The New York Times makes a habit of lying when it comes to South Africa, and it has done so again.

A report in that paper on the recent dispute between the United States (US) and South Africa over remarks made by the new American ambassador, Brent Bozell III, at our friend Alec Hogg’s ever-excellent BizNews conference in Hermanus last week included this extraordinary line: "And he [the ambassador] rejected a South African court’s ruling that an anti-apartheid song was not hate speech. 'I don’t care what your courts say,' said the ambassador."

An "anti-apartheid song", how quaint.

Decent, God-fearing folk across the American heartland must be appalled to learn of such rudeness by their man in Pretoria.

Of course, The New York Times did not go on to say what "song" that was, because if it had that would have given the game away.

The "song", if you do not know, is the murderous chant “Kill the boer, kill the farmer”.

The song was not, as some of its South African apologists would have Westerners believe, a symbolic reference to the need to bring down apartheid. It did not even originate in South Africa, but in the broader regional bush wars that played out in southern Africa during the Cold War. The song was taught to Marxist guerrillas to inspire them to do exactly what it prescribes.

And that continues to be the case in South Africa today.

A special report, to be released by The Common Sense, establishes that South Africa’s farmers, black and white, are at much higher risk of armed assault and murder than the balance of the South African population.

Nor did that nasty little rag tell its readers that positively three quarters of South Africans, themselves decent God-fearing folk, believe the chant to be an abomination and thereby find themselves in agreement with the ambassador.

The South African government, leftist activists, and media houses continue to profess that they themselves do not approve of the chant. But as the latest New York Times reporting demonstrates, many of them sure go to a lot of effort to defend the chant, shield it from scrutiny, and enable its continued employment.