Topic: WorldNetDaily
The increasingly unhinged Erik Rush uses his Feb. 28 WorldNetDaily column to endorse fellow WND columnist Ilana Mercer's lament that apartheid has ended in South Africa.
This transformation of South Africa came about almost entirely due to international pressure rather than national referenda – but why was it done? Not so much because apartheid was an odious policy, but because it offended the sensibilities of Western liberal elites that whites held dominion in countries such as South Africa and the former Rhodesia, which were “meant for blacks” (I suppose because they happened to lie on the African continent).
This rationale would, of course, provide ample justification for Scandinavian or European nations wishing to pitch anyone darker than myself into the sea, but I digress.[...]
They determined that white rule in South Africa, the scourge of Africa and the malignant vestige of white colonialism, must come to an end – and it did. Unfortunately, many of these hold a similar view of the United States; it is clear that this is the case regarding President Barack Obama and his partners in America’s orchestrated decline.
Rush also uncritically parrots Mercer's claim that "condemnation of the new racist South Africa is not advocacy for the racist old." But given that Mercer has never explicitly condemned apartheid in her WND writings and has lionized the leader of the white supremacist, militant Afrikaner Resistance Movement -- whose logo echoes that of Nazi Germany -- there's really no other interpretation of what Mercer does.
So why is Rush signing on to it? Maybe it's a side effect of his full-blown Obama Derangement Syndrome.
