Counter-Currents
Ian Douglas Smith
2,550 words
Ian Douglas Smith
The Great Betrayal: The Memoirs of Ian Douglas Smith
London: Blake, 1997
After the end of the Second World War, it was only a matter of time for white-run countries in the Third World, especially in Africa. South Africa held out the longest before capitulating to the anti-white Left and allowing black rule in the early 1990s. A decade earlier, however, its neighbor Rhodesia had suffered the same fate, largely due to bullying tactics and deceit from Great Britain, as well as from South Africa itself. At least that’s how former Rhodesian Prime Minister, Ian Smith, describes it in his 1997 autobiography The Great Betrayal, which more than anything chronicles his beloved country’s slow-motion death spasms. Despite its failings, The Great Betrayal is instructive and even enlightening in many ways.
From a modern dissident perspective, The Great Betrayal disappoints more often than not, since Smith never wavers from his civic nationalist conservatism — even when such conservatism ultimately could not save his country from disaster. When it comes to race he’s not much different than Donald Trump or any of the current crop of America First politicians. He continually props up the benign treatment of “our blacks” as evidence of Rhodesia’s moral preeminence in the same way that Trump used to crow about low black unemployment under his presidency.
In chapter after chapter, Smith informs us that Rhodesian blacks had it better than blacks in black-run African countries. Here is an example:
Not only overseas visitors, but those who came on a mission seeking evidence, including a number of British MPs, conceded how much more we had done for our black people than had been done in all the surrounding countries. We had provided better schools, better hospitals, better houses, better recreation facilities, and a higher standard of living. We also had peace, which was exceptional and almost unique in the world, and a declining crime rate. Yet the UN, with the support of both Britain and the USA, had passed a resolution declaring that Rhodesia was a ‘threat to world peace.’
All of this may have been perfectly true, but the truth does lose some of its luster when it doesn’t really matter in the long run.
And as for Rhodesia not quite allowing blacks the same political rights as whites throughout the 1960s and ‘70s, Smith repeatedly reminds us that the Rhodesian constitution allowed for eventual black rule. Smith’s main bone of contention with the external forces trying to hurry up this process was that blacks were not as culturally developed as whites, and so needed more time to catch up when it came to maintaining high levels of civilization. Smith believed in “evolution as opposed to revolution,” and never stopped hoping for the day when black Rhodesians could run Rhodesia as well as their white counterparts.
With the advent of highly accurate neural imaging, as well as with sophisticated statistical analyses of IQ and race on a global scale, we now know that culture is the result of racial differences, not the cause of them, and these racial differences in IQ and temperament are indeed biological. In Smith’s day, of course, this was not common knowledge — but you’d think it would have been for a white African politician who’d been born and raised in the Dark Continent surrounded by Negroes in their own element. But apparently not.
Despite being cleared-eyed about the disastrous results of African independence after Harold Macmillan’s “Winds of Change” speech of 1960; despite knowing firsthand the violence, corruption, and poverty which inevitably comes with black rule; and despite knowing full well the threat posed by Soviet-backed black African terrorists such as Robert Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA), never in his 400-page autobiography does Smith question the Leftist dogma of racial egalitarianism. And despite effectively leading his country to ruin by ceding power to the blacks in 1979 and allowing it to be renamed Zimbabwe, he nevertheless stands by his belief that his civic nationalism had always been the right course to follow. The best he can do is lament that the Western powers never gave Rhodesia the chance to put it to the test. He ends his book by offering his full-throated support for the newly-elected black Prime Minister of South Africa, Nelson Mandela.
The Great Betrayal is indeed disappointing and often tedious. Much of it reads like summarized diary entries, filled with extraneous material and the political ephemera of the 1960s and ‘70s. The events he describes are repetitive, and Smith doesn’t seem interested in filtering out the unimportant ones. He basically continually recapitulates the following formula:
- Smith was informed of a meeting with [insert Great Betrayer here] that could have helped to solve some of Rhodesia’s problems.
- Smith was cautiously hopeful.
- Smith discovered that [insert Great Betrayer here] is instead trying to betray Rhodesia.
- Smith was forced to make some small concession to [insert Great Betrayer here].
- Smith returned home disappointed.
Depending on the time period, the Great Betrayer could have been England, South Africa, or Robert Mugabe. Yes, after Mugabe took over Zimbabwe, Ian Smith had several meetings with the Marxist tyrant and attempted to work with him for the betterment of their new country. What makes The Great Betrayal so frustrating is that Smith has no excuse for doing this. With England and South Africa — as blameworthy as they were for the fall of Rhodesia in Smith’s eyes — there was always hope that bad actors could be voted out of office or swayed by public opinion. Likewise, England and South Africa did not resort to violence to get Smith to stand down and allow Rhodesia to cede power to its blacks. With Mugabe, however, Smith states several times that Mugabe used illegal and violent methods prior to 1980 to intimidate Rhodesia’s black voters. He states explicitly on pages 352 and 353 that Mugabe’s ZANLA was killing and raping villagers in the regions of Rhodesia known as Matabeleland and Mashonaland. Mugabe was therefore little more than a thug and terrorist.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s Solzhenitsyn and the Right here.
But when this thug and terrorist “won” his election in 1980, Smith accepted it like a true patriot and attempted in good faith to convince this criminal to improve schools and restrain his anti-white ministers — or whatever. A few years later, when Mugabe became the brutal dictator he always wanted to be, Smith — thematically for his memoirs — felt betrayed.
While reading Smith’s autobiography, I initially built up quite a bit of respect and admiration for him as a straight-talking Western stalwart, but much of that went away once I read about his naïveté regarding Mugabe. What was he thinking in having truck with such a person? What did he think Mugabe was going to do, turn over a new leaf and start acting out of fairness and benevolence? After Mugabe’s fraudulent electoral victory, Smith was told that certain ranking members of the military were ready to step in, but he dismissed the idea as madness. Would military intervention have been any madder than the decades of poverty, corruption, oppression, and wanton murder initiated by Mugabe? I know 1980 was too early for hindsight, but what about 1997, when the book was published? Hadn’t Smith had enough time to admit that not stopping Mugabe when he had the chance may have been a bad idea? Apparently not. In his autobiography, Smith doesn’t second guess himself on anything.
I can’t recommend The Great Betrayal except for experts and connoisseurs of colonial African history, or for those who may have lived through some of the events Smith discusses. Nevertheless, a few useful lessons remain.
Aside from the chapters on his youth and exploits as a fighter pilot in the Second World War, which are interesting in their own right, Smith provides a clear and concise history of Rhodesia. He emphasizes how, when Cecil Rhodes and other white pioneers in southern Africa came across what is now Zimbabwe in the late nineteenth century, the land was largely uninhabited. The whites actually occupied the land before the Zulus did, and so, as Smith writes, “no one could accuse them of trespassing or taking part in an invasion.” Lesson number one right there.
From then until 1979, Rhodesia was a sterling citadel of, if not white, then Western Civilization. If anything, Ian Smith was an emphatic and uncompromising proponent of Western Civilization and all the Enlightenment ideals it stands for — not least democracy and freedom. He was also a pro-family conservative and staunch nationalist, and writes fairly eloquently about it:
Wherever the new settlers went, the first thing they did was to raise the Union Jack. This was part of pioneering a new country — something in which the people back in Britain had never participated. Nor did they know anything about the spirit of nationalism associated with the opening up of new lands in the name of monarch and country. These were the things that motivated pride and a belief in nationalism. There was a feeling of duty to believe in a cause, to make a stand to support and defend it.
Ian Smith really did love Rhodesia. And why not? During its time, it was peaceful, productive, and orderly. It remains a shining example of what whites can accomplish when they are determined and have confidence and pride in themselves. The problem is that Smith continued to love Rhodesia (or really, Zimbabwe) even as it was sinking back into the morass of Black Africa during the 1980s and ‘90s. It’s as if in his later years, he was forced to choose between blood and soil, and he actually chose — quite perversely, as it turned out — soil.
