While I expect frantic grief over the death of Nelson Mandela to be quite restrained on the Outer Right, it surely has to be admitted that — as Afro-Marxist terrorists go — he was a comparatively moderate type. He represented global Cathedralism well, accepted the unforced surrender offered by this guy with ceremonial dignity, and seems to have made no attempt to accelerate the genocide of the Boers to spasm phase. Things will probably deteriorate significantly with him gone.

ADDED: Not much frantic grief from Ilana Mercer.

ADDED: 28Sherman (from April) on the ruin-in-process.

ADDED: “Mandela was a Communist and he was a terrorist.  Yet to believe that these things disqualify him from greatness is to exist so far outside the present day mainstream as to be politically irrelevant.”

December 6, 2013admin 27 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations


27 Responses to this entry

  • spandrell Says:

    The same way that the Cathedral idolizes him not for what he actually did, but what he represents, we must curse him not for whatever he did, but for what he represents, the murder of the only civilized society in Africa, and the sacrifice of that society to the evil cult of negro worship.

    If I had to name the worst policy the Cathedral has ever come up with, this must be it. Rhodesia was the destruction of a great hope, South Africa was the premeditated murder of an already existing great country.


    DB Reply:

    When indigenous people reject uplift and insist on failing on their own, it is generally correct to let them.

    Turning majority-black countries over to black leadership was far from the worst Cathedral policy, and I’m not convinced it was bad at all. The awful policy was and is subsidizing their dysfunction and setting up a much, much more horrifying Malthusian catastrophe than they could have managed on their own.


    admin Reply:

    Doesn’t De Klerk deserve greater vilification? Mandela’s decisions make a rough sort of sense.


    spandrell Reply:

    As I said:

    we must curse him not for whatever he did, but for what he represents

    De Klerk should be buried alive in Mandela’s grave.


    admin Reply:

    Hmmm … it still seems to let De Klerk too much off the hook to attribute the ‘liberation’ of South Africa to a convicted terrorist, whose actions had been completely ineffective, and who had been suffered to live only by the squeamish liberalism of the regime. The RSA is now Azania because De Klerk — completely unnecessarily — gave it away. If the Cathedral wants to make Mandela the symbol of that — which it does — why should we cooperate? Mandela is the symbol of Afrikaaner cowardice and irresponsibility. Everything else is sentimental vapors.

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    Nah, we don’t need to hate Mandela. That’s for conservatives who are trying to be edgy.

    Traditional social institutions succeeded long enough to become traditional because they were based on Schelling points; solutions that both parties tend to gravitate towards “naturally”, in the absence of persuasion from the other side. See spandrell on primogeniture monarchy.

    Apartheid produced more extropy than black rule does. But Apartheid was not really a schelling point. The stronger party is naturally inclined towards the implementation of such a system. But does the weaker party naturally gravitate towards it as well? I think not.

    Humans aren’t motivated by the need to maximize extropy. Humans are motivated by their own perverse psychologicay. Resentment, envy, etc. It seems to be extremely natural, extremely human for members of an ethnic group to chafe when they are openly ruled by a foreign ethnic group, even though that rule may be relatively enlightened. It seems to be extremely natural for some members of that subjugated group to seek social advancement by probing the foreign rulers for weaknesses. And those foreign rulers have a tendency to grow decadent and weak willed, sooner or later.

    When a people is involved in a narrative of throwing off foreign oppression, they really can’t be expected to stop and think: maybe we’re too dumb to rule ourselves, maybe we’d be better off under the oppressors. That’s just not how our psychology works.

    Black slavery failed, apartheid failed, even the caste system failed. This sort of thing seems to be a fundamentally unstable arrangement. It’s a trap.


    spandrell Reply:

    Apartheid didn’t collapse naturally. It was killed by deliberate international pressure.

    And how the hell has the caste system failed? Still around, 3000 years. And that’s unstable?


    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    If, as some suggest, the caste system was designed to function as a system of separation ( apartheid: “state of being apart”) between Caucasoid Ancestral North Indians and Australoid Ancestral South Indians, then it failed because all groups in India are at least 20 to 40% Ancestral South Indian (Australoid) today. The consequences of this should not surprise anyone.

    The Spartans provide another example. They viewed the Helots as members of a separate and inferior ethnic group. The Spartans effectively kept the Helots subjugated for a long time but eventually Sparta faltered and their remaining descendants were absorbed into the far more numerous Helot masses.

    The arrangement where you rule over a bunch of your own downwardly mobile cousins is far more stable in the long term, at least in terms of genetic continuity. The elite might well get circulated, but the people as a whole continues to exist going forward, since the new elite comes from the same ethnic group as the old one.

    It may not be a hard and fast rule, but when thinking about a system, it is probably best to assume that sooner or later the under-man is going to have his day, if only because the ruling elites grow decadent and weak-willed. Apartheid was premised on the idea that the blacks could be kept down indefinitely.

    DB Reply:

    It can be likened to a “raise or fold” situation in poker.

    If your side has what it takes to expel or grossly outpopulate the natives, go for it. Otherwise, if the natives don’t like you, cut your losses and get the hell out.


    spandrell Reply:

    Well they suggest wrong. The recent genetic evidence is that the caste system started 2000 years ago, and it has been followed to a remarkable degree. The system remains and Brahmins still get their garbage handled by untouchables, so I’d call that a success.

    Apartheid was trying to physically remove blacks and whites, which was the right thing to do. It didn’t die after centuries like Sparta, it was murdered in decades by white people thousands of miles away.

    I get the appeal of being fatalistic and trying to think it was destined to fail anyway, but we’ll never know now.


