The Drudge headline reads: The ‘Hitler Of South Africa’ Tells White People, He Won’t Kill Them — Yet!
You’ll have to take my word for it, but about 30 years ago I wrote an editorial that was published in the local newspaper. In that piece I said that South African apartheid(1) had to end, and that it would end.
Then I said a “But…”
It was a very big “But…”
Here it is:
But… it’s not enough to get rid of something bad; you must replace it with something better. Otherwise there’s no point.
In other words, unless you’re going to replace apartheid with something better… then there’s no point in replacing apartheid at all.
Or, otherwise stated: if the thing you’re going to put in place of apartheid is actually worse than apartheid, then you’re best off leaving apartheid in place. Until, that is… you can come up with something better.(2)
South Africa has replaced apartheid with a system that includes a prominent participant who envisions the killing of all white people in South Africa. In that context, it’s really difficult to make the case that it was a good thing to get rid of apartheid at all. No one in the previous white-dominated régime — a régime that everyone agrees was bad — ever envisioned killing black people at all.
We’ve seen this principle play itself out to ghastly effect elsewhere too:
- The Russian tsars were bad — their successors, the Communists, were vastly worse.
- The Weimar Republic in 1930’s Germany was bad — its successor, Hitler’s Third Reich — was vastly worse.
- Cuba’s Batista was bad — his successor, Fidel Castro, was vastly worse.
- Iran’s Shah was bad — his successor, the Islamist ghouls, are vastly worse.
- And so on…
Conversely, we’ve seen the great things that can happen when a bad régime’s successor is an improvement over the régime it topples.
- King George III of England was bad — his successor in the American colonies was vastly superior.
Here are the results of that particular changeover:
- The abolition of slavery
- The defeat of the successors to the Russian tsars
- The defeat of the successors to the Weimar Republic
- The freest, fairest, most humane, most generous, open, welcoming, friendly society ever established in the history of the planet
Finally, recent history has shown us, again to tragic effect, the accuracy of our hypothesis. In recent years, America toppled a real dirtbag — Iraq’s bloodthirsty dictator Saddam Hussein — and replaced him with something vastly better: a democratically-elected government. Then Democrats — the political wing of the American Left — threw it all away, snatching defeat from a hard-earned victory, allowing a vastly worse successor — ISIS — to take near total control in Iraq.
Needless to say, we’re still cleaning up from that mess. But only after the absolutely unnecessary loss of countless lives, along with the revelations of ISIS’s stomach-curdling brutality.(3)(4)
(1) The system of government in pre-1990’s South Africa. It was a system that discriminated heavily in favor of the minority white population of South African.
(2) One more important reason for this is: humans tend not to want to go back to what was in place before… even if what’s in place now is way worse. Polls in Russia, for example, still show that Josef Stalin — the mass murderer of tens of millions of Russians — is a lot more popular than the last Russian tsar.
(3) They crucify men, women and children, saw the heads off men, bury men, women and children alive, burn men alive. All for videos that they then distribute to similarly-minded goons around the world.
(4) The principle holds true everywhere, especially in America. If you’re going to replace the thoroughly mediocre George W. Bush, you shouldn’t do so with the execrable, corrupt Barack Obama. You should replace Bush with… someone better.