Apartheid South Africa: Reality vs. Libertarian Fantasy

Ilana Mercer, WND, December 19, 2013

One needn’t propagate lies about the state-enforced segregation that was Apartheid in order to condemn it.

Yet in defiance of fact, one prominent libertarian economist has gone so far as to assert that apartheid was “a version of Castroite socialism.”

How can one credibly say that about a country that in its heyday had a gold-backed currency, enjoyed the confidence of investors the world over, sported low to no government debt and similar rates of inflation, the most opulent and spectacular shopping malls, the freest, finest medicine I’ve experience in life on three continents, near-unfettered legal access to handguns (for whites) and relatively secure property rights for the same minority? You can’t. Not if you wish to retain intellectual credibility.

Racial segregation, inequality under the law, injustice: yes, yes, and yes. But “Castroite socialism”?

Not quite as embarrassing, another wag asserted the following: “Apartheid was a system of government control and regulation to artificially keep South African blacks from competing against whites in the marketplace.”

This is only partly true. The problem with half-truths is that the conclusions that flow from their premises will likewise be deficient.

{snip}

Distorting the facts about Apartheid’s raison d’être does nothing to promote the truth.

“Hermann Giliomee–whose grand historical synthesis and primary source exegesis (“The Afrikaners: Biography of a People”) is referenced extensively in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa”–has concluded that Afrikaner anxieties were overwhelmingly existential, rather than racial. Leading thinkers at Stellenbosch University devised a system for the National Party to ensure “the security of the Afrikaners as a dominant minority.” (More about Apartheid as “A Strategy for Survival,” in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” pp. 67-70.)

As noted in the same book:

Anybody who lived . . . among Afrikaners during the apartheid era can testify that crime and communism were foremost on their minds. To rationalize the cruel, Kafkaesque laws of Apartheid, Afrikaners spoke of the Swart Gevaar (which meant the “Black Threat”), and of the Rooi Gevaar (the “Red Threat”). My Afrikaner neighbor would regularly admonish me for my incipient liberalism: “You want black rule so badly, look around you at the rest of Africa! Anglos like you simply don’t understand what’s at stake.” (P. 70)

The sweeping non sequitur that follows from the partial truth aforementioned has it that “black poverty” and misery stemmed solely from Apartheid’s “suppression of free market forces.” This is economic reductionism, typical of the impoverished analysis of South Africa, offered so authoritatively by libertarian economists stateside.

Apartheid is a necessary explanatory variable in the “black poverty” equation, but never a sufficient one.

As expounded in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” “the maze of racial laws that formed the edifice of Apartheid” had been dismantled by the offending National Party almost a decade before the transition to democracy; by 1986, the party had already brought down Apartheid’s pillars, the “pernicious influx control laws,” for example.

In all, South Africa has now been racially desegregated for almost 28 years.

Documented in the same book are these immutable facts: “Twelve years into the Nationalist government’s rule, the rate of literacy among the Bantu of South Africa was already higher than that of any other state in Africa, or that of India. From the 8.6 million recorded in the 1946 census, the black population rose to 17.4 million in 1974 and 28.3 million by 1991. [In-migration from the north was just about non-existent.] From the 1940s to the 1990s, life expectancy for blacks soared from thirty-eight to sixty-one years!” (P. 178.)

“Since the dawn of democracy in 1994, life expectancy has plummeted by nine years. Crime has reached crippling levels . . . and is certainly much higher than in the Old South Africa. . . . unemployment had jumped from 19 percent in 1994 (before ‘freedom’) to 31 percent in 2003 (after ‘freedom’), steadily rising until, in 2005, it stood at 38.8 percent. The trend is consistent and persistent.” (P. 178)

These stubborn facts collapse the politically pleasing but reductive theory, promulgated by libertarian know-nothings, that holds Apartheid to be the sole cause of black South Africa’s dysfunction, economic and other.

As the pesky facts attest, black dysfunction in racially desegregated South Africa is way worse than it was during state-enforced segregation. In fact, it now resembles that of the rest of Africa.

{snip}

Herein lies the difference between the paleolibertarian analysis and what this column has termed the lite libertarian one, philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe being the finest example of the former. The rest fall into the latter, lite category.

A crucial difference between lite libertarians and the right kind is that to the former, the idea of liberty is propositional–a deracinated principle, unmoored from the realities of history, hierarchy, biology, tradition, culture, values.

Conversely, the paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the libertarian non-aggression axiom, by which we all must live, cannot endure. “The pursuit of the . . . paleolibertarian ideal,” explained Catholic philosopher Jack Kerwick, Ph.D., “is the pursuit of an ideal of liberty brought down from the clouds to the nit and the grit of the history and culture from which it emerged.”

[Snip}

Contra the economic reductionism of the lite libertarian, free-market capitalism is a necessary but insufficient condition to sustain freedom in a country of South Africa’s complexion.

The truth absent from the phantasmagorical formulations critiqued is this: Economic freedom does not necessarily reduce so-called wealth inequality. Inegalitarainism is a feature of a free economy. If history is anything to go by, certain minorities will achieve prosperity from poverty, no matter how gravely the state and society impede them. Jews did it in Europe. Levantines and Indians in Africa and the Middle East. Chinese in southeast Asia and everywhere else they go. Europeans in South Africa.

Moreover, “While all people want safety and sustenance for themselves, not everyone is prepared to allow those whom they dislike and envy to peacefully pursue the same.” (P. 4) Free-market capitalism is not enough to safeguard ordered liberty in racially riven societies like South Africa, where the majority will always covet the possessions of immensely wealthier minorities and associate these riches with racial privilege.

Ultimately, the rights to life, liberty and private property will forever be imperiled in a country whose constitution has a clause devoted to “Limitation of Rights,” and where redistributive “justice” is a constitutional article of faith. (P. 101)

This, paleolibertarians (all three of us) know too well.

In “The Cannibal” chapter entitled “Saving South Africans S.O.S.,” secession is explored as one solution, it being a species of the private-law society delineated by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Hoppe, of course, has never been afraid to speak to the “unequal civilizing potential” (in James Burnham’s coinage) of different people and peoples.

{snip}

For the sins of man, hard leftists blame society, and the lite libertarian saddles the state.

In its social determinism, the lite libertarian’s “the-state-made-me-do-it” argumentation apes that of the left’s “society-made-me-do-it” argumentation. Both philosophical factions implicate forces outside the individual for individual and aggregate group dysfunction.

In the New South Africa, the left’s “argument” has been taken to a new level of abstraction: “The legacy of Apartheid” is said to explain the unparalleled depravity of Nelson Mandela’s dominant-party mobocracy.

While the state is a worthier culprit than society, both are analytical equals in as much as they absolve the individual of responsibility for his actions. For the philosophy of freedom is predicated on individual responsibility.

{snip}

The unvarnished truth about democratic South Africa is that it is “now preponderantly overrun by elements, both within and without government, which make a safe and thriving civil society impossible to sustain.” (P. 4)

Although absolutely essential, free-market capitalism is insufficient to the task of tackling this tide of sinecured criminals.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • I had to double check the author of this piece. For a moment, I thought Jack Ryan of OD wrote this.

    Apartheid was a system of government control and regulation to
    artificially keep South African blacks from competing against whites in
    the marketplace

    I would laugh, but I can’t, because I know what this really means — That blacks are cheap docile easily cowered labor and workers, and certain business interests weren’t happy that the apartheid system kept them from exploiting it.

    For the sins of man, hard leftists blame society, and the lite libertarian saddles the state. In its social determinism, the lite libertarian’s “the-state-made-me-do-it” argumentation apes that of the left’s “society-made-me-do-it” argumentation. Both philosophical factions implicate forces outside the individual for individual and aggregate group dysfunction.

    I’m glad to see Mercer citing the flaws of the mentalities of both lite libertarians (aka paleolibertarians aka first wave libertarians) and the hard left, being mindful of the fact that the hard left mentality on certain things is shared by second wave libertarians. However, I wish she would have taken it one step further and stated that the real cause for failed states like “new” South Africa has nothing to do with any doctrinal or ideological matters, it’s purely a matter of racial and biological determinism, what happens when white people give up slash succumb to the machinations of internal elitist traitors and hand their country over to demonstrably less capable less intelligent more primitive racial aliens. No “flaws” of any ideology ruined Detroit and Haiti, either.

    • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

      You did not read carefully, QD. Mercer is no egalitarian:

      “[Hans Herman] Hoppe, of course, has never been afraid to speak to the ‘unequal civilizing potential’ (in James Burnham’s coinage) of different people and peoples.”

      * * *

      “The unvarnished truth about democratic South Africa is that it is ‘now preponderantly overrun by elements, both within and without government, which make a safe and thriving civil society impossible to sustain.’ (P. 4)

      • Let me backpeddle a little.

        Is she a fanatical egalitarian now? No.

        But her insinuation that apartheid was wrong and such an injustice indicates to me that she’s not quite to our level of understanding.

        If she was, I don’t think she would have bothered writing something this long and relatively convoluted about the failure of New ZA. All it would take her if she was really one of us to explain New ZA is two words: Black people.

        • CoweringCoward

          And yet, in the end you fall short too, in that you required the use of an oxymoron.

        • BonusGift

          You seem not to know her history. She is, in her words: “a wandering Jew, an ex-Israeli, an ex-South African, and soon to become an ex-Canadian”. Her father was instrumental in riding the country of Apartheid. She now has seen the light, or rather a part of the light she allows herself to see. In short, if she was a true realist and simply stated the axiom that any black run society will become a hellhole she would have, either directly or implicitly, have to call into question all her beliefs and her father’s as well. That’s probably not going to happen. The tribe always has quasi-converts after the damage has been done. This happened in Marxist Russia when the murder machine that they largely created turned also on the tribe itself, and it happened in South Africa after Apartheid was being dismantled. See a pattern? She cannot say the obvious because it would largely nullify her own history and those she really supports (i.e., her family and her tribe).

          • Even if I didn’t know her history, which I did, that wouldn’t make my critique of her article any less accurate. You said it yourself: She’s halfway awake but still halfway asleep, either because of circumstance or because of some Machiavellian maneuver. So this kind of half right half wrong prose is precisely what one would expect from such a person.

          • Dave4088

            Exactly, you stole my thunder. Her father indeed was an anti-apartheid activist. An understanding of her ethnicity is necessary to contextualize some of her comments.

          • BonusGift

            I didn’t know others here knew; and, yes, without that kind of context the whole world must seem a strange and confusing place.

          • Anna Tree

            You could say the same about intellectuals, liberals and Christians. Many of them were also instrumental against apartheid or against other white countries. If their kids now realize the errors of their parents, that’s good. I would say many white racialists are the children of intellectuals, liberals and other pathological altruists, included Jews. Should they be blamed for the sins of their fathers?

            I didn’t know her history but I am thankful for her article. People, included Jews, are awaking to the truth, to racialism. I see a difference between her (being a Jew/being the daughter of a anti-apartheid activist) and that 80 years old judge who apologized for decades of anti-white stance.

        • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

          “All it would take her if she was really one of us to explain New ZA is two words: Black people.”
          ===
          She’s trying to reach beyond the insular choir, QD. Having readers appeals to her.

