South Africa is starting to mirror the rise of past totalitarian regimes

When you think about what led up to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, the Soviet Union under Stalin or Mao in China, it’s easy to look back and wonder: how did their people fall in line and allow it all to happen?

Surely, there’s no possible way anything like that could happen today. We’re too smart... People aren’t that gullible.

What’s going on currently in South Africa mirrors the rise of every fascist or Marxist totalitarian over the past 100 years. Last week, the South African Parliament voted to confiscate land from white farmers without compensation. White farmers in South Africa are about to have their property forcibly seized by a government rapidly headed toward racism and bigotry.

Much like the violent antisemitic rhetoric from the German Workers Party back in the early 1920s, no one in South Africa over the past decade took the issue of land redistribution from white people seriously. A man named Julius Malema began proposing it around 2011, but back then, he was considered more of a thug and racist rather than a legitimate politician.

In 2010, Malema was kicked out of his political party and indicted in court for inciting violence toward white people. At one particular political rally, he led the masses gathered in the streets in a song called “kill the white man.” He would later be convicted in court for hate speech.

In 2013, Malema put all that behind him and created his own political party called the Economic Freedom Fighters. Malema’s EFF is a Marxist-Leninist group that also advocates Black Nationalism. You might think, “there’s no way something like that could go mainstream,” but today, they are the THIRD LARGEST political party in South Africa. Their political pull has grown so much, they were able to convince the entire parliament to do something EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM had scoffed at just seven years prior.

If only the people of South Africa had a modern-day historical reference available to show how horribly this is going to go for them --- MAYBE they would reconsider. Oh wait, their neighbors in Zimbabwe literally tried this JUST EIGHT YEARS AGO. Let’s see how that worked out for them.

The farm seizures were seen as long overdue by the war veterans.

Here's what Robert Mugabe, the former president of Zimbabwe, said in 2000, when his government began seizing the farmland of white citizens of Zimbabwe without compensation:

If white settlers just took the land from us without paying for it, we can, in a similar way, just take it from them without paying for it.

The “land reform” effort (such a nice way to put it) started as a populist movement organized by disgruntled Zimbabwean war veterans. It was a carefully-coordinated effort in which 3,000 large, white-owned farms were taken over by 170,000 Zimbabwean families.

Taking over white-owned land was something the people had been promised by Mugabe’s government ever since the country gained independence in 1980. The farm seizures were seen as long overdue by the war veterans who considered dispossession of their ancestral land to be the fundamental reason they fought a war for independence.

At first, Mugabe said he was opposed to the violent farm seizures, but when he saw how popular the takeovers were, he reversed his position. He legalized the farm seizures, then used the government to widen the effort. The farm seizure law, written by Mugabe himself, stipulated that Britain was obligated to pay for the land seized from the African people during the colonial period, and that if Britain did not pay, the Zimbabwe government could seize the land without compensating the white farm owners.

A few of the seized farms were owned by black Zimbabweans, most of whom were critics of Mugabe.

Once farms were confiscated by the government, they were parceled out in smaller plots and given to black citizens. Officially, no family was allowed to have more than one “land reform” farm, but Mugabe’s political allies each took several large farms.

Courts were so inundated with cases, it would have taken decades to resolve all of them.

Commercial farmers took the government to court over the land seizures. Courts were so inundated with cases, it would have taken decades to resolve all of them. So, in 2003, Mugabe amended their constitution to nullify all those cases.

Before the farmland was confiscated, that land provided 40 percent of the country’s export earnings. Those farms were also the largest single employer in the nation, supporting two million workers.

If for no other reason, the Zimbabwean experience clearly shows that taking land without compensation is a very bad idea --- because of the resulting economic nightmare.

In 1997, three years before the land seizures began, Zimbabwe’s economy was one of the strongest in Africa. Fifteen years later, its economic growth rate was lower than any of its neighbors. Between 2000 and 2009, agricultural revenue declined by $12 billion. Zimbabwe had eight consecutive years of economic decline, job loss and deindustrialization.

Zimbabwe was once called “the breadbasket of Africa.” Now it relies on international aid to feed one-fourth of its population.

Economists estimate Zimbabwe’s “land reform” cost the country $20 billion.

Zimbabwe consistently has unemployment rates over 90 percent. Now, the Zimbabwean government is considering retroactively compensating white farmers with $11 billion.

Several years after the farm seizures in 2000, with Zimbabwe’s economy in ruins, and agricultural output a disaster, black landowners quietly reached out to white farmers who were thrown off their land. Now, there are a growing number of partnerships in which black landowners retain their rights to the property but share the profits with whites, who live and work on the farms as managers or consultants, sometimes bringing their equipment as well.

Today, there are roughly 300 whites still operating their own farms in Zimbabwe. In 2000, there were 4,500.

Mugabe’s government seized 35 million acres of white-owned land. But he didn’t give the land to the poor black Zimbabwean masses as their “rightful inheritance” like he had promised. Instead, he gave 40 percent of those 35 million acres to loyal cabinet ministers, senior army and government officials and judges. He also gave himself 14 farms totaling 6,500 acres.

Late last year, the 93-year-old Mugabe finally resigned from office after ruling for 37 years. He resigned under pressure because the Zimbabwe Parliament was set to impeach him. Before he resigned, he negotiated a generous pension and security deal for himself and his family.

Horror and slaughter always follow.

Seizing land and demonizing a select group of people has been the playbook to power for fascists and radical leftists for decades. Horror and slaughter always follow.

After Mao seized farmland and went on a mass killing spree, his starving people had to resort to cutting the flesh off their inner thighs and feeding it to their children. One of Mao’s greatest admirers, Che Guevara, marveled at the way land redistribution led to the furthering of social justice. Che’s social justice to Cuban farmers often ended up with them staring down the barrels of a firing squad.

This is the direction South Africa is going in.

On Sunday, Julius Malema gave a speech where he voiced his plans to begin deposing white politicians. He said, “we are starting with this whiteness. We are cutting the throat of whiteness.”

If you’re in South Africa, or anywhere else in the world, and you see your country going down these dark paths, take a stand. Speak up. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a man that saw his OWN country deteriorate into evil and hate said it best:

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

The same thing COULD happen again.

In the era of 'Fake News' and the 24 hour news cycle, knowing what stories are most important can be difficult. This story is one of the three things Glenn selected to share with you today that you won't hear anywhere else.

The great beyond. What does it hide from us? Do unknown lifeforms linger in the dark? In other words, was David Bowie right? Is there life on Mars? The head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department contends that, yes, there is. Well, not that there's life on Mars. I'll explain in just a minute.

In an academic article for the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Dr. Avi Loeb, the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department, claimed that an alien probe entered our solar system. He claimed that it is masked as the space rock Oumuamua (Ow-moo-ah-moo-ah), "the first interstellar object to enter our solar system." It turns out that "space rock" is way more than a musical genre.

RELATED: Science saves us again: Octopuses are really aliens who crash-landed on Earth

In his own words:

Considering an artificial origin, one possibility is that 'Oumuamua is a lightsail, floating in interstellar space as a debris from an advanced technological equipment.

His evidence? pointed to the space rock's abnormal acceleration, activity which he gathered via the Hubble Space Telescope.

He added that "the lightsail technology might be abundantly used for transportation of cargo between planets."

Sounds a bit like Star Wars, no? Or are you more of a Star Trek fan? Either way, it's an odd thing to hear from the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department. Typically, we hear these sorts of things from the darker corners of the History Channel.

Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

"I don't care what people say," Loeb said. "It doesn't matter to me. I say what I think, and if the broad public takes an interest in what I say, that's a welcome result as far as I'm concerned, but an indirect result. Science isn't like politics: It is not based on popularity polls."

Honestly, I believe the guy. Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore. Heck, I welcome alien lifeforms. Maybe they can give us some advice on how to get our world together.

The third annual Women's March is approaching, and the movement has shown signs of strife. It's imploding, really. An article in Tablet Magazine revealed deep-seated antisemitism among the co-chairs of the movement, which is funny for a movement that brands itself as a haven of "intersectionality." The examples pile up, and just yesterday there was another. I'll tell you about it in a minute.

The Women's March has been imploding, and it started at the very top. Four women have come to represent the diverse face of the movement, the co-chairs: Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, and Bob Bland.

RELATED: LEFTIST INSANITY: Woman attacked at women's rights rally for exercising her rights

Increasingly, we've learned that anti-Semitism is common among these women.

Teresa Shook, who founded the Women's March has repeatedly asked them to step down: The co-chairs "have steered the Movement away from its true course. I have waited, hoping they would right the ship," Shook wrote. "But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs."

Tamika Mallory gave us the latest example, by continuing to stand by Louis Farrakhan. Check out Tamika's arrogant, nonsensical response. But the real problem came at the end of Mallory's rambling non-answer.



Women's March Leader Tamika Mallory Doubles Down On Love For Louis Farrakhan youtu.be


Later this week I'll go over the entire controversy on Glenn TV. It's harrowing, really. For now, I'll leave you with this. Critics of 4th wave feminism have argued that the radical identity politics of the left will lead to the exact kind of mistreatment that feminists claim to be against. That argument has been written off as using the slippery slope fallacy. But, as we see with the Women's March, it is in fact a brutal reality.

Remember how serious Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were last week, when they gave their "rebuttal" to President Trump's address? They made it seem like this government shutdown is apocalyptic. A lot of Democrats have done the same. On social media and CNN at least. Thirty Democrats, however, took a different route. Puerto Rico. For cocktails at the beach.

RELATED: The President won the night, but don't count on the media to admit it

A group of 30 Democrats have turned the government shutdown into a live-action interpretation of a Jimmy Buffet song:

Nibblin' on sponge cake, Watchin' the sun bake.

No, seriously. In the words of Press Secretary Sarah Sanders:

Democrats in Congress are so alarmed about federal workers not getting paid they're partying on the beach instead of negotiating a compromise to reopen the government and secure the border.

A photo of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez at a resort beach has gone viral.

They arrived via chartered jet. They're staying at a seaside resort, and attended the ridiculously-priced and overhyped play "Hamilton," where tickets for opening night "ranged from $10 to $5,000," according to the Associated Press. They even attended several afterparties.

Of course, the official occasion seems legit. They're in San Juan for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC. According to a memo for the gathering:

This year's winter retreat promises to be our most widely attended yet with over 220 guests, including 39 Members of Congress and CHC BOLD PAC supporters expected to attend and participate!

Also in attendance, about 109 lobbyists, from a number of places, including "R.J. Reynolds, Facebook, Comcast, Amazon, PhRMA, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, and unions like the National Education Association."

Donald Jr. said it well:

And of course no one says anything. I'm not even in government and I'd get killed in the press if I was on vacation right now. Why won't they cover their democrat buddies lobbyist sponsored vacation in the islands???

Maduro takes office and Venezuelans vote with their feet

CRIS BOURONCLE/AFP/Getty Images

Venezuela continues to collapse. A country that used to have the world's largest oil reserves is now in rags. Its money is worthless, with inflation near one million percent. People must work an average of five days at minimum wage just to afford a dozen eggs. But there is one person still pumped about Venezuela's future – its noble president, Nicolas Maduro! I'll tell you why he's still enthusiastic in just a minute…

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro had a stellar 2018. Here are some highlights:

  • Running water and electricity only work occasionally and prices for basic goods doubled.
  • Doctors, engineers, oil workers, and electricians fled the country en masse. Over 48,000 teachers also left the country.
  • Over half a million Venezuelans fled to Peru alone.

Maduro created a new digital currency called the "petro." One petro is supposed to equal the price of a barrel of oil, about $60. U.S. Treasury Department officials call the petro a scam. Who could've seen that coming?

Maduro also announced a 3,000 percent minimum-wage hike. Even Ocasio-Cortez might roll her eyes at that one. Or find it inspiring.

And just yesterday, a Human Rights Watch report detailed how Venezuelan intelligence and security forces are arresting and torturing military personnel and their family members who are accused of plotting against Maduro. The torture includes: "brutal beatings, asphyxiation, cutting soles of their feet with a razor blade, electric shocks, food deprivation, [and] forbidding them to go to the bathroom."

It's so bad in Venezuela that even The Washington Post admits Venezuela's problems are mostly due to "failed socialist policies." But President Nicolas Maduro gave a televised New Year's address calling 2019, "the year of new beginnings." He's pumped, you see, because today he will be sworn in for his second six-year term as president. He was "re-elected" last May in an election that the international community declared illegitimate.

Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency.

Maduro doesn't have many friends left at home or abroad. Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency. This week, the U.S. added more Venezuelan officials to its sanctions list.

In a press conference yesterday, Maduro said:

There's a coup against me, led by Washington. I tell our civilians and our military to be ready. Our people will respond.

I think the people of Venezuela who have the means are already responding – by leaving.