Friday, December 13, 2013

What do we make of this man?

I, like you, have only a filtered knowledge of the story and actions of Nelson Mandela.  Since his recent death I have listened to the canned praises of various media pundits who, I have come to know by experience, are about as phony as a three dollar bill.  So, I have done a little digging and I have gotten some information from sources outside the main stream and I offer them to you for your consideration.  You can then draw your own conclusions.

The following is the lead in to an article written by Dr. Pieter Moller, a South African historian.

"The Mandela Legend:
Webster defines a legend as “a story generally of a marvellous character, told respecting a saint”.  It has an historical background, but is often padded and tainted by fantasy.  In Mandela’s case, when the facts are viewed realistically and objectively, any sensible person will no longer see a saint, but a fantasy blown up to something supernatural.  It will become clear that a false image of the so-called beloved Madiba is being presented to the world.  He is by no means the peace-loving, gentle daddy he is made out to be, but nothing less than a tyrant.  He did not spend 27 years in jail for no reason, as continuously maintained.  One example of these untruthful presentations appeared in the London Independent, May 1993: “Nelson Mandela is a noble man ... imprisoned for 27 years for his dedication to the cause of Black majority in South Africa”.

How much of such misrepresentation could be ascribed to naive parrot-talk and how much to deliberate communist propaganda cannot easily be determined.  The truth is that he was not imprisoned on Robben Island without reason – not even because he was merely an opponent of apartheid.  He was there because he planned to overthrow a government and in the process, cause the violent deaths of thousands of innocent people (including blacks) – a crime which deserved the death penalty, and he must consider himself fortunate that the so-called apartheid-regime did not press for it.  In his auto-biography Long Walk to Freedom, het admits inter alia that he gave the order to plant the Church Street bomb during the 80's, which killed 11 innocent people and injured many more.

In spite of this he was built up to an icon and held up as “a man of reconciliation”, as “essentially moderate, a man of special discernment, a courageous freedom fighter”.  His international praise singers went as far as comparing him to Moses and George Washington.  Topping them all was the American negro, Jesse Jackson, who blasphemously lifted him to the level of Jesus Christ.  What is equally dumbfounding is that the post-1966 SA government hardly ever tried to unmask the real Mandela or his share in the Rivonia complot or his close bonds with the ANC/SACP, or to enlighten the public as to the aims of this alliance."

The remainder of the article can be read here:

Now let's look at an analysis of the history through the eyes of my good friend David, who is also an historian.

"Basically, Mandela was a communist and a terrorist who never renounced either philosophy.  I have heard on the news, ad nauseum, that he was a great "reconciler" when he got out of prison.  Not true.  He guided South Africa to where it is today, so let's take a very quick look at what Mandela has wrought.

When the Dutch, or Boers, first came to South Africa 400 years ago, there were very few blacks in the areas they moved into, mostly Hottentots living in caves.  The Zulus had a primitive, tribal empire to the north which they established after slaughtering the indigenous tribes who lived there.  As the Boers moved northwards and the Zulus moved south, conflict occurred.   Eventually the Boers prevailed and established a modern society for the time based upon agriculture.  When diamonds and gold were discovered in South Africa, the economy was further enhanced.  Thousands and thousands of blacks moved into the area over time and provided labor.

There had always been racial segregation in South Africa, and for that matter in all of colonial Africa, but the system was not given a name until, I believe, the 1940's when it became Apartheid.  So how bad was Apartheid?  Let's judge it this way.  From the 1960's through the end of the 1980's somewhere around 4 million blacks moved to South Africa from recently decolonized and now black governed surrounding countries.  Yes, they couldn't vote and had to ride on separate buses but they didn't care.  They had moved there to escape genocide because they were of the wrong tribe and to find decent jobs because there were none in their "liberated" native countries.

South Africa was a First World country with a booming economy with great educational institutions.  If you remember, I believe it was Dr. De Bakke, a Boer, who perfected heart transplants.  Both blacks and whites, could live there safely without worrying about having one's head cut off with a machete.

Today, South Africa's economy is in shambles, whites are fleeing the country, it has the highest murder rate and AIDS rate in the world, and laws have been passed prohibiting whites from holding most government jobs as well as restricting white employment by private firms.  The country has been reduced to a lawless, Third World jungle.

The cause of this was economic pressure from the US and Europe.  We were offended by South Africa's segregation system.  For unexplainable reasons, we have never been offended by the same thing in reverse in black governed countries, even when those countries seized all white property and forced white people to leave.  We applaud South Africa's new government even though it is corrupt, inefficient, and enacting policies against whites similar to those in force against blacks during Apartheid. 

We make heroes out of people like Mandela who was directly responsible for thousands of deaths, mostly of blacks.  We adore him even though he was a member of the Communist Party, an ideology sworn to overthrow our form of government, for most of his life and which he never, ever renounced.  He was given the Peace Prize even though he was a senior director of the African National Congress, a terrorist organization. 

What fools we are.  We were primarily responsible for the destruction of the only even half way civilized country in sub-Saharan Africa and the only true ally we had on the continent.

I don't know if it is over yet in South Africa.  The Boers are a very tough and stubborn bunch of folks.  The government seems to be leaving those out in the country, on land they have farmed for 400 years, alone for now.  However, talk of seizing the land and giving it to blacks is going around.  I can't see that that will happen peacefully.  Basically, the blacks are scared of the Boers...and they should be.  Those folks have no where to go.  It is my understanding that most of the whites leaving the country are of English extraction, people left over from the colonial days when South Africa was an English colony.  I could be wrong, but I think the Boers will fight.  If left alone and if we don't interfere, there is a very good possibility that they could win.  Unfortunately, we will probably stick our noses into it again to make ourselves feel good and that would result in a terrible tragedy for the Boers."



  1. The more I read, the less I know.

  2. We get a very sanitized view of things from the media these days. Some people are exempt from the scrutiny that all of us would be subject to if given the same set of circumstances.


I encourage your comments. Keep the language civil and you will be published.