    • Anna Tree

      Great post Question Diversity but I (and others it seems) didn’t read Ilana Mercer like you did in her “yes, yes and yes”. I also think there was racial segregation and inequality like both of you, but like her and unlike you, I also think that there was injustice: BUT the fact that there was injustice (like the fact there was segregation and inequality) is not a criticism or a complaint, just a fact. I think she thinks that injustice like segregation and inequality, was needed:

      Later she writes: “Leading thinkers at Stellenbosch University devised a system for the
      National Party to ensure “the security of the Afrikaners as a dominant
      minority.”” or when she quotes p. 70 of “Into the cannibal’s pot” that to not agree to Apartheid (therefore also some injustice), is to not understand what is at stake. Or when she writes “As the pesky facts attest, black dysfunction in racially desegregated
      South Africa is way worse than it was during state-enforced segregation.
      In fact, it now resembles that of the rest of Africa.”, that is the so called not injustice of South Africa today is worse than the injustice of the apartheid. When she writes that “Inegalitarainism is a feature of a free economy.” and about “‘unequal civilizing potential’ of different people and peoples.”

  • Spartacus

    I don’t trust Ilana Mercer, and neither should any of you. She and her tribe fought desperately to bring down Apartheid, then they left the country the second they were victorios….

  • Ograf

    I can think back at how many idiots were protesting and trying to force the removal of apartheid. Now that it has been removed for decades I wonder where these people are now , and why aren’t they telling us how Grand life is in South Africa ?

    • refocus

      Today, the *people* who condemned WSA are worried about Trayvon’s baby momma and all the hate crime those rednecks like Zimmerman commit day in and day out.

      They drive many miles to shop in a white Walmart.

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      Liberals never learn from reality. Their whole thought system itself is one big denial of reality (“all men are equal, existing inequalities are to be ascribed to social circumstances and discrimination rather than innate talents and character traits”). Besides members of certain fanatical religious sects there is no other kind of people that can cope with cognitive dissonance so badly as liberals. They will invent lame excuses or attack the messenger instead of accepting reality if it conflicts with their dogmas. Black dysfunction in South Africa will forever be blamed on “the legacy of Apartheid”, just like black dysfunction in the rest of Africa will forever be blamed on “the legacy of colonialism” or black dysfunction in the US on “the legacy of slavery”. Anyone who reasons otherwise will be accused of “racism”.
      Verily liberalism is a mental disorder!

  • Shawn_thefemale

    [Twenty-eight years after Apartheid, what is keeping South African blacks poor and unemployed?]

    Wait, I know that one. Uh…blacks?? Those trick questions…

  • Sick of it

    “My Afrikaner neighbor would regularly admonish me for my incipient
    liberalism: “’You want black rule so badly, look around you at the rest
    of Africa! Anglos like you simply don’t understand what’s at stake.’”

    Sounds like a bright guy to me.

  • Spartacus

    Ilana Mercer is not an Eskimo. Just thought I’d point that out.

  • rowingfool

    Her line; “Ultimately, the rights to life, liberty and private property will forever be imperiled in a country…..where redistributive “justice” is a constitutional article of faith”, gave me a jolt. Uhh, isn’t that the prevailing policy right here, right now?

    • BonusGift

      Bingo; welcome home.

    • Anna Tree

      Yes it is great that she states these two points: wealth redistribution and that we are suffering from dogmas of a new religion, albeit secular (diversity is a
      strength, islam is a religion of peace, Dalai Lama is a saint, races/gender
      don’t exist/are a social construct, multiculturalism is our salvation,
      homosexuality is innate, affirmative action is not racism, “no child
      behind” is good for all etc). Blind faith doesn’t always
      revolve around a god…

  • rightrightright

    “From clogs to clogs in three generations” but only if you are European. Blacks are amazing, so speedy. They can go from breadbasket to basket case in one.

    • BonusGift

      Heck, not even one. Their mere appearance seems enough to turn, for example, a mall into a hellhole in one night (e.g., see the story on the ‘youfs’ rioting because they couldn’t bum rush the movie theatre ticket booth).

    • Katherine McChesney

      “Africa Addio” video shows the decline of SA after apartheid. Destructive and murderous blacks and the destruction of food sources.

  • Garrett Brown

    75% of SA want apartheid back. So, that completely denounces your article Ilana.

    • john ellis

      Most SA Blacks don’t want to bring Apartheid back, that want…

      Take everything Whites still have.

      The Black mobs choose Coleman Youngs, Robert Mugabes, ANC, they don’t choose Apartheid, Jim Crow, or just responsible Conservative political parties.

      • Garrett Brown

        Actually, most people that took the poll were black.

  • Franklin_Ryckaert

    Their good treatment of the Blacks only created their own doom : a rapidly increasing black populace. The same happened in Rhodesia. The Whites should have carved out an exclusive territory for themselves and leave the Blacks alone in a territory of their own. When they ruled they still could do it, now it is too late. Small isolated all-white communities like Orania cannot save them anymore.

    • Edruezzi

      Don’t you people get it already? Sub-Saharan Africa is the
      only large landmass, aside from maybe New Guinea, that Europeans did not take
      over at the expense of a pre-literate, stone age native population, and that
      was because of disease. Smallpox, measles, even the common cold, were entirely
      alien to the immune systems of the American Indians and the native Australians
      and that’s why Europeans replaced those peoples. That didn’t happen in Africa,
      because Africa’s diseases killed the Europeans. As for SA, it was thinly populated
      and the Zulu and the Xhosa were moving southward at the time the Boers were
      arriving. It also did not have malaria. so the Boers thought they had it made. The SA whites should have realized that they could not long maintain
      apartheid, a system designed to ensure that a voting black majority did not end
      up with power. The whites should have looked many moves ahead, seized the Cape
      area and kept the blacks out. They didn’t do that and now they’re at the mercy
      of a population with no cultural or genetic capacity fo abstract thought.

  • Nathanwartooth

    Mainstream libertarians have always been nuts.

    • “Nuts” may be a little harsh.

      But libertarians, mainstream, first wave, second wave, the “good” kind, the “bad” kind, or whatever, do what people who are too infatuated with any abstract ideology do, and that is, create their own little bubbles of existence that aren’t in tune with most of the world that’s outside the bubbles, and let the ideology become a cult in their minds, so that they find a way to credit their ideology for anything that’s good and blame the lack of it for everything that’s bad.

