Sunday, 1 September 2019

A virtual country

New Zealand consists of about 4 million people, mostly white and western. It is a country in two parts, north and south. The inhabitants are mostly peaceful, hard-working, thoughtful people. New Zealand has stringent immigration restrictions which limit who may become citizens of this country.

Imagine that the leaders of a neighbouring country, such as Indonesia, decided they were entitled to rule New Zealand because they had more people. Imagine these leaders levied a heavy tax on the native New Zealanders, and then repatriated this income to their friends and cronies. Imagine that these leaders took over all the functions of government such as police, health and education and placed only Indonesians in all these jobs. Imagine that these Indonesian usurpers pursued a program of looting, death and destruction amongst the civilian populace.

The outcry would be enormous. New Zealanders would take up arms against the perceived invaders. Civil War would be inevitable. The Commonwealth and United Nations would come to the aid of the beleaguered New Zealanders. The USA would move aircraft carriers to the vicinity and demand immediate Indonesian withdrawal. Chaos would Reign.

South African whites consist of about 4 million people of mostly western descent. They are spread throughout the physical area of South Africa but are generally concentrated in 5 urban areas, in the north and the south. South African whites are mostly peaceful, hard-working and diligent.

Nevertheless, the leaders of the black population believe they are entitled to rule over the whites and other population groups because they have more people. They levy a heavy tax which is mostly borne by a segment of the white population. They have taken over all the functions of government such as policing, health and education and only place blacks in the majority of these jobs. They allow a program of looting, death and destruction amongst the white civilian populace to continue with almost no hindrance.

There is no world outcry at all. The United Nations is silent. South African whites do not take up arms against their rulers. No one is expected to come to the aid of these beleaguered white South Africans. Chaos Reigns.

I suggest that white South Africans should regard themselves as a separate virtual country embedded within the boundaries of the current South Africa. They should make a unilateral Declaration of Independence from the existing South African state. They should identify and elect their own leaders and political structures. They should cease paying tax to the South African state and begin contributions to their own new virtual state. They should set up structures of their own for activities such as defence and security, education, health and welfare. They should begin a process of population registration which would decide who would be citizens of this virtual state. They should put in place stringent immigration policies which would decide entry into the virtual state.

For many this will seem like a return to the bad old days of apartheid. But the existing ANC government continues to insist upon a racially divided and classified nation. It insists that some racial groups are discriminated against, treated differently, ineligible for positions in government. This proposal merely takes existing ANC policy and applies it to a class defined as white, instead of black.

Whites already have to make private arrangements for their own security, education, health and many municipal services. Many of them already live in separated walled-off estates. They already constitute most of the economic base of the country. What have they got to lose?

2 comments:

  1. Posted on behalf of Jim Clayson
    Good questions raised, here. I wonder what percentage of white South Africans know the difference between 'classical liberal' and the more modern 'liberal'.

    It seems to me a lot of white South Africans are not yet politically or historically literate to the extent they can spot a pattern in Western human societies. Which is to say if you don't guard your language(the meaning of words in general use), through argumentation, engaging your critics etc., your culture succumbs to attack, by those who despise you for your values, through the dismantling or undermining of laws which reflect your values e.g. the equity clause and freedom of association are not exactly compatible, yet they have come to co-exist in the SA constitution and one wonders about the extent to which freedom of association is still upheld in law.

    Most white South Africans I know are oblivious - as was I, not that long ago - to the fact the word 'liberal' was co-opted around the turn of the last century. What was once an English tradition of 'liberalism' (today known as 'classical liberal' roots) now refers to the ideas of those of a Socialist mindset. English culture in territories/former territories has capitulated at a slower rate accordingly i.e. with the strength of ties to the motherland, it seems, being an indicator of the level of capitulation(I'm thinking about Canada, New Zealand and Australia). SA's white (English-speaking) population, it seems to me, has been - and is being - handed a thoroughly undermined value system as their own... and is giving legs to it, assuming - because it is English/British 'liberalism' - that it refers to their own roots. Never-mind that the classically liberal values have been severely marginalized, in the UK, since the early 1900s, there (Hayek wrote about this and Thatcher later picked it up and was one of the few to dig her heels in).

    Interesting that you speak of the white population of SA and compare it to NZ's population. New Zealanders don't have the sheer numbers of resentful entitlement-minded brats already within their borders. But I visited NZ about a decade ago. I have SA friends who settled there. And I have to say there is a clear strain of the Socialist mindset that runs through NZ's mainstream narrative. The locals appeared to me to be hyper-sensitive about preserving the quality of life in NZ. But it seemed to me they didn't quite understand where their Western culture came from, and nor did it seem to me they were too interested. I realize there are NZ'ers who understand liberty, historically, so I'm just speaking generally to the dominant narrative, but perhaps there is a cause-and-effect relationship between this child-like level of historical literacy and the hyper-sensitivity I encountered. It's almost as though they feel they *have* to become authoritarian to protect their way of life, in the absence of knowing where a relatively-high standard of living comes from. If anyone thinks a strong work-ethic, per se, is what makes for prosperity, for instance, they may have failed to notice the sign above the entrance to Auschwitz: "arbeit macht vrei". Individual liberty comes with *individual* responsibility, not Collective responsibility. For some rhyme or reason it is tempting to concede that joining a group necessarily entails giving up being an individual. But I don't think it should.

    Nevertheless, an interesting set of factors to ponder. I sometimes see these private real-estate complexes, in SA, as forming a firm first step in the direction of secession. The only trouble is that the dominant British, Socialist, narrative is being embraced, simultaneously.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Jim
    Thanks for your comments.
    I agree that the lazy use of the word "liberal" when one really means "classical liberal" or "libertarian" is a problem. I think a lot of people in the DA confuse the terms, but somehow liberal is less contentious than libertarian. Helen Zille herself often speaks of "liberal" values, but is immediately forced to define what she means by them, and ends up describing a classical liberal paradigm.
    I have recently been to New Zealand and can confirm that Kiwis are fiercely protective of "their" system, and the benefits it brings. Many tend towards collective, mildly socialist thinking, subordinating the interests of the individual to the collective good. Nevertheless, they do seem to have quite a good balance, with many activities privatised, and well managed.
    I have had a close look at the various secession movements, and they all subscribe to collective structures, although some do emphasize Swiss-like federal structures. I fear most hanker for a return to the good old days of strict, god-fearing administration where everyone knows their place.

    ReplyDelete

Jurisdiction

Trevor Watkins 1/2/2020 Mindful chatter I am saturated with intelligent and sincere hand-wringing articles on: how bad government is ho...