by Ilana Mercer
After decades of indifference from America’s infotainment industry, imagine my surprise to hear TV anchors like Megyn Kelly of Fox News allude to the killing fields of South Africa.
South Africa should be in the news every day. It isn’t. Scant few among the West’s Yellow Press care to chronicle the country’s favorite blood sport: murder. The Afrikaners, in particular – arguably that country’s founding people – are being killed off at genocidal rates with nary a murmur from the media – although the same crowd is on the scene to report on Nelson Mandela’s every wheelchair-bound move.
According to Genocide Watch, South Africa under the African National Congress is now at stage 5 of the 8 stages of genocide. However, were it not for a little-known, heroic Internet journalist (cited in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa”), few would know who the victims of this racial onslaught are and how they die.
Soon jurist Alan Dershowitz was chiming in about “how dangerous” life in South Africa was. Dershowitz even denigrated the country’s judiciary as “a very politically correct judiciary,” “filled with people from the ANC and supporters of the ANC”; most certainly “not one of the finer judiciaries in the world.”
A subject that had been submerged since 1994 – the ramshackle state of post-apartheid South Africa – was suddenly being raised, if in veiled terms.
The reason for the heightened awareness among the criminally comatose is Blade Runner Oscar Pistorius’ run-in with the law. The Olympian amputee killed his girlfriend, model Reeva Steenkamp, in what he contends was a case of mistaken identity. This being South Africa, the crime scene in suburban Pretoria is rumored to have been contaminated by the new and notorious South African Police Services. And the prosecutor has overreached, charging Pistorius, who has no priors, with premeditated murder.
The high-profile murder is PC and TV perfect for a left-liberal media, in South Africa and beyond, that wish to peddle the myth of “colorless” crime in South Africa. It is no such thing. In the aggregate, violence in the Rainbow Nation – more appropriately called the “Rambo Nation” – is unidirectional: black on black and black on white. Violence against women generally flows in the same direction. Considering, moreover, that the country now has one of the world’s highest murder rates and lowest conviction rates, a South Africa thug can safely pursue his vocation without fearing the consequences.
South African authorities, universities and think tanks no longer provide information about victimization patterns by race of victim and offender. Nevertheless, in the research for my book, I uncovered data according to which, at 76.6 percent of the population, blacks committed 76.4 percent of “intimate femicides” (defined as “the killing of a female person by an intimate partner”). And they committed 68.3 percent of “non-intimate femicides”: “the killing of a woman by someone other than an intimate partner.”
Whites have proven woefully inadequate to the task of filling their pro-rata crime quotas (page 38). At less than 9 percent of the population and dwindling, the corresponding numbers for white South Africans were 3.9 and 2.6 percent, respectively.
With respect to incarceration rates, whites “underperformed” again. According to the South African Department of Correctional Services, 113,773 criminals had been sentenced as of June 2008, of whom only 2,190 were white. Whites make up only 1.9 percent of the number of sentenced criminals.
Weighing in with 90,013 sentenced individuals – approximately 79.1 percent of the total number of criminals sentenced – blacks more than filled their per-population crime allotment.
This high-profile celebrity case involves a class of people – wealthy white South Africans – whose role in the country’s violent crime is statistically insignificant. Trust a hypocritical media to turn a statistical outlier, an anomaly, into a perfect foil for the continued blackout on the color of crime in South Africa.
The incontinent gushing over Pistorius has given way to condemnation. Paranoid about security is how the athlete’s “obligingly stupid” journo friends are now labeling him. They had only ever jetted in from low-crime or no-crime countries for an interview.
More at home among the international glitterati, Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius is no Afrikaner “everyman,” says activist Dan Roodt, who is such a man. Even so – and for all his privilege – Pistorius knows the rapacity and invincibility of the criminal class in his country. Like every other Afrikaner, he knew in his gut what infiltrating gangs would do to a legless Boer. He had seen the mangled images.
Perhaps Pistorius will speak up.