      The drum I’m beating is that our people should wean ourselves away and eventually doff the whole notion of holding to abstract ideologies, and adopt a concrete ethnonationalist form of politics. If the thing is good for white people, adopt it, if it’s bad for white people, reject it. If a thing that used to be good for white people becomes bad, get rid of it, if it used to be bad and becomes good, take it in.

      • Grantland

        The trouble with libertarians is that they have swallowed Ayn Rand hook, line and sinker. Ayn Rand was a very clever Jewess who seeded the obvious truth – that free markets work – with a number of poison pills designed to make the subjugation of the goyim easier. She pours scorn on “tribalism ” – the group loyalty and team spirit that makes the Jews so effective; on “racism” – no Rebecca, WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME – (but she knows that), on leadership – everyman for himself, an atomized individual.. on altruism, ..

        They swallowed it whole.

        • Rand herself sent out mixed messages about whether Randism was for everyone or couldn’t possibly be for everyone. However, the vast majority of her modern day disciples are not so ambiguous — For them, it’s “We Are the World” all the way. Because Ayn Rand is no longer living but her modern disciples are, that’s the basis by which we have to decide what we think about Randism. However, it also means that our opinion of Rand herself is inaccurately loaded based on the antics of her modern disciples.

  • Spartacus

    Ilana Mercer is not White.

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      That depends on the definition.

  • BonusGift

    The point of cultural Marxism is to control discourse. The way to do that runs through language and determining what is “acceptable” to be discussed (in writing or discussion itself). The cultural Marxists have long realized that ‘libertarians’ are no real threat to them gaining and accumulating power. That noted, they will be some of the first to be liquidated when the dictatorship comes about because they will then be viewed as competitors on some level and/or not ideologically pure enough on another. Their commonality is that both sides see YT’s genocide as being either necessary and desired (cultural Marxists) or merely a byproduct of forces outside their control (‘libertarians’). They may have different beliefs but their overall evil intent is similar; thus, yes, LewRockwell went off the deep-end a good while ago (e.g., as far as I can tell they have always seemed to be open borders crazy; which in turn assumes we are all interchangeable parts, which ignores reality …).

    • “Libertarians are no real threat…to the cultural Marxists”

      And they’re no real threat to win much of anything or exercise much if any real power. What they are is our side’s abstract ideological opiate, a drug that our enemies feed us (and by “us,” I don’t mean the typical person reading these words) to keep us from adopting ethnonationalism and winning.

  • Pro_Whitey

    I am wary of Mercer because I think she should start every such discussion of this subject with an apology for her and her father’s actions to destabilize and wear down the apartheid system. Without that, she strikes me as someone who is willing to play both sides of the street. I guess I should cut her some slack, in that she does not don ideological blinders, like some South African emigres do, but I still would not trust her.

  • john ellis

    Instead of endless debates about Libertarianism vs blind liberalism, we need honest, practical discussions about alternatives to democracy. When we give millions of poor, non White full voting rights everywhere we are, the results are always the same:

    Haiti
    Zimbabwe
    Detroit

    Non Whites, Blacks can and have been good, productive people, they just don’t do democracy. It’s the same with Muslims trying to do religious toleration, women’s rights and gay rights. Some people just don’t do certain things.

    • tabsa

      John, that’s exactly what I am after… We complain and complain behind our keyboards. But what are we going to DO about it?

      We’ve got to give blacks one thing (and maybe it’s because they’ve got nothing to lose) they stick together and no matter how ridiculous whatever they want to achieve is, they fight until they get it.

      If only whites could stick together like other races. We need solutions!

  • I’m trying to condition myself away from fatalism. Yes, that’s hard to do when the news is mostly bad day in and day out. But as long as there are still millions upon millions of (real) white people in existence, victory of some sort is still possible.

  • The libertarian crowd hasn’t lost it, they never had it. They’re just a cult.

  • withcaution

    What a load of mental masturbation crappola. Why
    do these writers need to be excessively wordy? To obfuscate the fact they don’t really know what they think?

    • BonusGift

      Why? As you mention, the word is obfuscation. I expect they obfuscate not so much because they don’t know what they think, but more so because they don’t want us to know what they think.

    • rebellisMMXII

      The truth is blunt and unapologetic.

  • Dave4088

    Where Mercer and those of here ilk dare not tread is that free market capitalism will always break down in a multiracial society, especially one with a black majority. Free market economics cannot transcend race or foster interracial amity and good will, and the conservative and libertarian belief that it can makes them fellow travelers of Marx instead of the American founding fathers they claim to revere.

    • rowingfool

      Either “free market capitalism will always break down in a multiracial society” or free market capitalism will always break down a multiracial society. Blacks would be ground down in a free market society if labor were subject to the impartial law of supply and demand or they would be forced out. We today are witnessing this as blacks are increasingly isolated in zoos in which they are fed and housed like caged animals. The free market left to itself, without ameliorating aid from the welfare state would grind blacks into powder. Having no viable place in a modern technological culture that values brains over brawn, they would be obliterated. This is why our Elite cannot allow free market capitalism and therefore temper it with humanitarian social programs.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        Free market capitalism only works if the populace is fairly intelligent and industrious. Stupid and lazy people can only thrive under state socialism. That’s why so many third world peoples desire state socialism. For intelligent and industrious peoples however state socialism is a limitation. For the intelligent and industrious Chinese state socialism was a serious limitation, once that was removed they quickly became successful capitalists. Such economical miracles however are impossible in Africa and many other third world countries. Abstract economical theories without taking racial realities into account will never work.

        • john ellis

          3rd World Socialism and anything goes free market capitalism (complete with open borders immigration) these are not the only two choices for us.

          Successful countries/societies like Switzerland, Singapore and Japan reject both these terrible two choices foisted on us by, among others…

          The tribe.

          I note with concern that hard core, anti White Marxists from the tribe, are immediately accepted as Conservatives”, born again Neo Conservatives, Libertarians who still insist on civilization destroying immigration for White countries, only with a libertarian spin. One such example is Tamar Jacoby of the Wall Strret Journal, formerly teacher of the Marxist New School for Social Research.

  • BonusGift

    Let me try to unravel that one for you: they supported South Africa in large part because of fuel for making nuclear weapons; and they support the hellhole it is becoming today for largely the same reason, and because they never miss the chance for white Christian genocide (kind of a twofer, which easily beats a onefer).

    • tabsa

      I never understand why whites in the West have this anti-Jewish tendency. I have great respect for Israel. They are not our enemies.

      Fair enough, you could argue that Hollywood and the Media are all Jewish, but what does the average Israeli have to do with that?

      Most of the anti-Apartheid movement’s communists were Jews, but does that mean that all Jews are now all of a sudden anti-white? And that they ‘welcome’ white Genocide?

      I think Israel is way too busy preventing their own genocide.

      And no, I’m not a Jew.

      We should really unite behind Israel as they are the only sliver of sunshine in the Middle East which is mostly drowned in Islamic darkness.

      • BonusGift

        I cannot abide by the hypocrisy, let alone the sentiment. For example, here are two headlines written by the same writer within months of each other:
        1) Israel’s Jewish Essence is Non-Negotiable: A Response to Mahmoud Abbas
        2) White Nationalism: A Scourge That Won’t Go Away
        Essentially, myself, my children, and people like them are repeatedly told to die and go away by people who claim no need to even negotiate their existence. In short, I’m not down with that. If they had a shred of consistency and concern for white Christians (as opposed to genocidal hate) they wouldn’t deny us our own land and futures on it. South Africa is just one example of this.

        • Anna Tree

          Obviously she is not there yet… Some people understand more when it is happening to them than when it is happening to others. There are Jews who don’t get it at all, but BonusGift, there are Jews who do get it and comment on Amren.

          Intellectuals, liberals, Christians, Jews, atheists, many of them are pro-diversity, multiculturalists, multiracialists etc but not all. Various Catholic and Lutheran refugee charities are bringing thousands of Somalis to Minneapolis etc… Many whites have been brainwashed, we must unite to stop the madness.

          • john ellis

            Amren has a solid, honest Jewish readership, nice Jewish people attend the Amren conference in TN.

            But, the same could be said for National Review before Jewish Neo Conservatives took over National Review and purged all the White Gentile writers who dared to write or even think that mass Third World immigration was bad for America.

      • Anna Tree

        Jews dominate, unproportionally to their numbers, the anti-white movements and so one could think they are good at it. But so are intellectuals and actually many Christians are as much pathological altruists, multiracialists etc…

        To plagiarize the author of the article a bit: we shouldn’t fall in the lite “pro-white”‘s “the-jews-made-me-do-it” argumentation.

        There are a lot of non-jew whites in the anti-white movement. Actually the people around me are not jewish, but they are all as far as I know, anti-white. They don’t mind interracial dating and marriage, multiculturalism, multiracialism, mass immigration etc. Some even told me when I object to some of their views that they wouldn’t mind the end of the white race, that it wouldn’t matter. They want all what is happening. They don’t see any difference between the races, not because of what they are told by some Jews or by the media, but because they really wish and think this, it’s how a good person should think. They want the end of the white civilization and they want a world that is all a mix of brown. They don’t like themselves. It’s heartbreaking. I see them as the enemy of our children, of their children.

  • Lagerstrom

    Add “legacy of colonialism” too the two above mentioned and you’ve covered the lot.

  • Bobbala

    Freedom, as long as you freely choose from the approved list … Isn’t that how the NFL freely hires a new Head Coach? and people are served at restaurants? and anybody is hired? and …

  • Sick of it

    The difference between liberals and conservatives? Christians and heretics? One biological nation and another biological nation? Yep, pretty much.

  • Randall Ward

    The “bigoted South”; you haven’t learned as much as you think you have.

    • Tom B.

      Not sure what you mean –maybe a misunderstanding. She said some nasty things about the South in her WND article. I am from the South and was very much offended by her callous remarks—of course being one of the redneck types that she dislikes so much I guess I will just have suck it up and take it as we are the only group of people I know of that can be ridiculed by the media with no repercussions. Maybe on another post I will give a little more info on my background. We’ll just say for now that I have had extensive dealings with Bantus and that is why I like this website. I can speak the truth. To clarify further—my comments here are on the WND article not the above.

      • Randall Ward

        Sorry, I read too fast. Glad you are another Southern man on this site.

        • Tom B.

          Good to hear!! I come from a predominately black town (70%) and could write a book on some of the things I have seen. I look forward to joining in on some of these discussions!! LATER

  • Edruezzi

    It’s always Jew this, Jew that here. And then of course there are the so-called Bantus, who have literally been called nonhumans here. Yo, idiots, go to a library or google some recent information on human genetics. OOps. The recent information doesn’t matter., It’s all “libtard” propaganda.

    • IstvanIN

      Humans and Chimpanzees share 95% of their DNA. Big deal. It only takes very minor DNA differences to make some very large phenotypical changes.

      • MBlanc46

        It’s more like 98.5%.

    • MBlanc46

      You manage to call people idiots and refer them to some unspecified information in some library. If that’s all that you have to offer, you’d probably best not return.

    • Spartacus

      Humans share over 90% of all DNA with all other mammals. Genes that dictate how hair grows, how your bones absorbe calcium, how your eyes see, etc. that are the same in virtually all warm-blooded animals. It’s a small chunk of our DNA that decides who’s human, who’s a giraffe, who’s a dog, who’s an african, etc. And that little part is what makes all the difference .

      • Edruezzi

        Good. Someone scientifically literate on Amren. How then do you explain the finding of the Human Genome Project that no clear lines among the so-called races could be identified on the molecular level?

        • Spartacus

          Actually, they have. If you look at the statements the scientists involved in the project made, they claimed that differences were “too small to be significant”, which is an idiotic statement, since at a genetic level, even the smallest difference makes a huge impact.

          To be clear – “Scientifically literate” I am not. I have no scientific training of any kind, I just read a lot.

          • Edruezzi

            Thank you for your reply and for your gracious acknowledgement of your lack of scientific training. I was right about your knowledge of science. I’m a physicist who has worked in molecular biology and so once a person writes more than a sentence or two I can tell how much science they know. The middle lines of your diatribe above fairly gush with unwitting revelations of your lack of knowledge in this area.

            You call people who spent $10 billion on mapping the human genome idiotic. Too small to be significant in population genetics means that, for respective populations, differences in gene frequencies do not produce clear cut phenotype differences when stacked up. What that would mean on a practical level is that if I started in Cape Town South Africa and marched all the way to Spitzbergen Norway while mapping genes the differences in regional gene frequencies would not be sufficient anywhere for the definition of walls between so-called races.Actually, aside for six or so genes that code for skin color out of 20,000 and genes for digesting milk and resisting malaria, I would notice NO differences, and the variation would not be systematic. But then, as creationists do, when a person is prepared in advance to reject any scientific finding on ideological grounds no amount of argument will suffice. I mean, you just called people vastly better qualified than you idiots.
            Moreover, the HGP not only counted the genes, it read the genes and knows their structure. They know exactly what the differences mean. The difference between sickle-cell hemoglobin and normal hemoglobin comes down to a change in a single molecule. That’s the kind of data the HGP gathered. The mapping of the genome of the Neanderthals you’re so proud of would have been slower without the knowledge gathered from the human project. Call it libtard propaganda, but Craig Venter, whose company Celera genomics played a major role in the HGP, noted that as they evaluated the data it became clear that there were no clear boundaries that chopped mankind up into races. The huge impact you talked about are things like differences in hair color and so on. Now, we whites don’t write a man off because he has brown hair or blond hair, do we?
            What you mean by even the smallest difference has in addition to be clarified. Depending on how I define difference, I am not that different from a shark or a bald eagle. On the other hand, if I lined up a white person’s genome and that of the blackest African, say, a South Sudanese, vast portions of them would read identically. We have had this information only since 1968 or so. It’s why the Holocaust was so tragic. The Nazis were obsessed about race. It turns out that they had no idea what they were talking about. I’m afraid that’s the situation here.

            Do you think these people who read the genome would not know what they were mapping? They were literally reading the genome letter by letter. What they meant was that the differences did not produce phenotype effects that would justify grouping mankind in races. To come down to your level, think of any black celebrity, say Kelly Rowland of Destiny’s Child. I’m sure you’ve noted in the past that a black celebrity looks like some white person you know. Well, what that means is that blacks vary in the same way whites do and that some blacks happen to have clusters of genes similar to those of whites. The difference in skin color, controlled by only 3 genes out of 20,000 ( a ratio that adds up to 0.015%) masks all that.

          • Spartacus

            My friend , I can look at the different races today – Whites, Yellows and black, and can see vast differences between them. It’s not something one needs a degree for, but just a minimally functional brain. Then I hear some scientists who claim that these differences do not exist, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

            Also, what you fail to talk about in your post is how politicized certain fields of science are, and this one most of all. I can name you a dozen scientists of the top of my head that have publicly claimed that there are differences between the races, and have paid a price for it – including losing their jobs – despite having proof to back it up. But I guess you know these names, so I won’t bother.

            The thing is, I can’t not look at what happens in the real world, and deny it just because a guy with a fancy degree says, especially when I know that, had he claimed the exact opposite, he would’ve lost his job, his funding, and the media would’ve lynched him.

          • Edruezzi

            Proof. What proof? This debate is an illustration of the argument from incredulity.
            Science tells us all kinds of things that go against what the world appears to look like on the surface: quantum mechanics, time dilation, billions of years of evolution. Yes, science is politicized, but the results of the HGP were not.
            Aside from James Watson, can you name some of these scientists who got fired?

          • Itachi

            How is race a social construct when it can be determined through a blood test?

            Why are there verifiable biological difference between people descended from different geographical areas?

            The answer is quite intuitive. No ‘hard core’ science is required, just simple observation.

          • Edruezzi

            Thank you for your response. Race cannot be determined through a blood test. Region of origin can. but that is not determining race. A blood test can after all tell that a child is from a given white country in Europe. That falls within the range of human variation. That the global human population groups into neatly defined races is a fallacy, however.

          • Itachi

            Ah semantics…lol

            Lets forget the word race then, as you can see from my second question, this is not the main area we should be debating on i.e. the definition of race, you clearly have yours. Rather, people from different geographical regions tend to have different characteristics.

            Various studies have been done that have confirmed differences in skeletal structure, gestation periods, sociability, height etc. based on region of origin (Asia/Europe/Africa). Even between European ‘tribes’ there are differences. I am sure this keeps on changing. 1000 years from now these differences might be the same, even more, or maybe even completely nullified!

            I don’t believe that there is a strict border between these groups, in fact the differences seem to be bridged though breeding between groups. This is evident from your prior examples of African Americans that appear more European.

            Regarding the blood test. As you say the test can determine your region of origin, which then can determine with good probability your characteristics that you would share with people recently descended from that region. Immigration will throw this for a loop though.

            So then, do you deny that these group differences exists? Or is for example someone’s height also a social construct? 🙂

          • ixObserver

            “Why are there verifiable biological difference between people descended from different geographical areas?”

            Your question itself has the answer. Different geographies => different climes/challenges => different adapdation => differences. In one word – evolution.

          • ixObserver

            Your whole argument, which makes an interesting read, hinges on the assumption that groups of people are different only if there is significant (whatever this is) % difference in their DNA. This might be true academically and scientifically but in real world human perception of ‘different’ is not exactly this academic. The definition of race in real world seems to stand on the shoulders of this perception of difference not on % difference. I am not saying this is right or wrong but this is how it is.

            We don’t have to be biologically very different for our minds to perceive as very different. We seem to perceive differences first by visuals, then by sounds, then by more complex behavior which we call culture, mannerisms etc.