So the second lesson of The Great Betrayal is that civic nationalism alone is never enough. Any form of white or European nationalism which isn’t explicitly racial or ethnic will eventually fall to the Left’s universal egalitarianism. For white people, that will inevitably lead to oblivion.
The third lesson is that Rhodesia, South Africa, or any white outpost in the Third World should never have taken sides against the Third Reich. Smith often reiterates his anti-totalitarianism and seems to believe that his own and his country’s fight against the Nazis should have insulated them from pressure from their former allies decades later. He also argues that since most of Rhodesia’s black enemies were either Communists or Soviet pawns, England and the West had no grounds upon which to oppose Rhodesia.
Of his time immediately after the war, he states emphatically that
I felt a kind of frustration that there had not been more time to mete out more punishment to the Nazis and the fascists who had brought so much suffering, tragedy, and destruction to our world.
Yes, this is bad. To his credit, however, Smith lumps the Soviets in with the Nazis as equal baddies and claims that by not taking them out as well, the Second World War was “a job half finished.” But he doesn’t think his position all the way through. Had they won the war, would the undeniably race-realist and anti-Leftist Nazis have betrayed Rhodesia the way England and the West did? Would they have tolerated or even encouraged Communist-backed terrorism against an ally the way England and the West did? Probably not. And so it should have occurred to Smith at some point that perhaps he and his fellow white Africans had backed the wrong horse in the 1940s.
Lesson number four: You cannot rely on blacks to produce or maintain high standards of civilization. As a group, they are too lazy, unintelligent, violent, and easily corruptible to do so. Yes, there are blacks who are not like this, but they will always be in the minority, and will always be beaten out politically and militarily by the ones who are.
Shortly after ceding control to Bishop Murozewa in 1979 (the man whom Mugabe replaced a year later), Smith states:
The sense of urgency was lacking. At our security council meeting the next day, 13 June, the point was again stressed that our black cabinet ministers were not active enough as far as our amnesty plan was concerned. Zindoga was the only one to hold a meeting in the tribal trust lands. The rest were sitting back, enjoying life in their new positions.
Two weeks later, Smith recorded the following in his diary:
It was given headline prominence in The Herald with a big photograph of the new Prime Minister sitting on his throne, dressed up looking like a colorful rooster, and a bantam at that, sitting on a replica of the ox-wagons used by the Pioneer Column when they occupied the country in 1890. I cringed and closed my eyes. Murozewa and his ancestors had not even invented a wheel by the time the white man arrived . . .
On page after page, Smith carefully catalogues the incompetence, corruption, cruelty, and anti-whitism of the black African leaders who had replaced him and his cabinet in the 1980s. You can feel the growing disgust and frustration between the lines, especially when he describes how Mugabe ordered his North Korean-trained soldiers into Matabeleland in 1982, where they proceeded to kill 30,000 people. And the anti-white insults and perfidy from Zimbabwe’s black leadership only increased over time.
Towards the end of The Great Betrayal, Smith lashes out one last time against his enemies and those of his beloved Rhodesia. What he says is both tragic and poignant:
Moreover, in keeping with the incompetence and corruption associated with communism, the economy has collapsed. Inflation and interest rates, which were below 3 per cent in the days of the previous ‘racist regime’, rose to a peak in excess of 40 per cent last year. The Rhodesian dollar was on a par with sterling, worth 100 pence, while today the Zimbabwe dollar is worth five pence. It is difficult to find a black Zimbabwean these days who will not tell you that is standard of living deteriorated since the advent of ‘freedom’ fifteen years ago. There are frequent reports of starving people roaming the countryside in search of wild fruits and seeds to eat in order to maintain life.
When the peasant farmer complains about the unavailability of land, he is told, indeed the whole world is told . . . that his government is having problems with white racist farmers reluctant to part with their land. The truth, of course, is the very opposite. I can take you to a farm which was productive and earning foreign exchange, taken over by government a few years ago, which is now lying unoccupied with derelict and ransacked buildings. There are many such cases, involving more than a million acres.
