“White Monopoly Capital” vs. “White Privilege”by Steve Sailer, February 07, 2018The president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, the colorful Zulu polygamist with, at last count, six wives and 21 children, is in trouble with his ruling African National Congress after having fenced much of the country to the Gupta family.These Indian operators, who moved to South Africa in 1993 to cash in on the end of apartheid, fled to Dubai in 2016, leaving Zuma politically precarious.Now international elites are castigating the fallen Guptas and their now-defunct London public relations firm, Bell Pottinger, for, curiously enough, having ginned up in their defense an antiwhite PR campaign denouncing “white monopoly capital.”The New York Times, for example, lashed out at the antiwhite racism of the Guptas’ phrase “white monopoly capital”:Read the whole thing there.
By the following year, Bell Pottinger was embroiled in a national maelstrom. In TV reports, editorials and public rallies, it stood accused of setting off racial tensions through a furtive campaign built on Twitter bots, hate-filled websites and speeches. All were pushing a highly toxic narrative, namely that whites in South Africa had seized resources and wealth while they deprived blacks of education and jobs. The message was popularized with an incendiary phrase, “white monopoly capital.”Nobody has yet explained, however, why castigating “white monopoly capital” in South Africa is bad, while demonizing “white privilege” in America is very, very good.