            Here’s a question since you seem to be more informed in this area than I am (novice) – has HGP thrown up any data that reflects significant difference in cognition or brain function between peoples of various regions ? AFAIK the set of genes (beyond IGF2R stalemate) that affect intelligence is not conclusive. Is it ? Now, if we don’t understand what affects cognition from a DNA stand point we don’t know how much cognitive difference exists between races (the way we understand) and how much of this difference is heritable.

            While there is lack of conclusive evidence (assuming my above assertions are correct) on the DNA front for cognition, there is difference in civilizations built by these different racial groups. This difference is significant. Since better-cognition => intelligence => complex-civilization (I am not sure if this is necessary and sufficient or just necessary but not sufficient because there seem to be other factors too), the conclusion that difference between groups is beyond skin/eye/hair color, hence real and deep follows suit.

            I don’t personally like people being addressed as animals/sub-humans wholesale unless the subjects in question are criminals or thugs. I was just reading about the 3/5th reference to a Black in the US constitution and even Pat Buchanan considered that unfortunate. Anyway, the politics around discrimination is for another post, let’s tinker with DNA for now!

            Finally, just like all areas of science genetics is work in progress as
            well. I say this as someone with a solid back-ground
            in science.

          • Edruezzi

            You hit the nail on the head. The entire racial problem is based on people’s direct perceptions. It’s perception versus what we can detect using sequencing machines.

          • Edruezzi

            Thank you for your reply and for your gracious acknowledgement of your lack of scientific training. I was right about your knowledge of science. I’m a physicist who has worked in molecular biology and so once a person writes more than a sentence or two I can tell how much science they know. The middle lines of your diatribe above fairly gush with unwitting revelations of your lack of knowledge in this area.

            And remember, I said lines, not differences. That’s the difference between clines and barriers to gene flow. As it turns out these are both insignificant in humans.

            You call people who spent $10 billion on mapping the human genome idiotic. Too small to be significant in population genetics means that, for respective populations, differences in gene frequencies do not produce clear cut phenotype differences when stacked up. What that would mean on a practical level is that if I started in Cape Town South Africa and marched all the way to Spitzbergen Norway while mapping genes the differences in regional gene frequencies would not be sufficient anywhere for the definition of walls between so-called races.Actually, aside for six or so genes that code for skin color out of 20,000 and genes for digesting milk and resisting malaria, I would notice NO differences, and the variation would not be systematic. But then, as creationists do, when a person is prepared in advance to reject any scientific finding on ideological grounds no amount of argument will suffice. I mean, you just called people vastly better qualified than you idiots.
            Moreover, the HGP not only counted the genes, it read the genes and knows their structure. They know exactly what the differences mean. The difference between sickle-cell hemoglobin and normal hemoglobin comes down to a change in a single molecule. That’s the kind of data the HGP gathered. The mapping of the genome of the Neanderthals you’re so proud of would have been slower without the knowledge gathered from the human project. Call it libtard propaganda, but Craig Venter, whose company Celera genomics played a major role in the HGP, noted that as they evaluated the data it became clear that there were no clear boundaries that chopped mankind up into races. The huge impact you talked about are things like differences in hair color and so on. Now, we whites don’t write a man off because he has brown hair or blond hair, do we?
            What you mean by even the smallest difference has in addition to be clarified. Depending on how I define difference, I am not that different from a shark or a bald eagle. On the other hand, if I lined up a white person’s genome and that of the blackest African, say, a South Sudanese, vast portions of them would read identically. We have had this information only since 1968 or so. It’s why the Holocaust was so tragic. The Nazis were obsessed about race. It turns out that they had no idea what they were talking about. I’m afraid that’s the situation here.

            Do you think these people who read the genome would not know what they were mapping? They were literally reading the genome letter by letter. What they meant was that the differences did not produce phenotype effects that would justify grouping mankind in races. To come down to your level, think of any black celebrity, say Kelly Rowland of Destiny’s Child. I’m sure you’ve noted in the past that a black celebrity looks like some white person you know. Well, what that means is that blacks vary in the same way whites do and that some blacks happen to have clusters of genes similar to those of whites. The difference in skin color, controlled by only 3 genes out of 20,000 ( a ratio that adds up to 0.015%) masks all that.

  • rowingfool

    Thanks for posting this. It’s hard to argue with numbers.

    A liberal friend of mine, (of Dutch ancestry no less) had never even heard about the murder of Boer farmers, worshiped Mandela as another saintly Gandhi and wouldn’t believe me when I told him that SA was home to only 400,000 blacks back in the days. He stoutly maintains that whites invaded, stole all that land from a bunch of happily settled tribes, enslaved them and worked them to death in mines etc.

    I doubt that even these numbers would faze him as these types of beliefs are fundamentally religious and beyond appeal to rational debate.

    • Katherine McChesney

      My dutch brother-in-law, athiest, a lover of blacks and homosexuals blames Whites for the misery in SA. Of course, he considers the White Farm murders as recompense for Apartheid. But, no amount of urging from me will convince him to research the truth about what Whites did for savage blacks in SA.

  • Anna Tree

    Great post Laager, thanks for the information.

  • john ellis

    St. Paul, former Pharisee Saul of Tarsus did the same thing, supposedly made some huge conversion – saw the light, saw the White.

    Read his preaching where St. Paul /Pharisee Saul tries to convince skeptical listeners that “there are no Greeks or Jews, just those who have accepted Jesus Christ”. St. Paul was spreading his race denying gospel in what has become modern day Syria, where there are now few if any Greeks, Jews, or Christians of any kind.

  • Chris Granzow XI

    “My Afrikaner neighbor would regularly admonish me for my incipient liberalism: ‘You want black rule so badly, look around you at the rest of Africa! Anglos like you simply don’t understand what’s at stake.’ ”

    People like this should be forced to live in the blackest black neighborhoods for at least 2 years. They would definitely gain some perspective. Tell any liberal negrophile who claims to love ‘diversity’ to move to a majority black community, raise his kids there and send them to local schools. They would almost certainly respond with “no way, it’s too dangerous etc.,” (exactly, that’s the point). These are the types of people who think they live in a ‘diverse’ neighborhood just because they have 3 non-whites living in their entire 20-story apartment building in lower manhattan.

    • Katherine McChesney

      ‘People like this should be forced to live in the blackest black neighborhoods for at least 2 years.’

      They’d most likely be dead before the two years are up.

  • Max Krakah

    nih-gerz

  • Katherine McChesney

    I love Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods and the White South Africans. I also believe Apartheid should be restored.

  • Katherine McChesney

    My churches missionary in Sudan reports that a civil war is being fought there presently.

  • DonReynolds

    If Demographics is destiny, everyone should learn Chinese. Of course, I disagree. Demographics is not destiny for the simple reason that all people are not equal.

  • Edruezzi

    This or something close to it is the last thing many a Boer farmer will see before they get their head bashed in or hacked off. After the Boers are wiped out it’ll be every white person next. I was in the bar in the Sheraton in Nairobi and overheard some blacks asking when the white south africans would leave. The white man can’t win in that country. Can white nations work out a way to give every white South African a green card?

    • Edruezzi

      Look in those eyes. They speak of brains that have no content and lives with no future. It may be the legacy of apartheid, or whatever, but your average black SA person has no future and nothing valuable to preserve, and no cognitive constraints on their behavior. I’m afraid we are poised on the brink of a bloodbath.

      • Tom B.

        If we are all genetically the same then why post these pictures–you confuse me as to where you really stand. Spartacus is right. It does not take a high IQ to see a profound difference in all races but especially blacks. Just speak the truth–it is right in front of your face, no need to beat your chest to convince all of us how intellectually superior you are. The thing I notice the most about left-wing intellectuals is a total lack of common sense—it isn’t that hard to figure out my friend.

        • Edruezzi

          I’m no leftie.Aside from my arguments with the right in evolution and global warming I’m on the right. Note that I said nowhere that the savages we see above are a product of genes. When you come from a long line of people who grew up in shacks and mud huts you’ll be like the idiots in that picture.
          Don’t get me wrong. SA is doomed.

          • Edruezzi

            I’ll add more. The Out of Africa model, combined with what we know about speciation and evolution in general, makes it clear that human evolution could not have led to races as we define them in the popular fashion. Let’s say the races had been isolated another 200,000 years, then you’d have races. That didn’t happen.

          • Itachi

            Sorry mate. Black South Africans still lived in relative poverty when Europeans first landed in South Africa. For the majority this has not changed in 400 years simply because it cannot due to unfortunate genetic reasons.

            Apartheid, actually improved the quality of live of the average African. This is evident in the massive increase in live expectancy and literacy within those communities.

            What apartheid did do is remove the potential of some individual black persons that would have been capable enough to succeed.

            The poor are simply used as political pawns, and this is done by the ‘Blame Whitey’ game

          • Tom B.

            Thank you for the clarification sir—I hope the good people on this website will forgive this poor old country boy. Most of my education came from the School of Hard Knocks as we used to say. I grew up on the farm in the 50’s and 60’s. Back then in the South, race relations were not that bad in spite of what liberals say. Everyone knew their place in society and there was little conflict and very little miscegenation. Along came the end of Jim Crow–forced desegregation–welfare and a host of other liberal inspired programs that have devastated what was once a better way of life for blacks and whites. I have never understood how liberals from the North can believe they know what is best for everyone down here when they have no experience to speak of regarding black people or our very different culture. For 150 years we have been attacked for being different from a liberal-minded culture of fantasy. Keep the info coming my friends–I am continuously learning more from the people who write on this forum!!

        • Edruezzi

          In a complex world full of subtleties commonsense is overrated. If we worked by commonsense we wouldn’t be sending each other these messages over the Internet. Modern technology would not exist. Likewise, race is a vestige of the 19th century, when the most we knew about DNA was that it was some stuff isolated from puss in soldiers’ bandages.

          • Tom B.

            I see the need for both common sense and science. The great mind of an Einstein and so many others who have made so many contributions to society cannot be questioned, but what about the other qualities of man–human nature, spirituality, things that cannot be cooked up over a Bunsen burner or the keyboard of a computer. If all there is to life is just cold, hard science–no love–no hope of an afterlife none of the myriad of things that bring us happiness, then what was it all for. It seems to me that in most cases common sense dwells with those of a less-scientific bent–just ordinary people. Aghh!! this thread is getting away from the original subject. Besides, I never met anyone who didn’t think they had common sense, but there are plenty who know they aren’t the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. So it would be difficult if not impossible to prove the existence of common sense—I’ll stand down sir and leave it to more knowledgeable people to expound on these complex issues—I am here to learn from the contributors of this website. Thank you all for being patient with a dumb redneck!!

          • Edruezzi

            Funny how the PC people don’t complain when “redneck” is thrown around.

  • ixObserver

    “As for cognition, everything we know about how evolution by natural selection rules out cognitive differences. ”

    Is this a theoretical inference based on available data or is there direct experimental evidence ? There are cognitive differences between any two random individuals. So, are you saying the profile of this variation in cognition is same within and outside two groups of people say for example between Congolese and Germans ?

    More fundamentally can we even measure biological intelligence (not the acquired part through learning) at this point in time ? If so, can we do this purely from a DNA strand ? If we can’t, then all we have are conjectures. Conjectures are fine and interesting in the absence of hard evidence but conjectures they will be till proven.
    ———————————————————————————
    “What I argue is that human intelligence plateaued out about 80,000 years ago ans has gone up nowhere since then. We wrote Windows 8 with the same brains we had 80,000 years ago.”

    80k years is a lot of generations and long enough for Earth to have witnessed quite a few environmental changes. Hasn’t the HG changed in this time ? I find that hard to believe but will accept if evidence says so.