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
America’s Radical, Foreign-Policy Alinskyites Destroyed South Africa!
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

Certain national-conservative governments in East Europe should be natural allies to conservative policy makers, stateside, if such unicorns existed.

Vladimir Putin’s, for example.

Before his death, from the safety of exile, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, one of Russia’s bravest and most brilliant sons, praised Putin’s efforts to revive Russia’s traditional Christian and moral heritage. For example:

In October 2010, it was announced that The Gulag Archipelago would become required reading for all Russian high-school students. In a meeting with Solzhenitsyn’s widow, Mr. Putin described The Gulag Archipelago as ‘essential reading’: ‘Without the knowledge of that book, we would lack a full understanding of our country and it would be difficult for us to think about the future.’ …

If [only] the same could be said of the high schools of the United States. (Via The Imaginative Conservative.)

The Russian president patiently tolerates America’s demented, anti-Russia monomania. And, as America sinks into the quicksands of Cultural Marxism, Putin’s inclinations are decidedly reactionary and traditionalist.

He prohibited sexual evangelizing by LGBTQ activists. He comes down squarely on the side of the Russian Orthodox church, such as when vandals, the Pussy Riot whores, obscenely desecrated the cathedral of Christ the Savior. The Russian leader has also welcomed as refugees persecuted white South Africans, where America’s successive governments won’t even officially acknowledge that they’re under threat of extermination. Also, policies to stimulate Russian birthrates have been put in place by the conservative leader.

Hungary is oh-so happy in its homogeneity and wants to keep it. But not if Washington can help it. Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s motto is, “Procreation, not immigration.” Orban plumps for closed borders, and pro-Western, Christian, Hungarian-families-first policies. Yet his ongoing campaign against George Soros, an agitator for global government, was met by Donald Trump’s State Department with a stern rebuke to … Hungary claiming that its anti-Soros law will cost the country dearly.

Americans on the Right could only dream that, like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic—the US would “shut its border to Islamic migrants to keep potential terrorists out.”

America: A Notion, Not A Nation

Perplexing as it may seem, American foreign policy has been informed less by what Samuel P. Huntington termed civilizational consciousness, than by the idea of the propositional nation. America, to her governing neoconservative and left-liberal elites, is not a nation but a notion, a community of disparate peoples coalescing around an abstract, highly manipulable, state-sanctioned ideology. Democracy, for one.

Yet to Russell Kirk, the father of American conservatism, and an old-school conservative—as well as, arguably, to the founders of the nation themselves—society was a community of souls, joining the dead, the living, and those yet unborn. It cohered through what Aristotle called friendship and what Christians call love of neighbor, facilitated by a shared language, literature, history, habits and heroes.

These factors, taken together, constitute the glue that binds the nation.

By contrast, the rather flimsy whimsy that is the American “creedal nation” is, ostensibly, united in “a common commitment to a set of ideas and ideals.” If anything, when expressed by the historical majority, the natural affinity for one’s tribe—a connection to kith, kin and culture—is deemed inauthentic, xenophobic, and racist, unless asserted by non-Occidentals.

The Foreign Policy Of A ‘Creedal Nation’

The disregard a country’s policy makers evince for the fellow-feelings stirred among countrymen by a common faith and customs—secular and sacred—is invariably reflected in its foreign policy.

America’s foreign policy looks at populations as interchangeable as long as they are “socialized in the same way,” and “molded by a suitable public administration and a steady diet of human-rights talk.” The generic American government’s foreign policy reflects America’s denationalized elites, who are committed to “transnational and sub-national identities” both at home and abroad.

According to her ruling sophisticates, America’s mission is to “democratize mankind.” To fulfill this mission, and to do justice to American exceptionalism, Americans are “indoctrinated in a fabricated creed that teaches they are being untrue to themselves and faithless to their fathers unless they go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Or, welcome The World into their midst. We aren’t Americans, we are the world, we are lectured.

One such “monster” targeted for rapid reform was South Africa.

South Africa Betrayed

Cold War confrontation prompted the United States to acknowledge South Africa as a surrogate for American interests on the Dark Continent. In defense of these interests in the region and against the communization of their neighborhood, South African soldiers fought Russia’s Cuban and Angolan proxies with the same fortitude that the country’s founders displayed when battling the Zulus in the Battle of Blood River.

Yes, South Africa had faithfully fulfilled its role as a Cold Warrior. It fought alongside other advanced Western nations, led by the United States, and “engaged in a pervasive ideological, political, economic, and, at times, military conflict with [other groups] of somewhat poorer, communist societies led by the Soviet Union.”

A surplus of courage, however, was no panacea for a deficit in democracy.

Thus, although South Africa was regarded as “an important Western geostrategic bulwark” against Soviet encroachment in the region, the American reservoir of good will toward South Africa was quick to run dry. It’s not that the US did not have democratically flawed allies; it did and does. But such imperfections are usually the prerogative of non-Western nations. China, for instance.

For South Africa this meant fighting communism’s agents while being handicapped by sanctions. “The United States had imposed an arms embargo on Pretoria in 1964 and had joined the international consensus in refusing to recognize the ‘independence’ of four of South Africa’s black homelands between 1976 and 1984.”

ORDER IT NOW

While during the 1970s and the 1980s all American administrations condemned apartheid, they had generally opposed broad economic sanctions, arguing reasonably that these would hurt the very population they were intended to help. With the Carter administration (1977-81) came an even “tougher line toward Pretoria.” Jimmy Carter viewed black African nationalism as perfectly “compatible with US interests.”

In fairness, the left turn in American foreign policy came well before Carter.

America’s support for Soviet satellites such as the African National Congress was likely a hangover from Yalta; a long-standing official policy of support for the Soviet alliance, and the subsequent ceding of most of Central and Eastern Europe to Stalin?

The shift in American foreign policy ironically saw the US adopt and deploy slogans popularized by the Soviet Union in support of African liberation and against the “imperial, colonial” West.

There was a “pullback of military forces around the communist periphery” and the “frequent support of the Third World in disputes with Western nations” around the world. Thus, left-wing revolutionaries were propped up, instead of a Western ally like Salazar in Portugal; Mugabe was favored over Ian Smith, as was Nasser above Britain and France; Batista was ousted to make way for Castro.

Republicans Too Radical For Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan at least favored “constructive engagement” with South Africa, together with a tough resistance to communist advances in the Third World. But political pressure, not least from the Republican majority, mounted for an increasingly punitive stance toward Pretoria. This entailed an “elaborate sanctions structure,” disinvestment, and a prohibition on sharing intelligence with the South Africans.

In 1986, the Soviet Union, which had until the 1980s supported a revolutionary takeover of white-ruled South Africa by its ANC protégés, suddenly changed its tune and denounced the idea. Once again, the US and the USSR were on the same side—that of “a negotiated settlement between Pretoria and its opponents.”

For advocating “constructive engagement,” members of his Republican party issued a coruscating attack on Reagan. Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., in particular, stated: “For this moment, at least, the president has become an irrelevancy to the ideals, heartfelt and spoken, of America.”

Republicans had slipped between the sheets with the fashionable left. What’s new?

For sustainable change to take place, change must be gradual and “rooted in the institutions of society.” In tracing the contours of such Burkean thinking, Kirk referred to “that aspect … which is prepared to tolerate an old evil lest the cure prove worse than the disease.”

To Kirk’s contention that “true freedom can be found only within the framework of a social order,” I’d wager that in my former homeland, South Africa, this bulwark against barbarism has collapsed. In my new homeland, America, the framework that sustains the country’s ordered liberty is so rapidly being eroded, so as to be near collapse.

Decades back, no less a classical liberal thinker than Ludwig von Mises warned that liberty in the United States could not—and would not—endure unless the founding nation retained its historic national identity and cultural hegemony.

An ahistoric, rootless America, shot through with dangerous and systemic, anti-white animus, is an America in which liberty has been lost.

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

 
Hide 19 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I lived through that period and I recall quite well where the ANC agitprop was coming from, and that place was Britain. Their entire music industry–the spear’s tip of their soft power–mobilized to destroy Botha and the Boers. Sting, Peter Gabriel, George Michael, you name it. 70,000 at Wembley had a great time in 1988 singing songs for the ANC. I’d wager this kind of nonsense shifted public attitudes much more than anything stupid old Lowell Weicker said.

    • Replies: @Jake
  2. Liberty,the sweet land of, of thee I sing…
    Our first commander in chief,General George Washington said
    “those who expect to reap the blessings of the tree of
    liberty must,like men,under go the fatigue of supporting it.”

    It has been made too heavy,imo, intentionally. The socializers
    of this world have systematically removed those able to
    “carry the weight” through wars,political subversion and
    JEW-DEO laws based on, their supremacy.

    The drone armies are already here. Another “dark age” is
    on the horizon, and this time, under the guise of a worldwide
    “planned epidemic” the agenda is finally exposed.
    Labor against capital… or all will be lost.

  3. AKAHorace says:

    In 1986, the Soviet Union, which had until the 1980s supported a revolutionary takeover of white-ruled South Africa by its ANC protégés, suddenly changed its tune and denounced the idea. Once again, the US and the USSR were on the same side—that of “a negotiated settlement between Pretoria and its opponents.”

    Mercer, could you tell us, why did the Soviets change their policy ?

    • Replies: @Wim Kotze
  4. Kerry says:

    “Americans on the Right could only dream that, like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic—the US would “shut its border to Islamic migrants to keep potential terrorists out.”

    Oh man … so true. In this rotten country you can’t even express that desire without being shit on by the anti-White Left and the color-blind loser Right.

  5. Anon[187] • Disclaimer says:

    I fought through that war and lived through the “change” in 1994, I feel that the author tends to underplay the role of international Jewry in her article, never the less I do feel some schadenfreude when I see images of BLM burning city centres, French school teachers being beheaded and English people being run over by cars and buses. Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind.

  6. South African Airways flew the long-range Boeing 747 to and from NYC until the anti-apartheid pressure got it cancelled in the late 1980’s.

    White rule meant it was a near-First World country. Under black rule it’s regressing.

    Note: Israel did not respect the American arms embargo on S. Africa. It’s weapons and equipment were sold to the SADF in the 1980’s, yet Israel suffered no grief from the U.S. anti-apartheid lobby.

    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
  7. Realist says:

    America’s Radical, Foreign-Policy Alinskyites Destroyed South Africa!

    Didn’t your אַבָּא have something to do with that?

    • Replies: @mark green
  8. Americans on the Right could only dream that, like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic—the US would “shut its border to Islamic migrants to keep potential terrorists out.”

    Why only Islamic migrants? Europe is dealing with Islamic peoples, many of whom have been active jihadists at some point. But other immigrant groups (non-Islamic Africans or Caribbean blacks in Britain) are not doing that much but provide mules for the lesser skilled work force. Most third and second world peoples largely do not care to absorb an economically conservative/civil libertarian ethos. They come from societies where it was either socialist (hard or soft) or run by some totalitarian tin pot dictator. White run Europe is primarily one big nanny state. Although many are glad to escape the worst aspects of totalitarianism, on some level they believe that the nanny state is the right way to go. One could say that when there was truly some upward mobility in the US for the average person, there was a fair chance that the immigrant, or at least his children would absorb this ethos. But now Americans are getting poorer and more and more unskilled/uneducated people are streaming across our border. There is no chance that these immigrants will ever absorb anything but resentment, and neither will their children. The only ones advancing are the elites. At present, the propaganda is against the White Man. OK, take away the white man, will that in itself create a Utopia? No, you will have all these non-white groups fighting each other. Society is sinking deeper into the fetid swamp -and we’re all going to drown, no matter what race/religion we are.

  9. Apartheid was just as evil in South Africa as it is today in Israel. Basing a society on master and subject races is always wrong. If you disagree, think of Jewish masters and Black foremen in the USA and everybody else reduced to subjects.

    How strongly do you support that ideal? They’d make up nearly 15% of the entire population and have the support of the Church of Woke. How would that be worse than Apartheid Israel or South Africa? That government in the USA would probably be more popular. [email protected]

  10. South Africa’s Bantustan policy was moral and correct. The USA should have supported it.

  11. @beavertales

    Should’ve sold the Afrikaaners some of their nukes. Death to the ANC!

    • Replies: @Anon
  12. Jiminy says:

    There’s apartheid in South Africa today, it’s just reversed. Blacks lording over the whites that remain. They are just more open about it. Ex – president Zuma left and took 12 billion dollars belonging to the Libyans with him. So in reality these guys aren’t up on a pedestal showing us how virtuous the black race is.
    I know that here the government won’t recognise the boer descendants as being a threatened group, offering them special treatment. I’m certain if they were black it would be a different case altogether. And of course putting truth to the saying,” one mans terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, “we have Mandela who being jailed for links to the mau maus, was on the U.S. terrorist watch list until 2008. Then welcomed with open arms.
    With fair weather friends like the western governments, its great to see that Russia is finally offering sanctuary to the Afrikaners before they disappear for good. It’s funny how the dreaded white colonialists are gone seemingly to be replaced by the Asian horde.

  13. Jake says:
    @Bragadocious

    Now now, we must never upset the darling Anglophiles. They are certain that ever more WASPdom forced on everyone is much better thank hunky-dory. So do not mention that it began long before 1988 and among Brit WASP policy makers, not pop stars.

    The UK arranged for South Africa to be murdered eventually by booting it from the Commonwealth. The UK was acting exactly as would the Yank WASPs over their delightful Numinous Negroes and the Marxists who use blacks to wage incessant war against Western civilization.

  14. South Africa was destroyed by a murderous anti-White movement spearheaded by Jews.

    prominent among them the Issacsohn-Mercer family,

    and Ilana herself.

  15. Wim Kotze says:
    @AKAHorace

    In a nutshell… A senior KGB representative in Maputo said: “We come to Africa to built socialism, but these people don’t want to work.” The same man was the first Soviet diplomat to have an audience with the South African Foreign Minister in Pretoria. The Soviet Union did not have the resources to keep on filling the begging bowl of their purported allies.

    • Thanks: AKAHorace
  16. @Realist

    Didn’t your אַבָּא have something to do with that?

    Yes. So true. ((Alinskyites)). Ms. Mercer–despite her on target analysis–simply can’t bring herself to this confront the fundamental source of this problem.

    • Thanks: Realist
  17. Anon[377] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    F A we actually sold weapons grade nuclear material to Israel in exchange for their MERV guidance systems. Prior to the handover to the communist ANC all nuclear weapons and there plans were destroyed by the bought and paid for politicians (S o r o s money). South Africa remains the only country which willingly gave up its nuclear capability, and when I look at the current bunch of simians in government here I’m glad we did. Talk about putting a primed hand grenade in the hands of a monkey!

  18. geokat62 says:

    LOL, Ilana still struggling mightily to put lipstick on this Jewish Supremacist pig.

    Hungary is oh-so happy in its homogeneity and wants to keep it. But not if Washington can help it. Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s motto is, “Procreation, not immigration.” Orban plumps for closed borders, and pro-Western, Christian, Hungarian-families-first policies. Yet his ongoing campaign against George Soros, an agitator for global government…

    And the Soros’ motto is:

    “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew…” – Alex Soros

    https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/george-soros-son-reveals-the-true-agenda-behind-flooding-the-west-with-3rd-world-immigrants/

    A surplus of courage, however, was no panacea for a deficit in democracy.

    A deficit in Israeli democracy doesn’t seem to be an issue for the Jewish state, does it?

    In fairness, the left turn in American foreign policy came well before Carter.

    Kudos for your modicum of objectivity.

    I’d wager that in my former homeland, South Africa, this bulwark against barbarism has collapsed. In my new homeland, America…

    Homeland? Why not be more truthful and like Jonathan Pollard just admit you only have one homeland? The rest are simply hostels.

    Finally, on the topic of who was truly responsible for dismantling the Jewel of the Cape, I’ll simply reference this Forward article. Introductory paragraph to, South African Jews Struggle With Legacy of Apartheid:

    Since the fall of apartheid, South African Jewry has struggled mightily with two specters from its past. Its central body, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, worked happily with the apartheid regime, even as that regime violated the civil liberties and human rights of many Jews who were key figures in the anti-apartheid struggle. And Israel’s secret and wide-ranging arms and security ties with apartheid-era South Africa, in violation of a United Nations Security Council ban, enjoyed that same board’s full backing until the day apartheid died.

    https://forward.com/news/143231/south-african-jews-struggle-with-legacy-of-aparthe/

    Key Jewish figures in the anti-apartheid struggle? Hmmm, I wonder whom that might include? Any ideas, Ilana?

    Truth is, like Tsarist Russia, South Africa was slated for Tikkun olam. Now, it’s the West’s turn to be Tikkun olamed. It’s all been prophesied:

    1. destroy amalek
    2. build the third temple
    3. welcome the Mosiach

    • Agree: mark green
  19. Ilana delivers again.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS