Classic EssaysWilliam Pierce

The Wages of Liberalism

Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton greet Nelson Mandela

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THERE WAS A major article on South Africa in last week’s London Sunday Times. The article was written by the Times Johannesburg correspondent Andrew Malone, and it was titled “Blacks Turn Their Anger on Mandela.” The gist of the article was that as the South African infrastructure and economy continue to disintegrate under Black rule, most Blacks in the country, having gotten over their euphoria after having the country handed over to them in 1994, are now looking for somebody to blame for their growing misery.

It’s hard for the Blacks to blame the honkies like they used to, because the honkies no longer run things. And it’s not as if the Whites left the country in a shambles. When they turned the government over to Nelson Mandela and his Black crew three years ago, things were running well, but conditions have gone downhill rapidly since then. Not only has Mandela failed utterly to deliver the material goodies he promised — new houses, new schools, new cars, and an easier life for all Blacks — but Black unemployment has skyrocketed as Black leaders have mismanaged and exploited the economy, and soaring inflation has made life increasingly difficult for those Blacks who still have work.

Just one small reminder of the way in which the infrastructure of South Africa has decayed in three years of Black rule was provided by the mid-air collision of a German and an American aircraft just off the west coast of South Africa two weeks ago, taking the lives of all 33 people on board. The mass media certainly have not had much to say about the cause of this disaster, but knowledgeable airline pilots have put the blame squarely on the incompetence of African air traffic controllers and the corruption of the South African government. Since the advent of Black rule, conditions in the air over South Africa have become chaotic, and pilots consider it to be the most dangerous air space in the world.

On top of all this, the horrendous crime situation in South Africa plagues Blacks as well as Whites. When Mandela took over and Blacks began running the police departments, law enforcement simply ground to a halt. Now Black gangs roam the cities and rob, rape, and murder almost with impunity. Johannesburg, which used to be a clean, safe, orderly city under White rule, now has the highest per capita murder rate of any major city in the world. In the countryside, the witchcraft craze is spreading and taking the lives of more and more Blacks. Blacks accused of witchcraft are being stoned to death or “necklaced” in unprecedented numbers.

It is not surprising that many Blacks are turning their anger on Nelson Mandela now — especially since the corruption and incompetence of his regime are becoming increasingly apparent. He and his Black cronies are living high on the hog, in the traditional manner of Black African potentates, while most ordinary Blacks are living in substantially worse conditions than they did under White rule. News stories about his wife Winnie Mandela’s stabbing to death of a 14-year-old Black critic and Nelson’s ordering the kidnapping of a witness to the murder have not helped his image.

What really is surprising is the growing number of Blacks willing to openly express their disillusionment with Black rule and their nostalgia for the good, old days of White rule. A 35-year-old Negress interviewed for the Sunday Times article was one of many who said she much preferred White rule. “There were not the problems then,” she said. “I have got no money now, and my clothes are in rags. At least the police were effective then, and there was no crime. I believed in Mandela, but now I don’t.”

Not so long ago, such an expression of preference for White rule would have resulted in the “necklacing” of the interviewee: Mandela’s followers would have put a gasoline-soaked tire around her neck, wired her hands behind her back, and burned her to death. Nowadays such sentiments are more likely to be condemned by White liberals in the United States or Britain, who would refer to her contemptuously as an “Uncle Tom.”

As for the shrinking number of Mandela’s followers, they are more likely to blame the declining popularity of their leader on the remaining White minority in South Africa, since there aren’t tires enough in the country to punish all of the Blacks who are now disillusioned with his regime. They look enviously at the Whites, many of whom still live in nice homes, now surrounded by walls topped with razor wire and patrolled by armed guards because of the crime problem, and still manage their businesses, or practice their professions as doctors, engineers, writers, or serve as technical consultants for the Black government. And Mandela’s people complain that the Whites don’t do enough for them, that the Whites spend too much time condemning the government for its corruption and whining about the crime problem, and not enough time praising Mandela and proclaiming their solidarity with his regime. The Whites are too standoffish, the Blacks complain; they keep too much to themselves instead of mixing with the Blacks and demonstrating their belief in equality and brotherhood. And the Whites are too successful, too industrious, too smart, too prosperous, too rich. Increasingly, the resentful Blacks think about killing the goose which lays South Africa’s dwindling supply of golden eggs. The time for that certainly is coming.

Meanwhile, South Africa’s Whites concern themselves primarily with coping with the changed conditions in their country — or what used to be their country, before they voted three years ago to give it away. The most dangerous time for them every day is when they must open their gates and drive out of their guarded enclaves to go to work. Carjacking has become a major industry for Blacks. Sometimes they hide in shrubbery outside a gate, and if a White driver is so careless as to stop his car and get out to close his gate instead of having an armed guard do it for him as he speeds away, they will jump him and take his car. They may kill him. Certainly, if there is a woman in the car, she will be taken away and gang-raped. Raping White women is another major industry for Blacks in the new, “free” South Africa.

When South Africa was under White rule, it was a safe and orderly place, with crime confined almost entirely to the Black townships, and even there it was kept within reasonable bounds by rigorous White policing efforts: efforts which were condemned by liberals in America and Britain as “brutal” and “racist.” Every time the White government hanged a Black murderer, the liberal media unleashed a torrent of abuse on the wickedness of apartheid. Now, with apartheid gone, the murder rate in South Africa has risen until it is nearly 100 times the murder rate in Britain. But, of course, the liberal media have very little to say about that. The sort of article I mentioned in the Sunday Times is quite rare, and even in such articles the writers feel obliged to refer to “the horrors of apartheid” in the old days, while lamenting that things haven’t worked out in South Africa the way the liberals had planned.

The Whites who can, cope with things by building higher walls around their houses and hiring more armed guards; many who are able, cope by emigrating. And every time a White professional or manager leaves South Africa for good, the Black unemployment rate rises and Black desperation grows.

Lest there be some misunderstanding, let me assure you that I am not bothered a bit by Black desperation. I am not bothered by Blacks “necklacing” each other, suspecting each other of witchcraft, or whatever. I think that Blacks ought to be left to do their own thing, as in Rwanda, Uganda, Congo, or Liberia, and Whites ought not to get involved in feeding them, doctoring them, sending them relief supplies, or policing them.

I am not even bothered very much by White desperation in South Africa, because the Whites there voted themselves into their present predicament. Pathetically eager to be fashionable, disgustingly eager to prove to the world that they weren’t the racists the liberals were accusing them of being, a majority of them voted to turn their country over to Black rule in 1994. So sometimes I am inclined to say, damn them! Let them reap the reward for their weakness and their folly.

But then I must remind myself that my fellow Whites in America and in Britain have not demonstrated more strength or wisdom than the Whites of South Africa. Wherever there is democracy, and wherever the mass media are in the hands of the enemies of our people, we can expect the same sort of suicidal folly on the part of the majority, the same sort of mindless, self-destructive rush to be fashionable. Really, it is the minority of Whites able to think for themselves but, in a democracy, subject to the foolishness of the majority, with whom I sympathize. I sympathize with the minority of South African Whites who voted against giving their country away in 1994, and who now must suffer the consequences of the majority’s folly. I wish that every White South African who is killed during a carjacking and every White South African woman who is gang-raped by Blacks when her car breaks down on a country road could be one of the fashionable twits who voted in 1994 to end apartheid, but I know that that cannot always be so. I know that many of them must be the self-respecting, race-conscious Whites with whom I sympathize, and my heart aches for them.

And, my god, even the twits! Most of them are guilty of no more than the same foolishness and weakness which afflict most of our people everywhere. With good leadership — with strong, responsible, loyal White leadership — they can build civilizations and conquer the universe; the best in them can shine. But when they are led by traitors or criminals and misdirected by liberal propaganda, the worst in them shows itself. It is to the liberals we must direct our attention if we want to understand why our fortunes as a race have declined so steeply in this century.

Do you remember the way the liberals were carrying on in America about South Africa before 1994? For two decades, ever since they finished cheering the Viet Cong to victory in Vietnam, the destruction of White South Africa was at the top of their agenda. Do you remember the hatred the liberals directed at South African Whites? It was unremitting. Anyone who spoke up for South Africa was blasted with the same hatred, anyone who did business with South Africa was cursed and vilified, anyone who opposed disinvestment in South Africa or who was not in favor of a boycott against South Africa was hated. Hating White South Africans was absolutely the trendiest thing on university campuses and in fashionable circles everywhere. Organizing demonstrations and picketing and leafleting against South Africa kept the liberal rank and file busy, while the liberal spokesmen poured out their hatred of South Africa in editorial after editorial.

All of this liberal hatred might have been of no account, except the liberals had the mass media at their disposal, so the politicians danced to their tune. An economic boycott of South Africa was enforced by the U.S. government, and diplomatic pressure was used to persuade many other countries to participate in the boycott. Athletic and cultural boycotts also were organized by associations responding to liberal pressure. It became illegal to buy any South African product or to sell or give anything to South Africans which might be useful to them. The only South African sports figures who were permitted to compete internationally were Blacks, and the only South African writers, playwrights, or film-makers who were given an audience outside of South Africa were Jews, such as Nadine Gordimer, with her anti-White novels, or White turncoats who followed the Jewish party line.

Eventually the White South African majority caved in under the weight of the hatred and voted to give away everything that their ancestors had worked, fought, and died to build for them: the only truly progressive country on the African continent. The liberals, having achieved their goal, have moved on to other causes. South Africa, once their obsession, no longer interests them. And, of course, they accept no responsibility for what they did. Liberals never accept responsibility for the disastrous consequences of their policies, their enthusiasms, their causes. They just move on to another cause.

I blame the destruction of South Africa on liberals, but what is a liberal, other than a person who just happens to wind up on the wrong side of every important issue? I think we ought to recognize the fact that there were at least two distinct types of liberals involved in the hate campaign against South Africa. First, there are the liberals who are really cause driven, liberals whose hatred for White South Africans was based on some deep-rooted personality disorder, some feeling of guilt, self-hatred, or infantile resentment against their betters which fuels their manic egalitarianism. But these cause-driven individuals, these manic liberals, are a minority, even among the liberal spokesmen and editorialists.

Most people associated with liberal causes are not psychologically abnormal. They are simply bigots. They hate whomever it is fashionable to hate at the moment. They have a strong streak of authoritarianism in them. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are supporters of the government. Liberals were very critical of the government during the Vietnam war, for example. Liberal authoritarianism manifests itself as a greater than average tendency to go with the flow, as a greater than average trendiness, a greater than average tendency to condemn or to hate any non-conformist.

Most of the university students who were picketing companies which did business in South Africa, most of the pension-fund trustees who made a public show of refusing to buy stock in such companies, were liberals of this sort. They are feel-good liberals. They like being part of a mob. Most of the people who wrote rabid editorials denouncing apartheid — the South African system of racial apartness, of racial separateness — as the most evil system ever conceived and who gave direction with their own hate to the rank-and-file haters on the picket lines were also feel-good liberals.

And that’s also true of most of the people who still write such editorials today. I have in front of me an editorial by John Simpson, who is the foreign affairs editor for the BBC, and Mr. Simpson writes: “The election of 1994 which brought Nelson Mandela to power in South Africa was such a triumph of the human spirit, such a success for the kind of virtues which rarely appear in political life, that even now no one really wants to describe what is going on there. We all hope it will get better of its own accord. But, instead of being a fairy tale, South Africa is one of the most violent countries in the world. Its government is riddled with inefficiency and corruption . . . .”

We must shake our heads in disbelief when we hear a man like John Simpson, an educated, well informed man in a very responsible position, a man who is neither a Jew nor a Black, describe the campaign of hatred against South Africa which resulted in a convicted Black terrorist being installed as president and the country being brought to ruin as “a triumph of the human spirit.” Mr. Simpson, like all liberals, simply refuses to accept responsibility for the damage he and his kind have caused. He refuses to consider the possibility that the cause of forcing White South Africans to turn their country over to Blacks was a perverse cause. He refuses to consider the possibility that the egalitarian idea which underlies all liberalism is an incorrect idea. He thinks himself quite bold in recognizing the obvious fact that things have worked out rather badly in South Africa. That’s certainly more than most liberals will admit.

I don’t know Mr. Simpson personally, but I’m inclined to believe that he is not one of those liberals who has deep-rooted feelings of guilt or inferiority because his potty training went wrong. I suspect he’s one of the trendy, authoritarian ones who is simply incapable of entertaining an unorthodox idea. He believes that since his cause was just when he was preaching hatred against White South Africans and apartheid, he cannot be held accountable for what is going on in South Africa today. Something went wrong, but it’s certainly not his fault, he believes. It couldn’t be. He has always promoted the trendiest causes, the causes that all of the important people were promoting. So it can’t be his fault.

Well, Mr. Simpson, we unfashionable people are getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you have done. We’re fed up. And the day is coming when you and your kind will be held accountable for what you have done. We’ll hold you accountable for every White woman raped in South Africa, for every White man killed in South Africa during a carjacking. We’ll hold you accountable regardless of what kind of potty training you had.

* * *

Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast, September 1997

Previous post

The Biological Reality of Race

Next post

To Honor Darwin

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments