A renewed surge of nationalist fury is sweeping across South Africa, catalyzed by a recent incident where a group of foreigners reportedly established a political party in a local area, igniting a fresh wave of outrage from the grassroots anti-immigrant movement, Operation Dudula.

The reaction, captured in a raw video posted by a commander of the movement, lays bare the deep-seated grievances that fuel the campaign, shifting the focus from simple expulsion to a devastating critique of South African moral and political corruption.

The speaker, addressing his fellow activists as “Commanders,” immediately dismissed the development as an existential affront, declaring, “This is totally wrong. This is totally wrong.”

However, the core of his anger was not merely directed at the foreigners, but at the South Africans he believes betrayed the nation for personal gain.

The video serves as an admission of a painful national vulnerability, where the country’s citizens are viewed as easily corruptible due to crushing poverty.

The speaker recounts an incident where an Operation Dudula member was allegedly approached by a foreigner, identified only as a “Pakistan or whatever he whatever he is,” who was “excited” and “even took out a stack of money” as a bribe.

This detail frames the foreign political party’s presence not as an act of legitimate political organization, but as a transaction secured through the bribery of law enforcement and local collaborators.

The activist insists that this foreigner “know he he I’m sure he’s been bribing police officers. He’s been bribing people of the law.”

The implication is clear: the rule of law has been compromised, and the nation’s gatekeepers are easily bought.

This transaction forms the basis of the speaker’s most scathing internal critique—the concept of national betrayal driven by “hunger.”

“I feel like foreigners, they know that South Africans the way we are so hungry they will just flesh money and we will do whatever whether legal or illegal,” the speaker lamented.

This “hunger” is portrayed as a moral failing that leads citizens to prioritize immediate sustenance over the future of their own children.

The speaker argues that South Africans are “just living right now to to feed our stomach we do not think for our future kids.”

He posed rhetorical questions that cut to the heart of national self-determination: “Is this going to help my future kids? Cuz we have kids in the future. Our kids are we going to have kids that are owning this country? Are our kids going to have a voice in this country?”

For the activist, the act of allowing a foreign political party to operate locally is the ultimate failure of this national consciousness, a catastrophic decision born “out of hunger.”

He expressed profound disbelief: “why would you why would you go to an extent of selling a country your country.”

The establishment of a political party by non-citizens is seen as an unprecedented and direct threat to South African sovereignty.

The speaker questions the very purpose of such a formation, asking if, for instance, a “Zim political party” is “going to be helping Zims in South Africa or Mozambicans or whatever um nationality.”

The question highlights the movement’s fear that foreign political organization on South African soil is merely an institutional attempt to consolidate non-citizen power and resources, further marginalizing the indigenous population.

This sentiment moves the movement’s grievances beyond competition for jobs and housing and into the realm of political control and self-governance.

In a moment of strategic communication, the activist then addressed the large contingent of foreigners who follow and often criticize the movement on social media.

He attempted to frame Operation Dudula’s actions as purely patriotic, insisting that there is no deep-seated animosity toward them as people.

“I feel like foreigners who are coming into our into our page, they need to understand that we are pulling same directions as South Africans. We are trying to fix our country. There’s no one who hate you as a as an African brother or sister,” he claimed.

This justification is carefully constructed: the movement is driven not by xenophobia, but by a sense of duty to their own children.

“We are just trying to do what’s best for our future kids. We are just doing what’s we are just trying to do what’s best for our country,” he reiterated.

The most potent element of the speech lies in its attempt to establish a historical and moral mandate by linking the current struggle to the nation’s anti-apartheid past.

The speaker expressed the profound desire to be seen as heroes by future generations, much like the freedom fighters of “1965 and 68.”

He insisted that the current generation must not be the one that fails the nation, concluding with a promise of defiant resistance.

“So we are not going to be those parents and our kids are just going to be like we were cowards. We we ran away like other brothers and sisters.”

In this light, Operation Dudula’s actions are presented not as social vigilantism, but as a continuation of a patriotic war for national liberation and self-respect.

The incident of the foreign political party, therefore, is more than just a local dispute; it has become a symbol of the deepest insecurities haunting the nation.

It confirms the movement’s fear that the country is being systematically undermined by external influence, enabled by internal corruption, and driven by the economic desperation of its own people.

The fury over the alleged bribe exposes the fragile moral fabric of a society where the battle against foreign encroachment is constantly sabotaged by the willingness of its citizens to sell their national heritage for “a stack of money,” making the fight against corruption as critical to the movement as the fight against illegal immigration itself.

This political theater confirms that Operation Dudula sees itself as the last bulwark against a total collapse of national sovereignty, willing to fight the ‘enemy’ abroad and the ‘traitors’ at home, ensuring they are not branded as the “cowards” who lost the country.