South Africa as an Unintended Example

If you rely on the mainstream media for your news, then the chances are that you never even heard about the events in South Africa that took place roughly three weeks ago. At best, you might have heard about the rioting and looting through a post-processual interpretive lens that sought to recast the situation as driven by the old bugaboo of “White supremacy.” Certainly, the one single reference to the riots and chaos in South Africa that I happened to see from a Cathedral source focused on the troubling danger of White militias responding to their communities being attacked by plagues of human locusts, rather than on the destruction and death being caused by the locusts themselves. Now, after the fact, mainstream media are focusing more on the humanitarian crises caused by the unrest than on the Bantu perpetrators of the violence themselves.

There’s a reason for all this, of course. I would hope that by now, most reasonably intelligent people understand that mainstream media outlets do not exist to inform their consumers, but to transform them. Cathedral sources of (mis)information are there to propagate the narrative that The Powers That Be want you to believe. At every level of a news story, from the basic events themselves to high level critical meta-interpretation, narrative formation is about fitting the story into the greater framework of pre-existing (yet ever evolving) progressive ideological scaffolding. Report or don’t report, which angle to spin, even the specific copypasta used by bot accounts on social media to give the appearance of broad-based support for the narrative – they all are carefully crafted for ideological compliance.

Whether they’re bots or real doctors, they are amazingly unimaginative.

That is because regimes, even overtly unsympathetic and illegitimate ones like the current American coup conspirators in DC, find it easier to operate if they can convince people to go along with their programs willingly rather than if they have to try to use force to make them do so unwillingly. Even in Orwell’s 1984, IngSoc seems to treat actual violence to enforce its program as a last resort in response to failures of its extensive propaganda machinery. As this all pertains to South Africa, the tenor of Western reporting was such as to discourage viewers from drawing several conclusions that would run contrary to the goals of The Powers That Be. Below, I’d like to discuss four general lessons from the South African riots and the events surrounding them that They don’t want you to learn.

First, there is the fact that South Africa is essentially the end game for Critical Race Theory. As Revolver News observed, South Africa was the first country to be officially built on CRT – and it just imploded. But the implosion isn’t really the part they want to hide from you. Rather, it’s the fact that the implosion is the desired result of CRT as it serves as the vehicle for the larger goals of progressive Marxist revolutionism. The whole point to CRT is to undermine every legacy institution and cultural artefact in Heritage America, using race (instead of class) as the wedge issue. Violence and chaos are just later stages in the timeline of progressive revolutionary implementation. Progressives want to bring that to America, but they don’t want the White majority to figure it out until it’s too late. Seeing this come to South Africa, brought by progressives mouthing the same slogans and pushing the same anti-White ideology as American critical race theorists, tends to wake a lot of folks up prematurely.

In a sense, the critical race theorists are correct about one thing – America and other western nations arewhite supremacist” in the sense that their founding stocks were various White ethnies who ordered the laws, institutions, and cultures in their polities after their own assumptions about how a society should be structured. The thing is, there’s nothing wrong with that. Asians, blacks, Hispanics – they all did the exact same thing in ordering their societies in the ways they want, and in expecting foreigners to either conform or stay out of the way. As such, CRT’s emphasis on overthrowing “whiteness” really has nothing to do with “justice” or “fairness,” but is just a gross attack on Whites themselves. CRTers labour under the delusion that once Whites have been swamped by non-White immigration and their institutions and culture coopted or destroyed, the replacements will magically be able to carry on the level of civilisation, technology, and learning that was achieved by historic White nations.

This was essentially the program of the black majority that took power in South Africa after the end of White rule. The result was that in around three decades, South Africa went from being a modern, first world nation that (despite embargoes and pariah status) was able to manufacture its own military equipment and even build nuclear weapons, to being a third world country that can barely keep sewage treatment plants operating outside a few major cities. In return for voluntarily giving up power, the White minority got vilification, scores of farm murders of Whites by blacks, and formal discrimination in the very institutions their ancestors built. That’s exactly what progressives want for America, but they don’t want Americans “jumping the gun” by getting a sneak preview of how it all played out in South Africa appearing on their television screens.

Speaking of guns, the second lesson that The Powers That Be don’t want you to take from the events in South Africa is the absolute importance of an armed citizenry that is ready and capable of exercising private armed force in the absence of law and order, and even in the face of state-sanctioned violence. Across social media, there were numerous video examples of mostly White neighbourhoods in which residents organised to fend off rioters and looters. What’s more, this often involved the actual use of live rounds that resulted in dead looters. This was coupled with the collapse of actual governmental authority “on the ground” where looting was taking place. When government force failed, civilian attempts to restore and maintain order were more successful. Not exactly something that illegitimate regimes want people dwelling on too deeply.

What happened in South Africa was a genuine loss of law and order. Many people would point to last summer’s rioting by BLM and antifas as an example of the same in the United States, but it really wasn’t. What you need to understand about last summer’s riots in many US cities is that these were not spontaneous or uncontrolled. They were carefully coordinated by The Powers That Be to serve the purpose of undermining confidence in the Trump administration, while also allowing the Regime to plausibly claim that its “defund the police” agenda had broad support. One thing you should notice, however, if that the rioting was nearly always contained to heavily Blue locales where local officials told the police to stand down while enforcing anarchotyrannical restrictions against defending one’s self upon the local residents. You didn’t often see BLMers actually heading to the suburbs, and when they did, they were generally seen off by armed citizens standing their ground.

The reason the suburbs were off limits is because the Regime isn’t in a position yet to federalise local police forces, so they’re not ready to create the conditions for an authentic loss of law and order in Red regions of the country yet (which can then be used to undermine the credibility of local and state policing and bring about said federalisation). The Powers That Be want to be able to destroy local policing, yet also render citizens unable, or unwilling due to fear of federal repression, to defend their homes and communities. After all, it sets a bad precedent for left-wing rioters and looters to be ran off by armed citizens, especially if those armed citizens got away with shooting looters in self-defence. Might start giving other armed citizens some ideas, don’t you know.

Progressives want to be able to bring about South African-style violence to the kulaks but without the South African-style armed self-defence that we saw a few weeks ago. They don’t need kulak “domestic terrorists” getting comfortable with the notion of socially legitimised mass armed self-defence.

Thirdly, progressives don’t want people noticing that in the face of massive looting and rioting, South Africa’s White and Indian communities were very capable of organising for self-defence on short notice. In addition to the concerns given above, this also serves to validate arguments from human biodiversity (HBD) about disparate IQs (among other things). Higher average group IQ translates into second order effects such as the ability to organise large groups of people, for example, which is why the two highest average IQ groups in South Africa – Whites and Indians – demonstrated outsized group effectiveness despite only making up around 15% or so of South Africa’s total population.

See, liberals of all stripes (including “classical” liberals) despise HBD, since they fundamentally operate off of the “blank slate” assumption that all people are essentially fungible, and thus reject the idea that different groups will display different traits and genetic predispositions. This is, for instance, why even “Reagan conservatives” ultimately believe in “propositional nation” nonsense and support mass immigration “as long as it’s legal.” It is anathema to progressives to observe that certain groups are more likely to commit crimes and resort to disorganised, self-interested violence such as looting and rioting, or that other groups are more predisposed to success at building and maintaining high civilisation. They definitely don’t want these “stereotypes” being reinforced in front of the nation’s eyes.

Lastly, The Powers That Be don’t want the citizenry (re)learning the lesson of the necessity of organising citizens into armed bodies, even when the government doesn’t want you to. Local militias negate the federal government’s monopoly on the use of force, the possession of which is an important aspect in being able to wield hard power (i.e the kind that actually enforces bureaucratic diktat and media narrative generation). Obviously, well-organised local militias could potentially prevent federal police from enforcing unpopular or tyrannical laws. Likewise, when sanctioned by their states, they give added legitimacy to state governments to defy overreaching federal intrusions.

In short, the existence of militias represents the decentralisation of power in much the same way that feudal aristocracy was a decentralising opponent to absolute monarchy. When militias (or neighbourhood watches, or whatever other form they might take) step into the breach to restore order where official government organs fail, such as was happening for a while in South Africa, official legitimacy takes a hit while local legitimacy is enhanced. Decentralisation of power is exactly what The Powers That Be have been fighting for decades as they seek to accrue all power to Washington, DC. There have already been troubling challenges to federal authority by several states in recent years, and as America’s current secular cycle winds down, this is going to continue to accelerate. Politicians in the capital most definitely do not want people in flyover country taking the notion that maybe local authority and power can do things like providing law and order better than distant bureaucrats in far off DC.

So yes, The Powers That Be had every reason to not want the average American to learn too much about the recent events in South Africa outside of their carefully curated narrative. From their perspective, there was literally no good take home message that the American people could receive from an unvarnished account of that country’s late troubles. Which, of course, makes it all the more important for Heritage Americans to pay attention and take heed to the lessons from South Africa.

2 thoughts on “South Africa as an Unintended Example

  1. “Cathedral” is a somewhat dated term and I know that people that came up in that era (including myself) have sort of clung to it. The Mencius Moldbug / Chateau Heartiste / etc heyday. But if we are going to name religious buildings after the current overlords perhaps something more accurate, like say, ‘Synagogue’ would be more appropriate? Just a thought…


  2. Very good article. You’re an excellent writer.

    Now onto the topic at hand:

    The Cathedral suffers from the deficiency that it relies on informal coordination. Without a central planning body there is overlap and redundancy. Some of men’s dislike of the news media stems from the overkill you see on cable news, with MSNBC seeming like a clone of CNN and vice versa. All the late night talk shows start to blur together.

    The Cathedral relies upon television as its propaganda arm. TV, glowing in our darkened living rooms, gathers in the faithful and challenges the apostates. It is neither unbiased nor neutral in its presentation of facts. This may seem obvious, but it is not. A 500-channel universe seems to be benevolent at first glance, a boon for our personal lives and a defuser of the bomb of boredom.

    Yet television and the Cathedral go hand-in-glove. The TV shows began losing audience members when they showed too many commercials, but when they advertised in the shows for SJW/Progressive ideals, no one blinked an eye. Irritating eye candy, it seems, is worse than poisoned words.

    — Catxman


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s