    Posted on December 6th, 2013 at 10:03 am Reply | Quote
  • bob sykes Says:

    While it is good policy to let each race have its own homeland and to let them govern themselves, in the case of South Africa the possibility of white genocide is real. If Mandela deserves any credit, he at least delayed the genocide. What happens next might be appalling.


    Posted on December 6th, 2013 at 1:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    The puzzle is why so many whites stay in South Africa. I have no idea why, and no guess better than ‘Mandela’.

    There’s 4.6 million whites there (as big as Ireland or New Zealand) in a country that’s 91% nonwhite. By comparison, Mississippi, the blackest state, is ‘only’ 37% black (still 58% non-hispanic white – about the same as Maryland and Georgia.) In the US, only certain rural or urban areas have black populations in excess of 80%, and no w

    Here’s the demographic composition. Amongst 0-5 years old, whites are 4.7% of the total, so outnumbered 20:1. It’s one thing for old people to stay where they’ve lived all their lives, it’s another for mobile, young white parents to have 54K births a year in a country like that.

    I don’t expect that to last, or for those kids to stay. But I would have said that 20 years ago too, and I was would have been wrong. Many stayed there, and they had their kids there. But I think had the country been turned over to any terrorist less mellow or generous than Mandela that the figure would be 95% less than it is today. Faint praise, perhaps, but still a kind of praise.

    Then again, I wonder how easy or hard it was – and is – for them to emigrate.

    Still, we have two counterfactuals. What would conditions be like today if Apartheid had continued – I find this impossible to estimate because the external, international factors would have been crushing, I might ask ‘has continued unmolested‘.

    Or, what would conditions be like today if, instead of Mandela, things had been handed over to a more ruthless and vindictive type. We know that answer – it was Rhodesia, it’s now called Zimbabwe. Usually I’m not in favor of place-names changing for political reasons, but sometimes the before-and-after contrast is aligned with reality. Places should indeed get different names after revolutions so you can talk about them as if they are different things – which they are.


    Handle Reply:

    As an attempt to answer my own question – maybe the white income boom has something to do it. They have to share the wealth with the top 50K blacks (0.1%) to keep the other 50M blacks (99.9%) from killing the golden goose. We’ll see what happens when that party ends. Europe’s demographics and politics (though not average wages) would benefit tremendously from the importation of a few million Boers.


    spandrell Reply:

    If they turn out like Charlize Theron I’d rather they stayed in SA.


    Magus Reply:

    I think this excuses all manner of silly political views:

    Posted on December 6th, 2013 at 1:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    When HBD pays off: Knockout comes to Yale.



    Posted on December 6th, 2013 at 2:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    The Rhodesian COIN killing machine was brilliant, and their armed forces no slouch.

    They simply made the same mistake Lee made.


    admin Reply:

    Rhodesia had a far more impressive social model than the RSA, preserved under far more difficult circumstances (demographic balance, particularly). The RSA made a cynical and incomprehensibly short-sighted decision to cooperate with the global ideological and economic onslaught against Rhodesia, thus accumulating the karmic toxins whose expression is now being witnessed.


    VXXC Reply:

    Why Admin – Rhodesia made the “Adult” decision….

    and lost everything.

    So if you wish to strike a pose that none shall ever know of and lose everything….be an Adult.


    Posted on December 6th, 2013 at 4:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    The link was taken down over night in your main post, Nick. I was going to use it myself!


    Posted on December 6th, 2013 at 6:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    Fun discussion taking place at EconLog:


    admin Reply:

    Thanks, that thread is highly recommended to everyone here.

    One thing that strikes me is that Hayekian attention to tacit knowledge completely evaporates among libertarians at such moments, and the crudest ideological broad-strokes are taken as adequately representative. I stayed in SA for a few weeks in the 1980s, long enough to get a sense of the place, and the most remarkable take-away was the general civility. Of course there were tensions and dysfunctions, but millions of people engaged in multi-millions of ordinary interchanges across racial lines every day, with enough tolerance for the social order to keep it working. People generally got on with each other OK, criminals excepted, and blacks were not slow to recognize criminal scum when it was sticking sharpened bicycle spokes into spinal columns. There were an incredible number of functioning work-arounds, so that formal laws did not determine fine-grained social reality. Whatever the problems with Apartheid (and I think they were very real), it is simply absurd to conceive them as something verging upon an absolute evil, legitimating any action whatsoever in opposition.

    On the most crucial metric — feet-voting — it has to be noted that a vast tide of Black-African opportunity seekers poured into the place. (“What do you think of Alex[andria, a black township on the edge of Johannesburg]?” one of these migrants asked me proudly. Before I had a chance to answer, he had already described it as “The best city in the world.” — OK, that’s at least partially insane, but it reflected something I picked up on numerous other occasions.


    Hawk Spitui Reply:

    Looks like the casino done shut you down in the middle of your winning streak.

    Rule #1: The House always wins….


    Posted on December 6th, 2013 at 7:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aaron Says:


    Finally! Feels good man!


    Posted on December 7th, 2013 at 3:46 am Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:


    Pretty funny how, on a site dedicated to classical liberalism, criticizing the legacy of a person best known for a populistic form of racial agitation, being put into jail for attempting to violently overthrow the government, implementing ‘socialist’ government policies to rectify perceived ethnic inequities, results in one getting directed to stormfront. Because supposedly your views would find a more agreeable audience there.


    nydwracu Reply:

    Pas d’ennemis à gauche, pas d’amis à droite.

    I tried to Google it and the first few results had it reversed. Nothing escapes the zombie hordes in the end…


    Posted on December 7th, 2013 at 8:39 am Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2013/12/11 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] mass-murdering marxist terrorists go, Mandela wasn’t that horrible. Related: The essence of Mandela was his passivity. Related: Mandela in […]

    Posted on December 11th, 2013 at 6:03 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment