FITZGERALD writes:

I was in college during the anti-apartheid movement. I was in the anti-anti-apartheid movement. We once held a campus-wide meeting where we screened a CBC documentary on the ANC exposing its murderous practices and Soviet underwriting and how the Western and especially American press falsely reported the reality on the ground. It was especially condemning of the Mandelas for advocating violent acts of terror including the practice of necklacing. The documentary contained video of Winnie Mandela teaching children how to field strip and clean Ak-47 rifles and then leading them in chants of “We will kill them with our AKs” as well instructions on how to necklace people as well. Necklacing is the notorious practice of the ANC of setting a tire full of gasoline-soaked rags over the heads of those viewed as traitors or collaborators to the revolutionary cause and setting it on fire. Nelson Mandela shrewdly distanced himself from these acts after being released to burnish his image, but he never renounced them. When interviewed he regularly lied about being a man of peace but in reality never disavowed violence. He cut Winnie loose as well to further distance himself from her even though she was his puppet for years.

Apartheid was evil, but what Mandela has constructed is black apartheid. Whites are being regularly killed, raped and subject tot heft and the economy is wrecked. Idiot, soft Westerners worshiping at the font of multiculturalism cannot fathom the murderous depths of Communist revolutionaries sponsored by the Soviets and their client states. The worship of this murderous, preening thug just sickens me.

Dan R. writes:

Shortly after his release from prison, Ted Koppel and City College hosted Mandela in a Town Hall meeting. Several chilling moments here.

 

— Comments —

Daniel writes:

Your correspondent ‘Fitzgerald’ wrote:

“We once held a campus-wide meeting where we screened a CBC documentary on the ANC exposing it’s murderous practices and Soviet underwriting and how the Western and especially American press falsely reported the reality on the ground.”

Might he have the name of this documentary?

Roger G. writes:

At 12:06 in the latter video, the conservative black lady asks if the new South Africa is going to be as economically incompetent as the rest of black Africa. The murderous, preening thug mockingly congratulates her on her courage (actually, no need for courage, since this good woman is here safe in America, not amidst his vicious cronies); his answer makes clear that he intends for South Africa also to be ruined.

Roger adds:

On our side, we generally feel compelled to add the disclaimer that apartheid was evil. I say that apartheid was not evil.

 Laura writes:

What other choice was there?

Aservant writes:

Yes, apartheid wasn’t evil but necessary. In another failed experiment in multiculturalism, one group came out worse than the other, so the other had to protect itself from that group. Conflict and violence ensued, of which all was attributed to apartheid by the PTB.

Everything that I believed, and that most were told and believed, about apartheid and Mandela, was a distortion, half-truth or outright lie.

I sincerely fear for the remaining whites in South Africa. The wise few that may be left here in the West need to take this lesson deeply to heart if we are to preserve anything decent in our nations.

Bill R. writes:

I agree with Roger. Apartheid was not evil, unless you want to call it a “necessary evil” like police and government. As Laura said, what other choice did they have? Whites have been in South Africa for three and a half centuries. The first European settlers found most of the land almost entirely uninhabited, so it can’t even be said of South Africa what so many liberals and multiculturalists are so fond of saying of America, that white Europeans stole it from some other race that was already there. Most blacks came to South Africa later from other parts of Africa, and especially in recent times they came for the most obvious of reasons; because it was not only the continent’s only First World nation but, in fact, the only one that wasn’t an out-and-out stinking, festering hellhole. Liberals never tire of pointing out the lower standard of living of South African blacks compared to South African whites during apartheid. But they never compare the black South African standard of living to that of blacks in other parts of Africa during the same time. In fact, already in South Africa, thanks to twenty years of black rule, even blacks there now experience what has been called “apartheid nostalgia.”

