American Dissident Voices Broadcast of September 27, 1997

THE WAGES OF LIBERALISM
by Dr. William 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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com.

To contact us, write to:
     National Vanguard Books
     Attention:  ADVlist
     P.O. Box 330
     Hillsboro, WV  24946

(c) 1997 National Vanguard Books