Transcript
Matt Walsh (0:00)
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Donald Trump is the first Western leader to take a stand against the persecution of white farmers in South Africa. This is a story that should be getting a lot more attention. Also, Nike and the NFL give a girl power sermon during the Super Bowl. A 13 year old in Detroit is arrested for a string of home invasion robberies. Why aren't his parents being held accountable? And a guy at an anti Trump rally threatens to punch me. Very scary stuff. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wal. You know what's fascinating? When your metabolism is working properly, you feel the benefits in literally every aspect of your life. I've discovered an incredible tool that gives me insights to create a healthy metabolism for my body. It's called Lumen. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It measures your metabolism through your breath and the app tells you if you're burning fat or carbs. It then provides personalized guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep and even stress management. Using it couldn't be simpler. I breathe into my lumen first thing in the morning to understand my metabolism and get a personalized nutrition plan for the day. I can also check before and after workouts and meals to know exactly what's happening in my body in real time. Here's why this matters. Your metabolism is your body's engine. It's how your body turns food into fuel. When it's optimized, you'll experience better energy levels, improved fitness results, and even better sleep. Lumen gives you all the recommendations you need to improve your metabolic health, helping you to make informed decisions about your nutrition and lifestyle. Take the next step to improve your health. Go to Lumen Me Walsh to get 20% off your lumen. That's L U M E N M.E. walsh for 20% off your purchase. Thank you Lumen for sponsoring this episode. Early in the afternoon of April 16, 2000, a 77 year old farmer named John Cross and his 76 year old wife were returning home from church in the province of Limpopo, South Africa. And when they arrived, they were immediately attacked by two men who had broken into their house. The men shot the elderly woman three times, but she didn't die immediately. So to torture her for roughly 25 minutes, the assailants poured boiling water on top of her. When it came time to murder John Cross, the attackers tied him up, shot him several times and poured boiling water down his throat for roughly five hours. In the end, the killers made off with a few thousand dollars worth of household items and when they were caught, they were not repentant at all. Afterwards, when she was asked about the motive, the cross's daughter said, quote, I think it's hatred. It must be race hatred. I think they did it for satisfaction. Now, as horrific as this incident was, it wasn't especially uncommon. At the time, farm invasions were happening at a rate of around 1000 per year. This barbarism was occurring so frequently that two years after the crosses were executed, South Africa commissioned a 500 page report on farm attacks. And it found that almost 2/3 of farm attacks targeted elderly white people in rural areas, often sadistically. But the conclusion of the report was that somehow racism wasn't a factor in most of these incidents. Even though white people only made up something like 10% of South Africa's population, accounted for 2/3 of the victims of these attacks. The government insisted that anti white racism was not a major problem in South Africa. This was a narrative that nobody in the west wanted to challenge. Yes, it was obviously a lie. No serious person said otherwise. But in the eyes of Western leaders, it was a necessary lie. And that's because just about a decade earlier, South Africa had supposedly ended racism when they overthrew the apartheid regime. In a referendum in the early 90s, white South Africans voted to effectively authorize a new constitution, one that would allow universal suffrage, end many forms of discrimination against black Africans, and ultimately clear the way for majority rule by non whites. As Nelson Mandela put it at the time, quote, the referendum signaled the end of white privilege. Now it was supposed to trigger a kind of golden age in South Africa if our leaders were to be believed. After all, white people had just lost much of their political power. A black majority would soon gain that power in a free and democratic fashion. Supposedly and inevitably. That was supposed to lead to racial harmony and a high functioning society. And certainly the media got behind that narrative. Pull up news coverage of this referendum and you'll see how the decision was framed. At the time, the choice, we were told, was between democracy and racial segregation. And given that choice, most people would opt for democracy. Obviously, what we were not told is that in the end, democracy in South Africa would produce even more racial segregation and racial injustice. And all along, Western elites knew that that would happen. In fact, they intended for it to happen. In various academic papers, far away from the public view, left wing academics admitted to this. Here, for example, is what the critical race theorist Cheryl Harris wrote in the Harvard Law Review all the way back in the summer of 1993. Just as South Africa was getting rid of apartheid. Quote, the South African conception of affirmative action expands the application of affirmative action to a much broader domain than has typically been envisioned in the United States. That is, South Africans consider affirmative action a strategic measure to address directly the distribution of property and power, with particular regard to maldistribution of land and the need for housing. This policy has not yet been clearly defined. But what is implied by this conception of affirmative action is that existing distributions of property will be modified by rectifying unjust loss and inequality. Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action. So in other words, the newly installed African National Congress was not interested in implementing a system based on equal rights for all races. That was the little secret that we weren't told about. Instead, with the backing of Western academics, they were going to start practicing equity. They were going to be a laboratory for critical race theory shortly before it would take hold in the United States. And of course that meant redistributing land and housing and money on the basis of race. It meant using the law to punish white people. And they did exactly that. So take a look at this chart. It's from the South African Institute of Race Relations and it tracks the number of race based laws in the country. And you'll notice that when apartheid was ended in the early 1990s, there was this massive drop. As you would expect, black Africans were not considered second class citizens anymore. They didn't have to carry identification cards around that specified their racial group as required by law. From the. As a law required by a law from the 1950s, they didn't have to self segregate in residential areas or in libraries, parks and restaurants. They weren't prohibited from marrying whites anymore and so on. So a bunch of race based laws were taken off the books. But then you can see if you look at the chart what happened. Starting around 2000, the number of race focused laws went back up dramatically. In fact, the number of race based laws is now higher than it was at any other point in South Africa's history. It's higher than it ever was during apartheid. Only this time around, the laws were intended to exact racial vengeance on whites. And whites lost the protection of the laws that were already on the books. This has continued for decades with very little fanfare, which has led to scenes like this one in a squatters camp for whites in South Africa. Watch.