Whites had every right and every good reason (as they do anywhere else in the world, for that matter; they may not have the will but they have the moral right) to keep themselves separate from blacks and to prevent, in the case of South Africa, their vastly greater numerical participation in the political process from promptly dispossessing whites of what they had built and what belonged to them. They had every right to permit themselves the means not only to prevent their own destruction but to preserve their way of life which they had built, and which, if left to the care of blacks, would surely be destroyed as it has been everywhere in the world where they are in large enough numbers, from Detroit to Johannesburg. The means whites used in South Africa to prevent their destruction was called apartheid. If apartheid was evil, then so must be the very notion of defending one’s own life and property, and one’s own race and culture. Apartheid may have been unfortunate, but only in the sense that a person might say it was unfortunate they ended up in a situation where they had to defend themselves. But given that that was precisely the situation South Africa found herself in with such a large population of blacks, apartheid was not only right and appropriate it was, as anyone can now see all too obviously from the condition of whites in South Africa, absolutely necessary to their physical survival as individuals and as a race, and also to the survival of what they had built over three and half centuries with their own hands, imagination, and will.

Doren writes:

Bill R. is, of course, precisely correct.  Apartheid was NOT evil.  Quite the opposite in fact.  Only when one invokes the toxic metric of equality über alles does apartheid acquire the false patina of evil.  If one accepts the patently ridiculous assumption that all men are created equal, that with which we have been indoctrinated since birth, then of course apartheid is evil.  Through the prism of equality, nearly all expressions of ordinary inequality are cast as evil.

But, all men are decidedly NOT equal, and thank a merciful God for that!  We are all unique and distinctive.  And as individuals differ so do racial stocks.  Now this may cause consternation among those who daily breath the noxious fumes of equality for a more toxic notion has never seized the hearts and minds of man.  The false ideology of equality is the perfect expression of serpent’s lie in Genesis: “No, God knows well that the moment you eat of the fruit your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is evil.”  Eat of the fruit of knowledge, presume to know that which only God can know, place yourself at the apex of the universe determining that which is good and evil, reject God’s world and reconstruct it in your own image!  These sins are as old as Man!

Equality!  Liberty!  Fraternity!  That’s the ticket.  We can create our own Utopia here on Earth.  No need for God.  We can reconstruct the moral universe in our own image and reject the constraints imposed by God’s reality.

Bill R. plainly states the reality of apartheid.  It was a necessary defensive measure to protect Europeans from African savagery.  Old Europe is the ultimate phenotypical expression of the collective European genotype.  Savagery and white genocide are the inevitable phenotypical expression of the collective African genotype.  Sure, there are outliers in both groups, positive and negative.  But make no mistake, what we witnessed in Haiti in the 1790’s, in South Africa, Rhodesia, Namibia, Kenya, the Congo and in all our major cities (typified by Detroit) today are expressions of the immutable collective African genotype.  Any effort to deny these facts can only end, as we are witnessing today, in catastrophe.

Katheryn Gallant writes:

Laura asks what other choice was there in twentieth-century South Africa but apartheid. This may seem like a highly unrealistic option, but perhaps all the whites — including Afrikaners whose families had been in South Africa for centuries — could have left South Africa and immigrated to Europe (especially to the UK, the Netherlands and France), Australia, South America (perhaps Argentina and Brazil in particular?), the United States and Canada. I believe that Afrikaners and Anglophone South Africans could have contributed immensely to the welfare of the nations to which they decided to immigrate.

Of course, this would have been an untenable alternative given the realities of twentieth-century world politics, but it was an alternative nevertheless.

Laura writes:

Of course, that has to some degree already happened as many thousands of Afrikaners have left the country. Would it have been better if they had left a hundred years before? I don’t think it would have been better for Africans.

Fitzgerald writes:

I should have properly stated that apartheid was a necessary evil, which I find sad. The aforementioned video demonstrated that not all blacks were opposed to the structure of South Africa. P.W. Bothe was shown speaking to a large collection of Zulu Christians after which he walked straight through the crowd with no real protection shaking hands and greeting people. I remember being stunned and commenting that the U.S. President, Reagan at the time, wouldn’t have done the same, at least without a large entourage of secret service guards flanking him.

South Africa as a nation and the majority of the southern territories were settled by whites. This differs from other colonial conquests where Europeans subjugated native peoples. For South African whites this is their land, and it’s being ruthlessly ripped away from them.

Sadly, the video’s name which Daniel asked about escapes me and I suspect it’s difficult to find. I did scour Youtube when composing my post and only found snippets of various interviews and other details cited in what I vaguely remember being a Frontline documentary.

Fred Owens writes:

Today’s discussion on race in South Africa is very good.

But we are re-hashing history. Apartheid, whether evil or the least bad option, is finished. Whites may have no future under African majority rule.

First we accept that reality, then we [pray], and then we make a plan to make things right.

What is that plan? We need to have a plan, because without hope and without a plan, we are just giving in and abandoning South Africa, one of the most beautiful countries on Earth.

Doren writes:

In response to Fred Owens:

Apartheid (separation) was and is the plan.  There is no other plan other than separation, for all other paths lead to white genocide.  The degree of separation and sequestration remain debatable but no other “plan” is feasible.

Again, I repeat, apartheid was neither evil nor the least bad option.  It was in fact a positive good and represents our ONLY path to security in conformity to the realities of God’s world.  Just because it is not immediately feasible it should not be heedlessly dismissed and suggesting it be dismissed is a sure path to despondency.  You ask for a “plan” and then mindlessly reject our only option, one, I might add, that we all can and do practice in our own lives.  If our people and our heritage are to be preserved it can only come as a result of separation.

Dec. 11, 2013

Bob writes:

Previous commentators have opined not only that apartheid wasn’t evil, but also went one step further, saying that it was right and necessary. But allow me to suggest that the apartheid system was doomed to begin with.

Apartheid means separation, or separate development, with the idea that Afrikaner culture and people could only survive if they separated themselves from the black majority. At least that was the ideal. In reality, it was nothing like that. The whites of South Africa showed no desire to live without the cheap labor blacks provided, whether it was as domestic servants, miners, industrial or agricultural workers. (An anecdote: A distant relative of mine visited her relatives in South Africa in the 1970s and was amazed by their lifestyle–the women had their hair done every morning by black servants, they were chauffered around, waited on, cooked for, etc.)

So despite the ‘homelands’ which gave blacks self-rule in parts of the country, there was no real separation. The white minority was actively involved in the life of the black majority, and vice versa.

Today, despite having seen the toll of ANC rule–the decline of Afrikaner culture, murders, rapes, etc.–Afrikaners remain unwilling to give up the benefits of cheap black labor. The all-white settlement of Orania where whites don’t rely on blacks for labor or anything else, despite being around for two decades now, has around one thousand people. Its leaders expected to have sixty times as many people by now.  In fact, since apartheid ended, the wealth of white South Africans has greatly increased, in absolute terms and even in comparison to the black majority, so it seems as though the whites that remain in South Africa are willing.

I cannot exactly articulate it right now–I need to think further on it–but my basic conclusion is that this unwillingness to give up the comforts of life with cheap black labor doomed apartheid. Right or wrong, Westerners feel guilty about having people in their daily lives who do not have the same rights they enjoy. That, I think, is why apartheid fell. Pretorian South Africa had the wealth, the military power (it was a nuclear state, after all, with a developed arms industry), the support among many blacks, such as the Zulus, to maintain their system of life in the face of international pressure and sanctions indefinitely. The National Party gave that up because there seemed to be a consensus among whites that the system of racial discrimination was morally wrong. Ultimately, I think that feeling, and the consequence of that feeling, was inevitable.

Hesther writes:

I am reading reports that George Bush was booed at the Mandela memorial, and pictures of Mr. Obama, Cameron and a third person taking “selfies” (self portraits using phones), with Mrs. Obama seething next to them.  Mr. Obama reportedly received a standing ovation for his remarks, with Mr. Bush among the first to stand.  What an inversion of reality has been accomplished.  Mr. Bush has taken Africa and AIDS as personal causes, and accomplished a great deal, and is booed, while Mr. Obama is most concerned with capturing souvenirs at a solemn occasion, and is celebrated.

Laura writes:

In response to Bob, it seems to me that the problem wasn’t that they had black servants, but that they came to view this servitude as wrong.

Bill R. writes:

Bob makes an excellent point. The reason so many blacks ended up in South Africa, as he describes it, is not unlike the reason blacks ended up in America. Whites do bear no small amount of guilt for putting themselves in a position in the first place where racial separation, which was already naturally there to begin with, now had to be simulated politically, but, of course, not so good a simulation that we whites won’t be able to still partake of the advantages of cheap labor. Finally, the injustice and hypocrisy of such politically simulated quasi-separation cannot stand. Tearing down apartheid was the conscience money white South Africans paid for their selfishness. That, it would appear, has to be at least part of any honest final assessment of the situation in South Africa. Perhaps that’s to the moral credit of whites; too bad there wasn’t enough moral credit in them to cover abandoning the craving for that cheap labor in the first place, which apparently they still haven’t done. Sad but simple and there it is, and it happens all the time; self-interest, momentary personal gain, and the maintaining of one’s accustomed lifestyle win out over one’s own long-term racial and cultural interests. The tragedy always is, of course, that it’s the later generations that had nothing to do with those selfish, shortsighted mistakes who have to pay the real bill for them.

Bill R. continues:

Hesther writes, “What an inversion of reality has been accomplished. Mr. Bush has taken Africa and AIDS as personal causes, and accomplished a great deal, and is booed, while Mr. Obama is most concerned with capturing souvenirs at a solemn occasion, and is celebrated.”

It’s perfect poetic justice. Mr. Bush is an example of the kind of politician all-too-common in the Republican Party these day, the cheap-labor-at-all-costs oriented big business champion not unlike many of those South African whites Bob referred to, a neocon who has turned his back on everything traditional about his country and his culture and who stands for nothing worth conserving in it. I think Mr. Bush went further than even your average neocon. He turned his back on his own heritage so he could become a shameless racial and multicultural toady. He contemptuously slammed the door on his own racial home and left it for another that he enters smiling demurely as he looks about the room plaintively, hoping for some sign of approval, even a patronizing pat on the head such a dog might appreciate, and instead receives looks of only disgust and loathing. What could be more purely appropriate and deserving to such as he? Here is a man who was president during the worst terrorist attack in this country’s history in which 3,000 of his fellow citizens were murdered, as well as during the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, yet in spite of this, the worst day of his presidency that he can remember was, as Jared Taylor put it, “being called a racist by some two-bit Negro entertainer.” That was the worst day for Mr. Bush in all of the eight years he led our country. Why shouldn’t they boo him? If I were one of them I would too. For one thing, if I were one of them, I’d be asking myself, if this character could so completely turn his back on his own, what kind of genuine loyalty toward me and mine could I ever really expect from such as he? In addition, if I were one of theirs I might also say, he might have turned his back on his own race but I will not turn my back on mine, and he is not one of mine. Finally, Bush doesn’t even really do this for them. In the end, he does it for himself, just as his standard for measuring what was the worst day of his presidency was, in the end, also all about him — because someone said something unkind about him. He wants to be thought of as one of the “good guys,” that’s why he does it, and he bought the leftist multicultural notion entirely of what it means to be one of the “good guys,” and he was able to buy it because he never had the courage to go against the prevailing cultural grain and be a good guy to his own people, and because he’s shallow enough never to have had any meaningful loyalty to his own to begin with.

Doren writes:

In response to Bob:

If one employs only the economic metric in evaluating a nation and its people, false, and ultimately destructive, conclusions will be thereby drawn.  The path to civilizational death is paved with cheap labor – ALWAYS, despite any apparent economic short term gains (whether measured in decades or centuries).

Whites who wish to maintain lavish lifestyles do so at the expense of their descendant’s well being.  Separation means separation – the more complete the better.  Temporary work permits could be issued but citizenship, permanent residency and marriage have to be strictly forbidden either by cultural mores in a confident virile civilization and/or by law.

Doren continues:

Our genetic makeup is an expression of God’s creation.  A cat cannot become a dog, an elephant a rhinoceros.   Possessing free will, we determine what we will do with what God has conferred upon us.  Bearing that in mind we are not infinitely plastic.  Can a people elevate itself above the limits imposed by its collective genotype?  No, but they can achieve its full potential.

The collective sub-Saharan genotype can be seen in its fullest and most productive expression in the Jim Crow South and in Apartheid South Africa where, by the way, Africans were still more violent, criminally inclined and considerably less intelligent.  But by every single measure of true success, they were better off.  What today masquerades as African progress is an elaborate charade imposed by government mandate.  Bear in mind, there are outliers in the African group but this does not alter the overall nature of the collective genetic  makeup or its phenotypical expression as seen in the “civilizations” they create or destroy as the case may be.

It is hubris of the nth degree that compels man to remake the world as he, man, sees fit and ignore the limits placed by God.  God separated the racial groups and separate they should remain.  Leave the Africans to their own devices!  Let them create their own soaring civilizations!  Allow the Indians and Chinese the same freedom.  Interact and trade with them but do not allow them to invade and colonize our nations, to kill our people and to rape our women.

Laura writes:

Well said.

Only a black man has the potential to be a black man at his fullest. Only a white man has the potential to be a white man at his fullest. So there is a beauty in God’s Providence and all races must be judged according to how they fulfill their potential.

But I am puzzled. If Africans achieved a high level of social order in the Jim Crow South and Apartheid South Africa, isn’t that an argument for some level of integration? It seems there is some natural complementarity to the races.

Doren responds:

Africans achieve their highest level of social order in a well structured environment that can only be provided charitably by old Christian Europeans in Africa, colonialism being the best example.  The cost of integration for Europeans in our ancestral lands is just too high for the benefits afforded to the African population.

Interestingly, by assiduously preserving our Christian cultural and racial heritage we end up providing, for all racial groups, the greatest service to mankind.  Our current trajectory can only end in white genocide.  Any fair reading of current trends can only lead to that conclusion.   European Christian civilization is the golden goose and provides the necessary moral and cultural benchmark against which all mankind can be inspired and elevated.

Of course we are not perfect and we have lost our way but our genetic legacy must not be lost if mankind is to recover for we can solve any problem save our genetic destruction which cannot be regained.

Bob writes:

You write, “If Africans achieved a high level of social order in the Jim Crow South and Apartheid South Africa, isn’t that an argument for some level of integration?”

I think it is a mistake to assume (not that you do so) that Africans are incapable of high levels of social order absent white rule or integration. In Rwanda, Paul Kagame, a conservative, Western-oriented man has turned a country that had two decades ago suffered a horrific genocide into a civilized state. It is still poor by Western standards (although economic growth has been terrific since Mr. Kagame created an atmosphere of law and order), but other social indicators are good. I have not been (and have no intention of going) but from everything I’ve read, its capital of Kigali is supposedly cleaner and safer than many Western cities. Of course, Western liberals depise Mr. Kagame because he is an authoritarian leader. Perhaps the real reason, though, is that he has shown that adhering to traditional, conservative values is the only way Africans can live dignified lives in a safe and stable society (as is true for the rest of us.)

Uganda’s story is less well-known, but its President, Yoweri Mouseveni, also a conservative pro-Western Christian, has created a similar stable and healthy social order in the country that gave the world Idi Amin. Of course, in the West, he is hated because he had the temerity to stand behind his nation’s laws banning sodomy. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, Uganda has been a poster child for fighting AIDS. Nobody ever thinks that maybe a causal relationship between its harsh stance towards sodomy and its success in fighting AIDS exists).

Bill R. writes:

Doren writes, “Africans achieve their highest level of social order in a well structured environment that can only be provided charitably by old Christian Europeans in Africa.”

Perhaps the most celebrated such Christian was the great missionary and Nobel laureate Albert Schweitzer, a man revered in almost saintly terms, who devoted his life to helping blacks in Africa, and had this to say in 1961 near the end of his life:

I have given my life to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all White men who have lived here like I have must learn and know: that these individuals are a sub-race.

They have neither the mental or emotional abilities to equate or share equally with White men in any functions of our civilization. I have given my life to try to bring unto them the advantages which our civilization must offer, but I have become aware that we must retain this status: White the superior, and they the inferior.

For whenever a White man seeks to live among them as their equals, they will destroy and devour him, and they will destroy all his work. And so for any existing relationship or any benefit to this people, let White men, from anywhere in the world, who would come to help Africa, remember that you must maintain this status: you the master and they the inferior, like children whom you would help or teach.

Never fraternize with them as equals. Never accept them as your social equals or they will devour you. They will destroy you.