The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
30 Years Since F. W. de Klerk’s Great Betrayal
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On February 2, 1990, 30 years ago, F. W. de Klerk, South Africa’s last white president, turned the screws on his constituents, betraying the confidence we had placed in him.

I say “we,” because, prior to becoming president in 1989, Mr. de Klerk was my representative, in the greater Vereeniging region of Southern Transvaal, where I resided. (Our family subsequently moved to Cape Town.)

A constellation of circumstances had aligned to catapult de Klerk to a position of great power. A severe stroke forced the “The Crocodile,” President P. W. Botha, from power in 1989. Nothing in the background of his successor, President, F. W. de Klerk, indicated the revolutionary policies he would pursue.

To a 1992 referendum asking white voters if they favored de Klerk’s proposed reforms, we returned a resounding “yes.” Sixty-eight percent of respondents said “yes” to the proposed reforms of a man who sold his constituents out for a chance to frolic on the world stage with Nelson Mandela.

For surrendering South Africa to the ANC, de Klerk shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mandela.

Why was de Klerk trusted to negotiate on behalf of a vulnerable racial minority? For good reason: De Klerk had made his views abundantly clear to constituents. “Negotiations would only be about power-sharing,” he promised. At the time, referendum respondents generally trusted de Klerk, who had specifically condemned crude majority rule. Such elections, in Africa, have traditionally amounted to one man, one vote, one time. Typically, elections across Africa have followed a familiar pattern: Radical black nationalist movements take power everywhere, then elections cease. Or, if they take place, they’re rigged.

Among much else, de Klerk’s loyal constituents agreed to his scrapping of the ban on the communistic African National Congress. Freeing Nelson Mandela from incarceration was also viewed as long overdue as was acceding to Namibia’s independence, and junking nuclear weapons. Botha, before de Klerk, had, by and large, already dismantled the most egregious aspects of apartheid.

What de Klerk’s constituents were not prepared for was to be legislated into a permanent position of political subordination. President de Klerk, the man entrusted to stand up for crucial structural liberties, went along with the Great Centralizers. He caved to ANC demands, forgoing all checks and balances for South Africa’s Boer, British and Zulu minorities.

By the time the average “yes” voter discerned the fact that de Klerk had no intention of maintaining this opposition when push came to shove, it was too late.

Thus, with de Klerk’s collaboration, and under the wing of the American eagle—in particular, U.S. negotiators like Herman Cohen, under-secretary of state for Africa—the Afrikaner, Anglo and Zulu minorities were ordered to forgo minority veto power, meaningful power-sharing and checks on power in the form of a second chamber. Substantive devolution of authority to the regions of South Africa was also denied.

Yet somehow, a new generation of South Africans, Afrikaner and English, reveres F. W. de Klerk, even crediting the former South African president as a reformer, who led “the country out of the political dead-end [in which] it found itself.”

“Today,” declares de Klerk adulator Pieter du Toit, “South Africa is a democracy, with rights-based guarantees.” The writer, editor of a large internet news site, is perfectly serious when he touts South Africa as a country that affords its citizens “rights-based guarantees.” For this reason, du Toit should not be taken seriously.

Universal suffrage is not to be conflated with freedom. As Iraqis learned after their “liberation,” ink-stained fingers don’t inoculate against blood stains, or, rather, rivers of blood.

As the democratic South Africa amply demonstrates, political rights and a paper constitution don’t secure the natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

A civilized society, ultimately, is one in which the individual can go about the business of life unmolested. If he can’t do that simple thing, of what value is the vote or a constitution? Extant societal structures that safeguard life and property can always be improved upon. But once these bulwarks against mob rule and mayhem disintegrate, as they have in South Africa, they’re seldom restored.

Far and away the most perplexing paragraph in du Toit’s ode to de Klerk is his historical justification for de Klerk’s giving the shop to the ANC:

“When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989,” writes du Toit, “along with a series of governments in the Eastern Bloc, [de Klerk] knew it was a matter of time before the Soviet Union fell, and with that the ANC’s biggest support base. De Klerk recognized the moment to move forward.”

Let me see if I grasp the logic of a surrender without defeat:

The ANC’s biggest backer, the USSR, was on the verge of collapse. Therefore, goes the author’s logic, the time was ripe to surrender South Africa to the Soviet Union’s satellite, the ANC? This is worse than a non sequitur. It’s nonsense.

At the time de Klerk, pushed by American negotiators, gave away the store, the ANC heroes were a ragtag bunch of exiled has-been communists, scattered all over Africa and Europe; monosyllabic, apathetic, oft-inebriated men, whose main admirers were their Swedish groupies.

By contrast, someone who did have real power was Constand Viljoen, a military hero and former chief of the South African Defense Force. Gen. Viljoen represented the hardliner Afrikaners and the security forces. Viljoen believed, correctly, that de Klerk had shirked his responsibilities to the electorate. He planned on leading a coalition that would have deposed the freelancing de Klerk and negotiated for an Afrikaner ethnic state.

Ditto Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi, chief minister of the KwaZulu homeland and leader of the Zulu people and their Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). His championship of self-determination had been denied.

Buthelezi was fed up to the back teeth with being sidelined. He and his Zulu impis (warriors) were every bit as fractious as Viljoen; every bit as willing to fight for their rightful corner of the African Eden.

For setting his sights on decentralized sovereignty in Zululand, the Zulu royal and his following (close on 20% of the South African population) were condemned as reactionaries by the West, whose interests de Klerk was, by now, championing.

Alas, the African gentleman (Buthelezi) and the Afrikaner general (Viljoen) were no match for conniving communists (ANC) and a knavish collaborator:

F. W. de Klerk.

**

Citations are in “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) by ilana mercer

 
• Category: History • Tags: Apartheid, South Africa 
Hide 52 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Dan Hayes says:

    Was General Viljoen paid off?

    In support, rumors that he was seen in Canada returning from a northern fishing trip that should have been impermissible under prevailing political restrictions! Just asking!

  2. Apartheid was a failed and immoral system. It had to go.

    The question in the early late 1980s/early 1990s wasn’t if the system had to go – it was clearly unsustainable – but what would come next. I think a case could have been made for an amicable separation. Whites would have gotten the area around Cape Town and blacks would have gotten the rest – including the lucrative mining areas around Joburg.

    White South Africans did not make such a demand, and thus lost a historic opportunity. In some sense, this failure goes back even before Apartheid. Why didn’t the whites of SA demand strict separation early on? Greed. Blacks were treated as an underclass worthy of exploitation for big businessess, so separation was not desired. Hence Apartheid.

    In many ways, the comparison with the US south and slavery are striking. Greed was the principal reason why slavery was instituted, not some racial domination fantasy. Those theories were imposed ex facto to justify the oppression but it was never the driving force. Greed was.

    Even today, many whites in SA are loathe to demand a seperate state. As such, it is a bit silly to talk of ‘betrayal’ given that the community never had a strong desire to truly separate, even under Apartheid. Indeed, Apartheid SA was more integrated than Apartheid Israel is today.

    • Disagree: Rich
    • Troll: Chris Mallory
  3. It’s funny how World Jewry made the West totally support Jewish apartheid against Palestinians but then made the West force white rule to end in South Africa. The betrayal was all the worse because South Africa was Israel’s closest ally. In the end, it didn’t do any good for Afrikaners.

    Everything for Jews, nothing for white goyim.

    Did DeKlerk have a choice when South Africa came under total assault from the West and Rest?

    But then, the very founding of South Africa was flawed. Afrikaners and other whites should have followed the Zionist model: Jewish owners and Jewish workforce. Instead, whites went for white owners and black labor.

    • Replies: @Stavros
    , @trint
  4. anarchyst says:

    It’s the JEWS…It’s ALWAYS the JEWS.

    Apartheid was put in place to keep the normally warring tribes from decimating each other. As a result, South Africa became one of the most economically stable countries on the African continent. Despite the so-called “evils” of apartheid, there was a large influx of black immigrants into South Africa. Food was plentiful. The various races knew their places.

    Not only that, the government required blacks to be educated, unlike the case in many other African countries. South Africa WANTED an educated workforce.

    Apartheid was able to “keep the peace” and was successful until communism’s “inventors” ((jews))–(despite having arms agreements with South Africa) helped dismantle apartheid. The rest is history . . .

    South Africa is a “basket case”; its white farmers (producers) are being murdered. Farms that have been “appropriated” by blacks are being looted–not usable for farming anymore because anything of value is being sold for scrap. It is obvious that SA blacks have no propensity for farming…

    If one good thing comes of this, it will be the deserved “retribution” placed on the South African communist jews for being a major part in destroying this once-prosperous country.

    I would welcome the immigration of SA whites to the USA as they would be an asset to our country, but current American immigration laws do not allow for the immigration of whites to the USA, despite white genocide taking place.

  5. Anon[399] • Disclaimer says:

    People on Unz like to focus on the Jewish role and on communists, but the real perps were the corporate class. de Klerk sold out SA because his corporate masters demanded it. The “nationalists” were controlled by their wealthy donors, who did not want to suffer the financial consequences of being an international pariah.

    de Klerk was not acting alone. He never would have succeeded if that were true. The role of the business community in selling out SA is very well documented.

    This same dynamic is still true in the rest of the West today. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is overlooked by the folks here on Unz, but they are just as guilty as the ADA and George Soros. Open borders is good for business. Stateless multinationals don’t care about protecting any people, whites included. They care about low wages, larger markets, and corporate profits. Mercer’s writing suffers because she fails to grasp these underlying causes.

    South Africa’s Protection Racket
    https://www.unz.com/article/south-africas-protection-racket/

    • Agree: Mr. Grey
  6. Ilana Mercer also voted for De Klerk’s so-called “reforms”, so why is she now crying. We (that voted “no” for De Klerk’s surrender ), were mocked and asked why are we afraid of majority rule? Yes, can you believe it!
    And we lost the referendum simply because Big Money financed the “Yes-vote”.
    Mercer left the country (because her “yes-vote” failed her), while the rest of us are struggling to cope with a country that is fast becoming another Africa s-hole country. Truth is it is the whites that are holding things together. For how long we can survive this barbarity, no one knows.
    And if she doesn’t know by now that Constand Viljoen was also a traitor who sold out the right-wing Afrikaners, was paid millions to do it and joined the lucrative “navy train”, she knows absolute nothing about what really happened in South Africa.
    You should never judge apartheid by what De Klerk, PW Botha and John Vorster made of it, but rather by what Dr HF Verwoerd had intended it to be; a policy whereby every nation in the south of Africa had its own country and ruled by its own people.
    As there is a Lesotho for the Sotho’s and a Boswsana for the Tswana’s and a Swaziland for the Swazi’s.
    The policy of apartheid was foresaken (broken down) step by step by Vorster and his successors in such a manner that they where were left with no other option (because of their treacherous policies) to hand-over power to a black “majority”.
    Dr HF Verwoerd was killed (assassinated) by Big Money because they saw that he would succeed with his policy. This fact is well documented, yet the world choose to ignore it.
    Apartheid was “wrong” because of South Africa’s riches which Big Money couldn’t allow to be in Afrikaner hands, but rather, through their black proxies, in their (the master’s) hands.
    If apartheid is wrong, no further nation-states should be allowed in the world.
    That is the essence of apartheid – built on the principle of allowing for another nation what I claim for my own!

    • Replies: @Kali
  7. Republic says:

    The late White nationalist leader,Dr Pierce wrote an essay in 1998 on the reasons,it is called The lesson of South Africa,The National Vanguard published it.

  8. In the 80s, I was in favor of ending apartheid. And when it finally happened, I applauded it. After that, Reverend Tutu seemed to be on the right track in holding his forgiveness sessions (or whatever they were called).

    And then I moved South Africa to the back burner, just as I had move Ghana to the back burner after I did a report on their independence while in middle school (just after it happened).

    Imagine my surprise to discover what a shit show South Africa has become. I had no idea. Aside from an article a couple of years ago detailing Mandela’s missteps with the economy, and tragic missteps at that, I didn’t understand the depth of the problem there–and its genesis.

    Thank you for filling in those blank spots. de Klerk was a very stupid man. South Africa deserved better. Reap the whirlwind.

    • Agree: Kali
  9. The ANC’s biggest backer, the USSR, was on the verge of collapse. Therefore, goes the author’s logic, the time was ripe to surrender South Africa to the Soviet Union’s satellite, the ANC? This is worse than a non sequitur. It’s nonsense.

    It was a double-edged sword. Without the USSR, the USA no longer needed South Africa as a bulwark against communism.

  10. an ex-SA Jewess looks back on the bloody shambles she and her Tribe created,

    exclaims, “how awful!”, and blames someone else.

    same old.

    • Agree: Rusty nail
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  11. anon_382 says:

    lol this is rich

    (((Illana))) claims the whites sold her out in South Africa

    • Replies: @Rusty nail
  12. @Thulean Friend

    The whole purpose of apartheid was separation, and to allow the Blacks to develop at their own rate. Sure, there were mistakes like allowing mass black immigration to work, but the reality is that its exploding economy didn’t have enough people to fill all the vacancies. Missing from the article is that the Khoi-san, the original inhabitants, weren’t even in the picture. The Bantus and Zulus were invading from the north as the Dutch were landing on the Cape. The difference is that the Dutch worked with the Khoi-san on settlement, while the Zulus and Bantus were slaughtering them.

    Your righteous indignation about apartheid being immoral is seen through a 21st century filter, not the reality on the ground a century ago.

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
    , @Daniel H
  13. @Haxo Angmark

    Jews are not a monolithic block, except when it comes to the Hollow-co$t.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  14. Rich says:

    De Klerk was a traitor to his people, a disgusting maggot. Should’ve been hanged. The Whites should’ve risen up and fought for their freedom. Foolish to trust the ballot box. There were rumors that the Russians were going to allow them to relocate, might be the best thing. I’m horrified at how the West abandoned these good, hardworking people. Enough with suicidal altruism.

    • Agree: Owen C.
    • Replies: @nymom
    , @Stavros
  15. @Curmudgeon

    The whole purpose of apartheid was separation

    True separation means two countries for two peoples. Blacks were partly separated but still living in the same country, same passport etc. It is more correct to say there was a two-tiered system based on race.

    As such, it was immoral because citizenship should be about equality. If you don’t want citizens to be equal then don’t have them in your country: aim for a true separation.

    Of course, even citizenship is not sufficient. Israel does not grant citizenship to West Bank Palestinians or those living in Gaza but they are in effect their colonial overlords in any event. So true separation would mean two different countries where one does not exploit the other. That is what SA whites should have aimed for in the late 1980s but they missed that chance and they are now paying for that mistake.

    • Replies: @Rich
  16. Kali says:
    @Sydney Gregan

    A very interesting comment. Thank you.

    I’m almost entirely ignorant of the things you discuss here and very much appreciative of a perspective which challenges my previous, Western-media-generated perspective (which I’ve long-since learned to disregard).

    I wonder, do you have any links to share regarding this history which might shed further light. – I’m all too aware that honest, unbiased reporting in the msm is as rare as hens teeth.

    Thanks in advance.
    Kali.

    • Replies: @Sydney Gregan
  17. @anon_382

    They always tell you what happened to them, but they never tell you why.

  18. @Kali

    You are welcome to contact me at [email protected]. I will look for English articles on the subject because almost all my writings are in Afrikaans. Regards.

    • Thanks: Kali, utu
  19. nymom says:
    @Rich

    Sadly even though Russia did offer to relocate 15,000 of them and their families to farm in Russia, the Boers themselves turned it down.

    A few relocated, most didn’t…

    Unfortunately the Boers appear to feel it wouldn’t have worked for them in a Russia composed of mostly unbelievers…

    There still seems to be a strong belief in religion among the Boers even today and they probably wouldn’t have fit into Russian society.

    Think of the Amish or the Mormons to get an idea of what I am talking about. This aspect of the Boer population has never really been widely discussed.

    Sad really as they are definitely a target in South Africa.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  20. Rich says:
    @Thulean Friend

    “Immoral”? Nonsense. South Africa was a nation built by Whites, for Whites. They had a moral responsibility to their children and grandchildren to leave them safe, secure and successful in the place they built. It was the Whites foolish altruism in providing jobs and housing for coloreds that was immoral.

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
  21. @Rich

    Before Europeans came to the North American continent, native Indians had built societies for themselves and by themselves. The fact that these societies were technologically inferior is irrelevant. It was theirs yet Europeans had no mercy on them. Would you be outraged on their behalf or is your anger only directed on behalf on your ingroup?

    Life is not fair. So pleading to fairness is a waste of time even if your re-telling of history is accurate. Nobody will have mercy on whites in SA just as nobody had mercy on Indians in the Americas.

    I’m well aware of the history of South Africa and how the land truly was empty and how whites built up the country. However, these same people were overcome by greed and essentially instituted a serfdom system, a two-tier racial caste system because they wanted lots of cheap workers. It was the same disease which drove slavery. The price paid for both of those greedy actions was steep.

    Whites in SA had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do what their forefathers failed, namely a clean break in the late 1980s. They failed. Unsurprisingly, the result is what happened in the subsequent decades.

    • Replies: @Rich
  22. iffen says:

    They had the power to divide the country into racial polities. Somebody couldn’t do without the opportunity to exploit the black underclass.

  23. @Curmudgeon

    s’Truth. Currently

    10% of the Jews are Reds,
    20% are Zio-Fascists,
    70% are both. Most

    of the latter, including the Issacsohn-Mercer, live in ‘Murka. i.e.,

    communism and White genocide for ‘Murka,

    and all other White nations,

    Jewish racial nationalism for Palestine.

  24. KenH says:

    FW de Clerk betrayed his people, but are we to believe that Jewish power and activism inside South Africa and their support of the ANC had nothing to do with events leading up to de Clerk’s betrayal? Ilana’s own father was an anti-apartheid activist in South Africa but I’ll bet if he ever lived in Israel he was a-ok with Jewish apartheid. The ANC would not have been formidable and Nelson Mandela would not have been a celebrity if not for Jewish power.

    Western nations, especially the U.S., placed a great deal of pressure on the apartheid government of South Africa.

    S. Africa should be a cautionary tale for what happens to whites when they are a minority and willingly give up political power. The result is genocide.

    • Agree: Owen C.
  25. Rich says:
    @Thulean Friend

    There were about 1 million Indians in the Continental US when Jamestown was built. Today there are 5 million who identify as Indians, and a whole bunch of Whites who claim some American Indian ancestry. I don’t get your point. Wars were fought, the Indians were absorbed, or allowed to live on reservations. That seems more than merciful to me. Seems downright generous in fact.

    Life is not fair? What were you born yesterday? Of course life’s not fair. I never mentioned “fairness”. In my opinion the Whites should have fought and defeated the Bantus and expelled them. Again, because life’s not fair, they should never have trusted the ballot box.

    And your apparent dislike of “greed” is funny. Are you of the opinion that the coloreds in SA aren’t greedy? They wish to take a country built by Whites and use it for themselves. If that behavior isn’t the epitome of greed, I don’t know what the word means.

    • Thanks: Futurethirdworlder
  26. @nymom

    “it wouldn’t have worked for them in a Russia composed of mostly unbelievers…”

    No. The Russian Orthodox Church is growing rapidly and many churches are being built. Putin is a Christian and has joined with the Orthodox Church to help solve Russia’s problems.

    https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/sober-vladimirputin-health-alcohol/2019/12/29/id/947642/

    The Boers are Protestants and Protestants always have a hard time with the liturgies and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Also, the Boers believe that they are like the Jews of the Old Testament and that South Africa is their promised land. They need to get over this insane belief and start leaving South Africa.

    • Replies: @nymom
  27. @anarchyst

    It’s not the Jews. Cucked Western males – who are not black/Asian/Jewish/Muslim – are causing our problems.

    Why isn’t the GOP taking up the cause of white South Africans? Because GOP males are cucks.

  28. Gene Su says:

    To a 1992 referendum asking white voters if they favored de Klerk’s proposed reforms, we returned a resounding “yes.” Sixty-eight percent of respondents said “yes” to the proposed reforms of a man who sold his constituents out for a chance to frolic on the world stage with Nelson Mandela.

    Every child [in America] who enters school at the age of five is mentally ill, because he comes to school with an allegiance toward our elected officials, toward our founding fathers, toward our institutions, toward the preservation of this form of government that we have. Patriotism, nationalism, and sovereignty, all that proves that children are sick because a truly well individual is one who has rejected all of those things, and is truly the international child of the future.

    Chester Pierce

  29. Blake says:

    South African apartheid was unsustainable and I say that as a white South African. This privileged racist supremacist mentality lording over the natives is pathetic.

    • Replies: @Rich
  30. @Thulean Friend

    “Apartheid was a failed and immoral system.” But what alternative was there? Whites had built SA from the ground up and its success attracted millions of Africans from outside the country. They then did the only thing they’re good at, breeding like rabbits. So Whites had to either grant one man/one vote and become yet another African basket-case or else apply some form of separation.

    A White homeland around the Western Cape would have undergone the same problem in that blacks would enter and eventually out-breed Whites. And the “international community” would have been only too happy to knife the Whites.

  31. @anarchyst

    “If one good thing comes of this, it will be the deserved “retribution” placed on the South African communist jews ”

    Now that’s funny. They’ll have long gone to their bolt-holes before that happens.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  32. Gene Su says:
    @Thulean Friend

    Srdja Trifkovic said that what really made apartheid unsustainable was that it was a system where 10% of the population would own 85% of the land, employing the natives as temporary workers. Israel would have never done that

    I think that during the 80’s, what the white South Africans should have done was ceded much more land to the black population, built a wall around their own country, and state that the black bantustans will be their separate nations from now on with the threat of lethal military /police force if any of them demand a portion of white South Africa or even demanded citizenship in white South Africa. The number of black temporary workers should have been cut. That would have been the only way for them to survive without annoying and enraging the black populace.

  33. Sam 12123 says:
    @Thulean Friend

    Of course, whites are loathe demand a separate state. While comprising less than nine percent of the population, they continue to retain nearly ninety percent of the nation’s wealth. That is why South Africa has the highest level of inequality in the world. This was de Klerk’s great accomplishment. The prime minister is black but the whites still retained their wealth. There is no need for apartheid style laws. South Africa remains two separate societies without them.

  34. anarchyst says:
    @Irish Savant

    Not necessarily. The jews are still in South Africa overseeing the gold and diamond mines. They live with extreme security measures and have their needed supplies shipped from Tel Aviv.

  35. Rich says:
    @Blake

    Yes, black supremacy, where your people are raped and murdered daily is much better. It’s definitely not pathetic for the immigrant blacks to “lord” it over the Whites. You, sir, are the pathetic one. It’s a shame your fellow SA Whites were cursed with fellows such as you. You are an example of why democracy, and universal suffrage, are a tragic mistake.

  36. Well, lots of interesting comments on this topic. Many truths but lots of hypocrisy. If we examine some statements we detect more than a whiff of bull. For example 10% own 85% or whatever, greed was a factor. apartheid was despicable and so on. Yet as I consider some of these comments I ask myself if it is different in any other part of the world. I also ask myself if it is any different now that blacks are running the previously colonially run countries. To me it seems these traits have been around for millions of years but the South African white should be immune to basic human nature ?

    I was in South Africa shortly before apartheid was abolished and then for a year in 1999/ 2000. The decay in the country was already noticeable. It is now worse and out of control. It is a fact that the black man, where ever he may be is destructive and is only happy when living in squalor. We dont have to travel to South Africa to observe this trait. We can see it right here in the US. Travelling down a street we can immediately tell when we have transitioned from a non black to a black area !

    All countries run by the black man is in shambles whether in Africa or the West Indies. This is a fact. Countries that were once prosperous lie in physical and financial ruin over run by crime and corruption.

    What I find amusing is that independence from whites was supposed to benefit the black man but once a black brother becomes dictator he puts the boot to his people in a way the white man would never have dreamed of doing. These days we have these dictatorial bastards looting tens of billions of dollars, tooling around in Rolls and living in mansions while their subjects live under a plastic sheet, jobless and hungry. Mobotu Seso Seko and Mugabe come to mind. In South Africa Zuma is the shining example of black on black exploitation. This shit bag lives in kingly style with his dozens of wives who also live royally. I doubt that DeKlerk or any of the other while Presidents of SA enjoyed those kinds of perks. You know how bad it is when the ANC, a party of thieves boots out one of their own for massive and uncontrolled looting. It must be like the 40 thieves expelling Ali Baba.

    Talk about white/ black apartheid and discrimination ? When Bubba from tribe A becomes dictator for life he puts the stick to Tribe B. Witness Mugabe’s reign of terror against the rival tribe in Zimbabwe as an example.

    I can understand the white’s desire for apartheid and I support it. To those who dont I say move from your nice white hood and live among the brothers to show you walk the talk. Shortly after you move into say South Central LA or some other black area you will have a very unpleasant surprise and an awakening (or you may not awake at all).

    In SA these days there is still white/ black separation, black/ black separation (those who got and those who dont got) and tribal separation Zulu/ Xhosa segregation. What has really changed ?? Now instead of blacks rioting against whites they now run wild against their own government. Life is full of twists and turns !!

    The country should l have been partitioned. It was a gross mistake to just hand it over to the ANC and their gang of efficient looters and inefficient administrators.

    If ever you have a chance to visit SA do so. Even given the state of the place now it is a stunningly beautiful country. Do so soon though ! The Chinese are moving in and setting up their own “apartheid” areas. Blacks think whites are racist ? Wait until those Chinks solidify their hold on the country and when this happens and if blacks think they can perform a second anti-apartheid rising against those people from the east then they are going to have the surprise their life.

    • Replies: @Gene Su
  37. nymom says:
    @attilathehen

    The problem with trying to re-establish religion as a central governing force in any country after two generations of people have been shaped with no exposure is that it doesn’t work.

    It is kind of like the analogy of making a fish stew out of a whole fish which works of course; however the opposite cannot happen and you cannot take the stew and recreate a whole fish out of it again…

    Russia’s sudden turn to religion will probably not work and most people will not be converted back to viewing religion as a central factor in their lives.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  38. Gene Su says:
    @The Grim Joker

    Wait until those Chinks solidify their hold on the country and when this happens and if blacks think they can perform a second anti-apartheid rising against those people from the east then they are going to have the surprise their life.

    The “Chinks” will not be stupid enough to import tens of millions of Africans into China or anywhere else in East Asia. They will not be stupid enough to treat the Negro as a despised slave.

    The Arabs, on the other hand, might. However, my big fear is that the black African will not become an unwilling slave of the Muslim Arab but instead his willing servant. I am scared that black South Africans will convert to Islam en masse and whole-heartedly participate in the armies of the Great Jihad.

    • Replies: @The Grim Joker
  39. “All countries run by the black man is in shambles whether in Africa or the West Indies. This is a fact. Countries that were once prosperous lie in physical and financial ruin over run by crime and corruption.”

    Oy.

    It’s called concentrated wealth. In which the whites contained the wealth and the means of access to it for themselves. And in the collapse npf that system and this is not new, when the roles were reversed, the outsiders now in place, if that is the case will take time to reorganize and eventually own the place ——

    The US did not start out the US states. Great Britain, France, Germany, were backwater natives until they met the Romans . . . as were romans until they met the Truscans(?) and the Truscans before Greeks as Greeks were before Egypt . . . . the Empires that stretched across Africa have long since faded as others have passed , the continent of Africa remains once if not the richest mineral and modern natural resource locations on the planet — will great civilizations rise — but it would be ignorance to assume that what you think is written in stone today is either accurate or a reflection of the future.

    The US is forged from more than 1200 years of white blood letting, chaos, mismanagement, and intrigue.

    As for blacks, who once ruled vast empires — who knows, but to assume it’s because they are innately incapable

    utter nuts.

    • Replies: @The Grim Joker
  40. I am not sure have that dynamic correct about civilization development, but the point is clear — no one starts out on top.

    Only God and in my view as nice as it might be for people to be gods or the god, not even whites qualify

    • Replies: @The Grim Joker
  41. @Gene Su

    I am not talking about the Chinese importing blacks into China. But while we are on the subject blacks are NOT welcome in China as visitors, as workers or as businessmen. The Chinese expect to be welcomed everywhere however.

    I am talking about China’s takeover of Africa and its resources. The Chinese already treat the black man as a despised slave. There are 2 types of slavery 1.) You are an outright slave and must do as you are told or you are physically punished and 2.) You are a slave because your survival depends on scraps of employment being thrown your way ie you are economically punished.

    Where #2 is concerned if I pay you $300 a month and charge you $350 for living expenses you belong to me !

    The Chinese are paying blacks next to nothing
    Said blacks see no economical improvement in their life or environment
    If the job site employs 1000 people the majority are Chinese
    The Chinese however enjoy all the comforts that money can buy.
    The Chinese arrived poor and leave rich.
    The Chinese also open their own shops and stores, undercut the local businessman, drive him out of business and then raise their prices. Want to eat ? You must pay Fong or swallow your saliva !
    Blacks arrive at the job site poor and leave poorer
    The Chinese have bought out the country;s politicians

    This formula has been applied in the East as well as South America and the West Indies.

    When things became “unbearable ” under the African colonial governments blacks went wild and threw them out. However the Chinese are a different kettle of fish. As I said once their hold on any country is cemented, blacks will come to realize they have been duped. BUT, if they think that they will again be able to rise up an throw off the yoke of Chinese domination they will be met with ultra violence either from their own bought off politicians or directly from the Chinese themselves.

    As for blacks all converting to Islam, this is as likely to happen as Santa and Rudolph arriving in the Serengetti in the middle of July.

  42. @EliteCommInc.

    You must be smoking sub standard banana leaves.

    What VAST empires did blacks rule ?

    Name a black country that is well run !

    Name a black city in the US that is not in shambles !

    The English/ US etc were backwater natives until they met the Romans etc. However the black man met the Europeans hundreds of years ago AND IS STILL A BACKWATER NATIVE.

    Germany and Japan were devastated by the War, Japan getting 2 atomic bombs dropped on them for good measure. Germany was nothing but rubble. YET, in just 2 decades they were back on their feet. African nations and their black dictators, and lets use South Africa as an example, were handed first class countries and in just 2 decades have destroyed them.

    Now look at Europe. Africans have invaded and are turning the place into a slum just like the slum they left behind in their home countries.

    Blacks cannot manage a roadside vegetable stand much less a country. Debate and argue your case but dont write shit. We want ideas and perspectives on this site and not drivel.

  43. @EliteCommInc.

    Buddy, if you are looking for God in politics your search will be fruitless. And if you are looking for people to be Gods you must be entirely delusional !

    As for top and bottom..the white man starts at the bottom and ends up on top. Blacks start at the top and end up at the bottom.

    Whites build, blacks destroy !

    Dont take my word for it. Travel to Africa, the West Indies or to make things simpler for a simple mind like yours head into the friendly Ghetto in your city.

    You will be better informed then.

  44. As for Mrs Mercer’s article, I am confused. I thought she and her family opposed apartheid.

    Perplexed by the article.

    • Replies: @nymom
  45. “Buddy, if you are looking for God in politics your search will be fruitless. And if you are looking for people to be Gods you must be entirely delusional !”

    Again, I would encourage you to move your agenda aside and read what I actually wrote.

    God in my politics . . . . Oy veh in triplets.

    I won’t stray from my position. Civilization did not start with the Greeks and it did not begin in the west or Asia.

    And civilizations flourish, maintain and dissipate. The African empires long ago waned. I cannot guarantee they will return. But should they make some hard choices and own their lands, including against Chinese manipulations all their wealth to broad spectrum . . . there’s no reason why it won’t be possible.

  46. Stavros says:
    @Priss Factor

    Whilst the Jews certainly bear a huge responsibility for the destruction of South Africa, both Mandela and de Klerk had the same paymaster. George Soros, and there are photographs to prove it

  47. Stavros says:
    @Rich

    Unfortunately, Rich, when de Klerk and his cohorts were selling out to the highest bidder ( G S) South Africa had the most effective military in Africa, so “rising up and fighting” would have been suicidal

  48. Daniel H says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Sure, there were mistakes like allowing mass black immigration to work, but the reality is that its exploding economy didn’t have enough people to fill all the vacancies.

    The economy, the economy, the economy. White people sure are funny, they believe that all other considerations must be subordinated to the economy, right this very instant.

    There weren’t enough workers to meet the demand for jobs? So what, leave the jobs unfilled, the work undone.

    Because of greed white South Africans sold out their nation, their posterity. Hard to have sympathy for such a people.

  49. nymom says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    She probably opposed the rushed process that De Klerk went along with to end the Apartheid system. It should have been a more measured step-by-step process which might have ended with separate countries for all parties or not. We will never know, but the rush to end the system and get patted on the head by the UN has led to the complete mess that exists there today…

  50. @nymom

    Did you read the article I linked? It will take time for religion to reestablish itself in Russia, but it is happening. People need religion and the Russian Orthodox Church works the best for the Russian people. Orthodoxy is doing much better than Roman Catholicism. Diversity has collapsed the RCC in the West.

  51. trint says:
    @Priss Factor

    After this betrayel by South African Jews, who were mostly anti-Afrikaner, and Israel, I began to realise who these people were, and how we young people had been indoctrinated in school, in church and in the army to support Israel. Modern Israel has nothing in common with ancient Judea, and is deeply anti-Christian.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS