Get 10% OFF Aerosphere Eyewear. Use code MORNINGSHOT at checkout. Shop now at

Close this search box.

The Cape? Why ever not?

I find myself dumbfounded in the extreme. Under what conditions could anybody think Cape Independence was a foolish idea? I have heard many objections, but each of the negative consequences anticipated by these objections is an unavoidable consequence of refusing to engage in secessionist politics too – only in a vaster, more chronic and interminable way.

Take the objection of “breaking up the nation”. What nation would that be? South Africa is a state created with Rothschild money and British-Imperial arms for only two purposes – extracting minerals, and experimenting with the social engineering of global empire. There is no common culture, language or sense of justice between the nations of this vast and heterogeneous territory. Most people hold some kind of indelible prejudice against another group, however defined. What nation resembling this agonised chimera deserves the torture of life support?

Take the next – “the Cape has no identity”. It has more national character than does South Africa, beyond any doubt. Though it is multiracial, Afrikaans dominates the linguistic culture, and centuries of interbreeding and intermingling, interrupted by a 20th century experiment in ethnic domination will not undo this. There is much to be made of the enduring differences between communities, but there are other nations with more bitter divisions who have made peace and achieved prosperity without tearing out each other’s throats.

So, why not South Africa? The answer is simple – progressivism and scapegoating. Progressive ideas have become holy, and wrecked the country, and someone must be blamed. White Anglos and black nationalists have banded together to demonise Afrikaners, in language, religion and culture, deeming them as a whole undeserving of existence – sometimes as a socially constructed group, sometimes in the flesh. There is no limit to the vilification that South African society will permit in this regard.

But this idea bleeds out to all adjacent groups – Coloureds are accused of being disloyal, or of lacking “culture” (whatever that means). Anglos are rightfully accused of having benefitted from apartheid and enjoyed its benefits only to leave the country to rot, blaming their Dutch-flavoured lowerclassmen for riding the system they created to modernity. Indians are seen as “deputy whites” as much as Coloureds are, and only by displaying a radical hatred of whites can they escape this judgment.

The only exceptions to this are communities for whom minorities  are too socially distant to hate with any urgency. These people turn instead to demonising foreigners or neighbouring African “tribes” (why do we still use this colonial epithet? They are nations). Of the universal brotherly love our Enlightenment-inspired Constitution espouses, one sees no trace, only an endless machine of envy, wrath and resentment.

There is not a single critic with any esteem among the powerful in this whole nation, or from without it, who objects to this state of affairs. Civil society has no interest in ending racial acrimony or discrimination, in closing the borders, or in reversing socialist reforms. Nor do these numerous progressive groups consider the genocidal ideals of many black radicals to be objectionable. “Equality (communism) will solve it”. Sure it will.

There are notable exceptions among some more conservative Anglos. But these are rather toothless. The Stellenbosch mafia, as much as they may be interested in free-market principles and ending racial discrimination, feel no potent attachment to the soil, and if reform proves difficult, or doesn’t profit them, they shrug it off. They push for globalisation, and would be disgusted by any regime of import-substitution and targeted economic-nationalism that might save the economy.

The Democratic Alliance, as I have argued before, no hope of engendering reform at a national scale. Despite their positive impact in Port Elizabeth, they have been rejected electorally. Their ambitions are contained by a hard mahogany ceiling of racial prejudice, and their power to negotiate for reform from within any coalition is zero, since the ANC will always have black nationalists to partner with. The Institute of Race Relations is likewise relatively impotent, and the black nationalists whom they hope to persuade generally despise them and resent their advice as condescension by an alien political culture.

So what objections remain?

Economically, the Western Cape has access to every industry necessary to its survival, with the trivial exception of a Roll-on-Roll off cargo terminal to purchase vehicles from overseas. It has the highest human capital of any region. Violence is mostly focused on areas controlled by ANC-protected gangs.

Political violence? Has anybody observed the state of South Africa recently? The Cape can only improve, Azania can only decline. Azanians will never vote for a liberal party, and even if they did, it could never achieve necessary economic reforms without engendering mass violence from alienated patronage networks (ANC-linked rackets, taxis, welfare-dependents). Fat and useless civil servants would immediately organise against any attempts to lay them off.

The future without Cape Independence is to be constantly sucked into a swirling miasma of blood and chaos until all that remains is a wasteland of lawless and violent local fiefdoms surviving off the scraps of international trade as the minerals are sucked from a long drinking straw, administered by tiny enclaves of privatised security. Enmity to reform will never abate until the scapegoats are gone. Only by leaving Azania to create its own authentic political order from the ashes of resentment and wrath do they have any hope, and only by forming a plurality in the Cape large enough not to be dispossessed can minorities protect themselves going forward.

So what objection remains? Pure resentment. It is because we threaten the political project of a thoroughly corrupt class of hateful individuals and their cowardly acolytes; because we point the finger at the self-appointed progressive sclergy of secular society for enabling them. It is because we do not need them or their dirty minerals. It is because we wish no more than to be free.

The only remaining criticism is that it would be difficult to achieve. But that is a case to be made another day.

Robert Duigan

Robert Duigan

Robert Duigan is a political consultant and freelance writer.

Want to join our team?

We are looking for conservative writers to join our team of contributors.

Join the Morning Shot Cadre Deployment List to get 15% off merch and coffee by signing up below, and stay up to date with all Morning Shot content and news.