The final lesson of The Great Betrayal is by far the most important. Rhodesia is gone. Ian Smith is gone. But the mendacious inheritors of both Rhodesia’s black and white enemies remain. They remain in power in Africa, and they remain in power in Western Europe and the United States. Despite the catastrophe that free Africa has become and the darkening West is quickly becoming, they have not wavered one iota from their Leftist ideological roots. And their job is not yet done. What they accomplished in Africa, they plan to replicate across the entire West.
There is no other conclusion to draw: The people who didn’t want whites in charge in Africa in the days of Ian Smith don’t want them in charge anywhere.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
43 comments
I’m not familiar with the historical details of Rhodesia and South Africa’s relationship, but it seems bizarre and counter-productive. Why would SA help betray Rhodesia if they had such similar origins, demographic makeup and political dynamics regarding whites and blacks? It seems like the two nations would have been perfectly suited for a strong cooperative alliance given their similarities. Any criticism of Rhodesia levelled by SA would certainly boomerang back to SA, so why would they take an adversarial position to such a natural ally?
As for Ian Smith. This memoir sounds like the thoughts of a man who is more concerned about his legacy than the truth. He saw which way the wind was blowing regarding race and he tried to sanitize his image for the historical record.
Hi Jasper,
Your latter point might be correct, but Smith does offer quotes and dates from official meeting and documents going back to the early 1960s. So if he is lying, if would be relatively straightforward to prove it.
As for your second concern, you are right. It is counter-intuitive that SA would betray Rhodesia. Smith seems to think it was the result of immense international pressure placed upon weak, short-sighted men. He could be right about that, but I would want to read about it in another couple sources before expressing a confident opinion.
“Weak and short-sighted” indeed, that’s an understatement! It would be interestng to explore how SA maneuvered itself or was maneuvered by outsiders into this self-defeating position. Beau, seems to have hit closest to the mark. These retrospective pieces are excellent lessons for us.
Jews.
Jews will always control South Africa through its banks and gold-mining companies. I haven’t researched to see if Zimbabwe has gold, but if so, same control.
Many ZA-Jews have supported ANC and Mandela. Ronnie Kasrils, for example, trained in the SU.
Henry Kissinger had a private word with the South African government, suggesting that if they turned their back on Rhodesia, then the USA would stop putting pressure on South Africa. Unfortunately, they actually believed that lying sack of organic fertilizer, selling out their friendly neighbor in a fruitless attempt to save themselves. So we can thank Henry Kissinger for helping to install a Marxist thug to mismanage the country for decades and turn it into an impoverished hellhole. More here:
https://counter-currents.com/2020/07/rhodesia-fights-back/
Ironically, Smith features HK prominently in his memoirs and remembers him fondly. A summation of their relationship would be HK being friendly and admitting in private to Smith that he had truth on his side, but sadly there was nothing he could do to help Rhodesia.
What a snake! Mugabe was better than Kissinger in one respect – you knew where he was coming from, and he didn’t walk up with a smile while holding a knife behind his back. Meanwhile, Smith was such a straight shooter that he assumed that several major figures had more honor and integrity than they actually did. It’s a particular hazard of psychological projection.
I remember reading your piece and enjoying it very much, Beau. Great resource, too. Thanks for the reminder.
The Carter´s Administration has betrayed not only Rhodesia, but Iran and Nicaragua too. However that is so typical for Democrats. Roosevelt has betrayed the oppressed peoples of the Soviet Union during the Great Famine of 1932-33, and also the countries of Central Europe at Yalta-45, transforming them from proud Central Europeans to “Eastern (not more real) Europeans” under the Soviet yoke. Truman has betrayed China to Mao Zedong. Kennedy has betrayed Cubans in the Bay of Pigs and later during the Missile Crisis. Such a long story.
And it was Kermit Roosevelt who did the Iran job.
Yes, but Kermit was relative to TEDDY Roosevelt (moreover, he was his grandson). Not of the FDR.
Up until the mid-1970s, South Africa was in a fairly good military position. It was allied with Rhodesia and the Portuguese African Empire, the latter notably in Angola and Mozambique. Also, SA controlled SW Africa. Effectively, European/White powers dominated most of the southern African continent.
Let’s note that the South African and Rhodesian militaries were very effective, while the Portuguese, at least among their elite units (some of them composed of Africans), were no slouches.
The Portuguese military fought a generally successful counterinsurgency in Angola and Mozambique. Then in 1974 a leftist military coup back in Portugal overthrew the Estado Novo government and declared an end to the Empire, abandoning the colonies. This move unhinged SA’s military position. Angola and Mozambique, alongside Zambia, now became bases for attacks against Rhodesia and SW Africa.
So post 1974 South Africa was essentially fighting a delaying action. White leaders believed that given time they could eventually work out some deal: negotiate with the ANC, create the Bantustans, get the leaders of the USA and UK to see reality and welcome SA as a member of the anti-Soviet alliance. Conceding Rhodesia was part of the delaying strategy and in retrospect, a futile move.
Anti-Whitism was stronger in DC and London than anti-communism, so in 1994 time ran out for Pretoria.
Arthur Kemp sums up the dilemma of White southern Africa as being a matter of boots on the ground:
“In a nutshell, the apartheid government refused to accept the basic truth of racial dynamics: those who occupy a space determine the nature of the society in that space, irrelevant of to whom that space originally belonged.”
Since the Whites were outnumbered throughout southern Africa, they could fight and win battles but in the long run not win the war.
A lesson to be re-learned by White peoples today.
Yes, many people do not know (or have forgotten), that the Portuguese were wonderful and successful jungle warriors in Africa. But the problem was, that Portugal was a poor country. To maintain their far colonial domains the Portuguese again and again asked for money other capitalist countries, the USA in the first line. The Americans helped, because Portugal, and especially their Azorian Islands, were very important for the NATO defence. But during the Vietnam War and after it the American Government could not give much money to Portugal to help them in Africa. After the so-called Red Carnation Revolution of 1974 the new government simply understood, that it has no money and it can get no more money from the other countries. I think the abandonment of the African colonies had rather economical, and not military causes. In the “naked” militarily sence, the Portuguese could fight much longer and still successful. But any war is expensive and you cannot win the war without supplies and without money for those supplies. If you cannot get the money yourself and cannot get foreign financial and economical help, you cannot win.
“Since the Whites were outnumbered throughout southern Africa, they could fight and win battles but in the long run not win the war.”
Not sure this is correct. If the whites had maintained a policy of total racio-geographic separation, as well as racial pride (anti-liberalism) and appropriate levels of military preparedness, they could have endured there forever, especially South Africa, with its precious metals and fertile agricultural lands. I don’t see Israel going away any time soon (though they may be felled from within due to higher domestic non-Jewish birthrates), and they have far more dangerous neighbors than the whites of Southern Africa faced.
I recall thinking back in the 1970s and 80s, long before I’d ever heard of the concept of the Ethnostate, but when I was an instinctive pro-SA/SWA/Rhodesia fanatic, that even apartheid would not be good enough. I dated a girl in high school (in 1977) whose older brother attended one of those elite British-modeled Southern African boarding schools (Bishops or maybe another one). Her father had extensive business interests there (I think he was some kind of gold and gems importer, pretty wealthy), and she had visited a couple of times. I was fascinated and tried to get as much info about SA out of her as possible. Alas, she couldn’t tell me much about the racial situation there (though she had some interesting safari photos, and nice pics of Cape Town, and her lounging beside hotel pools, and so on). She seemed to think it was a wonderful country, “so beautiful in parts”, “just like here”, etc. When I opined that it might not survive for very long, she thought I was being crazy and “extreme”.
Her brother was more racially realistic (not that my gf was a racial idiot, like most white females today; she just didn’t perceive the dangers), but he, too, thought SA would survive because of what he claimed was the “toughness” of the whites there. He used to regale me with stories about the kinds of “frontier” lives these young white SA guys considered normal (rather as I’ve done a few times myself, the younger generation finding my own more limited adventures in a rural all-male military boarding school at a time when they still had caning [and no self-esteem building, or diversity training, or “pronouns choosing”] to be themselves exotic and improbable).
