just a few white refugees. Fifty-nine. That’s it. The sight of just 59 white people being rescued from systematic persecution was too much for them to bear. They couldn’t continue the facade any longer. That’s how profound their anger and racial resentment really is.

But no matter how much anti-white vitriol these people spew, the fact remains that, as more and more Afrikaners flee to the United States, the total collapse of South Africa might now be inevitable. We are witnessing the end of the failed post-apartheid experiment, as well as the public exposure of the longstanding “refugee” scam in this country. Two of the biggest leftist myths of the past century have just been obliterated for everyone to see. None of these refugee scams should receive another dime of taxpayer money, whether they’re affiliated with a “church” or not. Anyone who demonizes Afrikaners should be given a one-way ticket to South Africa to see how well that’s worked out for them. And all the rest of us — those of us who actually care about this country — should embrace these Afrikaners, and regardless of what some fake churches and the corporate press desperately want, and no matter how many times those frauds all beat their chests and scream about apartheid, we should welcome them to our home.

“}]] 

 

Sign up to receive our newsletter

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.