Well, they weren’t tough enough. Or maybe they were physically, but not characterologically. I still recall my horror 30 years ago at what I called then the Fall of South Africa (when the vote was taken to hold all-race elections). I knew they’d signed their death warrant, but even though I was highly racially aware by that point (already subscribing to both Instauration and AR), I couldn’t fathom why they’d done so. I still can’t – there or here.
‘ The people who didn’t want whites in charge in Africa in the days of Ian Smith don’t want them in charge anywhere.’
This.
I’ll do better next time!
You’d better. I’ll bring back PK van der Byl for the FO, and he’ll sell the goods harder this time, now we know what can go wrong…
(I’ve been sitting on a van der Byl biography for years, and Spencer’s extensive review here inspires me to dip back into it and cover it for Counter-Currents. The “Piccadilly Dutchman” was bit more colorful than Smith, I think.)
Smith speaks highly of PK in his memoirs. Can’t wait to read your review, Margot!
Ian Smith was always regarded as a “liberal” by those close to the situation. At the time it was said by such acute observers as A K Chesterton, S E D Brown (SA Observer), and Ivor Benson, who had served as information adviser to Smith. A book that does examine his background and actions is “Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith: The Debunking of a Myth” (2017) by Stephen Mitford Goodson.
Of note, Goodson’s book has the Foreword by Dr Colin Barlow, a co-founder of the Rhodesian Front and MP for the RF (’70-77), who refers to “ten wasted years” in regard to Smith’s duplicity.
KR, thank you for the book recommendation. I will check it out.
The higher orbits of power are so Jew-infested it’s easy to see how historical figures like Ian Smith or contemporaries like Donald Trump collapse.
Realistically, there wasn’t much Ian Smith and the rest of the Rhodesian leadership could have done differently. Rhodesia never had more than 8 percent Whites, which was proportionally half as many as South Africa had in 1994, when Whites in that country surrendered. As far as sheer numbers, the White population was even punier, as Whites in Rhodesia never amounted to more than 300,000 as opposed to several million in South Africa. There was no way that few Whites could have held out against both the black hordes and the liberal world. And if they had tried something more drastic—say, driving out the blacks—they would have been invaded and wiped out by a coalition of African and White liberal countries, likely including the US.
In fact, just about the only thing the Rhodesians could have done differently was to join South Africa. They had the opportunity to do so but rejected it, probably out of a feeling of Anglo superiority over the Afrikaners. Obviously, joining South Africa would only have been a reprieve from black rule, but their failure to do so showed the Rhodesians’ rather impractical mindset.
If Whites were ever going to successfully colonize sub-Saharan Africa, it should have been different from the start. Namely, Whites would have to exclude blacks from whatever territories they conquered.
In the early ’70s, I experienced the feigned Anglo superiority from the when we’s who flocked to Rhodes University in South Africa. It was also the trademark of Queenie’s spawn who pressed ganged Afrikaners into Churchill’s war against Germany, which resulted in the colonial collaborators being turfed out in the first election after the war by the Nationalists.
Ian Smith’s “full-throated support for the newly-elected” saint Rolihlahla merely reflected the mindset of Rhodes’ superior race. They used similar tactics when they enlisted tribal auxiliaries to torch Afrikaner farms and herd the women and children into concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer war
Bishop Murozewa
Muzorewa.
The story is very similiar to what happened in Iran in the same time, 1978 and 1979.
Nazi Germany supported Japan in destroying European/Anglo outposts in Asia. Nazis really didn’t care about broader Europe, only Germany, for which I don’t blame them, but we need to be realistic too.
Well okay, but this was after England and France declared war against Germany to protect the honor of Poland, no?
Yes, Nazi Germany supported Japan, but Japan DID NOT SUPPORT Nazi Germany. It did not attack Red Army in Siberia, that´s why Stalin could relocate many “Siberian” division to the West and stop the German offensive. Japan waged its own war, not Germans´war.
Japan took on the Soviets in the battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939 and got smashed. That’s probably why they never took them on again. I think Zhukov led the Soviets at that time. He went on to win the battle of Stalingrad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
Yes, but during Nomongan there was no Western Front and no Germans near Moscow.
Maybe the Japanese were right, that they have not invaded Siberia 1941-42, but
a) that did not help them, they were defeated anyway, and by Russians too.
b) that means that they were not “full” Allies of Germany
and c) the rise of Mao Zedong, the occupation of Eastern Türkestan and Tibet, the Korean War, the Cultural Revolution, the Big Leap, all millions of dead Chinese (not only Han-Chinese), and the nowaday crisis around two Chinas, all belong to consequences of the Japanese passivity.
“…his exploits as a fighter pilot in the Second World War”
British chauvinist Ian Smith was a tragic figure.
He fought against the only power who would have saved his beloved Rhodesia.
NS policy had three very reasonable positions:
1) NS Germany never participated nor had ambitions in colonialism
2) They viewed the British empire as a “stabilizing factor” of world politics, which is debatable but not completely wrong
3) NS ‘racism’ considered that each race should live within its own borders, starting with the millions of Germans forced under Slavic rule up to a Jewish state. Call it the ‘homeland’ principle.
Position 3 can only be considered prophetical in hindsight and will haunt us for the next decades.
A small bit of digging reveals some telling tales. White people have been in southern africa and america roughly the same amount of time late 1500s early 1600s.
The best number I could find for the number of american indians at that time was an estimate of between “one to ten million”. I couldn’t find an estimate for the number of blacks in southern africa at that time but a really generous estimated number of 3 million of them in 1800.
Fast forward to now when there are in excess of 100 million black africans in a handful of southern african countries compared to less than 6 million wagon-burners scattered across the land of the free.
And to think a worthless american CLINT like Kissinger was over in southern africa dictating to those people what they would and couldn’t do regarding their native populations!!
And then these americans create a country out of thin air called israel – of course there were NO people whatsoever living there at the time, just a great big vacant parking lot – and this israel country now enjoys the full support of the american govt and military and makes foreign policy for the american govt. F**king amazing!!
And is it true that there are only between 14 million Jews, as claimed by the Orthodox; and/or only 25 million, as claimed by the Reformed? And yet, they are claimed to control most of the world, as well as a goodly portion of its wealth? Surely we can do better. It’s time for us to come take our lessons at the cash register – as the old saying goes.
I ought sometime to review for CC the late 1990s book, Henige, Numbers from Nowhere. It destroys the prima facie moronic idea that there were tens of millions of Indians here at the time of ‘contact’ with the white man. There were approx 500k to one million (Paul Johnson, in his wonderful A History of the American People, mentioned a similar number). To have had vastly larger populations would have required civilized agricultural techniques, which the Indians lacked, despite occasionally growing a patch of maize.
And southern South Africa was nearly devoid of humans when the white man arrived. Whites colonized these near-vacant (and totally primitive and uncivilized) lands, and invested their capital and labor to create magnificent civilizational outposts. That made these lands racially ours, and from within a Christian perspective, whatever theologically ignorant contemporary liberal propagandists masquerading “Christians” might say to the contrary. The giving away of South Africa – the legalizing of settler-alien demographic conquest by employment-seeking immigrant Bantu Africans and their SA-born descendants – was totally immoral: a massive land-and-nation–theft (and subsequent ethnic cleansing via anarcho-marxist government-tolerated black mass-criminality) of the true founding ethnoculture and people of South Africa, that of the Boers.
This is a very important point for all prowhites. All too often, discussions of interracial conflicts over history, land, resources, rights, etc, have been conducted in an obviously totally one-sided way, with white wrongness and POC rightness merely assumed, instead of philosophically demonstrated, by nearly all parties. The “not-antiwhites”, always a minority of such public discussants, will usually then make racio-morally irrelevant efficiency arguments: eg, wrt this post’s topic, during the 1970s-80s, as SA came under greater attack by global white race traitors allied to black racial imperialists, ‘conservative’ arguments against black majority rule/conquest were always couched in terms of either a) US Cold War strategic interests which cautioned against black majority rule as something furthering the Soviet agenda of world communist conquest (an argument valid in itself, but one already implicitly conceding the soundness of the fundamental moral claim that blacks had a right to rule SA); or b) the extent to which black majority rule would actually prove beneficial to the blacks themselves (again, a valid concern – black rule has, predictably, been disastrous for the morally legitimate interests in civilizedness and economic improvement of upstanding blacks – but one which ignores the fundamental morality of the right of the Boervolk to rule their own, ancestrally built nation).
Worse, to the extent prowhites (as opposed to, recall, mere “not-antiwhites”) join the conversation at all, they will turn around and make “might is right” or “white survivalism uber alles” arguments. The latter is indeed the ultimate concern, but yet again, it implicitly rejects the moral case for our people, which effectively ends up ceding the moral high ground to our traitors and our people’s enemies. Given the innate ethical superiority of modal whites vis a vis other races, this has been a key and continuing element in our racial dispossession and global retreat.
As usual, this post and its many comments have provided a near-master’s level seminar on this topic. What a blessing is Counter Currents and crew. Think what this would cost you at Oxford.
Thank you so much for saying that, Alexandra. It means a lot, and I am glad you get so much out of Counter-Currents!
The real great betrayer is Smith himself, and white men like him. Only they never even realize it. I suspect these white institutions do not stand a chance with this coming infection. The politicians are too habituated. Set in their ways, thinking their old style of politics will make a difference. I have heard that de Clerk in South Africa actually thought some blacks would vote for him after the capitulation. How could he believe something like that? The people we have in place to protect our future are as naive as children.
The problem with South Africa, Rhodesia and any other white settlement in Africa or really anywhere outside Europe is the lack of realism. These are not our lands. Yes, our people conquered land or discovered it etc but it is not our origins. Our ancestors went on an odyssey away from our homeland and forcibly took us with them. How long do you expect this to last, at what cost and most importantly for what?
Why must we maintain a losing battle all in the name of greed? The proportion of whites in South Africa relative to blacks is irreversibly shrinking. Why? Oh I don’t know, maybe because Africa is where blacks are from so they have an endless genetic supply-chain.
This senseless need to maintain legacy hegemony for nothing is what gets our people annihilated. Hitler refused to allow his field marshals to withdraw from the collapsing Eastern Front because of this same bizarre mentality of declining to cede ground even to regroup elsewhere. It makes no objective sense. What is the moral victory to be gained? Moreover, what is there to maintain in Post-apartheid?
It is the same story in the American South, which is the closest parallel vis-á-vis South Africa/Rhodesia. I’ve seen magazine articles from the early 1980s that show Rhodesians were dealing with proto-woke/virtue-signaling nonsense long before America. All they did was cling to Protestantism and their firearms just like American Southerners.
Why on earth would former slaves want to not only not be repatriated after manumission and a brutal civil war, but even live on the same land as sharecroppers with their former slavers, and vice versa? You just have to look over your shoulder the rest of your life. As awful as Lincoln was he had no intention of allowing the Union to become the multicultural dump it is today because his goal was to preserve the country and never again allow the conditions to emerge that caused the war, but he was assassinated in the end so we will never know where his total war machine would have turned next. The result is two parallel, passive-aggressive cultures, whose rivalry only expresses itself in elections because white flight and segregation does not and cannot exist there since there are so many blacks widespread that diversity is inescapable. Therefore repatriation is the only solution. Afrikaners to Australia is a necessity.
The idea, that a majority should rule, is a terribly stupid idea as itself. It does not matter, what color the majority has, white, black, red, blue, green or grey. The majority is imbecile, always. The elite, i.e. minority, should rule, and the majority should obey. The shepherd (one) command his sheeps (many), rather than vice versa, as it is under “democrazy”.
Brilliant. We need minoritarianism like we do now with a tiny internationalism cabal of overlords. What could possibly go wrong?
That tiny internationalist cabal is democratically VOTED to the power by the majority of idiots among indigenious peoples in almost all Eurasian countries. If the peoples cannot raise their own national elite, then they deserved to be ruled by some foreign or internationalist elite.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment