By Tim Haydon.
The death of Nelson Mandela has predictably sparked off a turbocharged outpouring of expressions of grief in the Left/Liberal Media, led naturally by the BBC, the mouthpiece of left-liberal opinion in Britain.
The Left and Left/Liberals love Mandela because, they think, his story encapsulates their view of the world: a world of the racially naturally equal where those races at the bottom of a socio-economic heap are there purely because of ’racism’ and ‘oppression’.
South Africa was the epitome of the Marxist definition of ‘racism’: Power plus prejudice. Mandela was a black man and a Marxist who struggled against its white minority regime. Ergo, he was good and the regime he struggled against was intrinsically evil.
Never mind that it was the whites who created South Africa while the blacks merely took advantage of this creation, as they are now doing in other European societies. Never mind that the whites wanted to hang on to power because they thought, correctly, that black majority rule would mean the beginning of the end of South Africa as a civilised place for them to live. What else was and is to be expected of a population of low education – something the white population of South Africa was and is well aware of while bien-pensant liberals thousands of miles away are not?
Mandela has been endowed with virtual sainthood by Western leftism and left-liberalism. However, it is too often forgotten that his 27 years of imprisonment, which are largely responsible for his aura of martyrdom, were largely self-imposed because he refused to give up violence in pursuit of his aims.
Davis Cameron said that what one noticed when one met him was his ‘compassion’ and that he was a hero for the whole world and for all time. However, Mandela showed little compassion as head of the terrorist wing of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence which killed or maimed many innocent people. These included arranging terrorist incidents such as the planting of bombs at Johannesburg railway station. Other incidents ‘signed off’ by Mandela were:
-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983
-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985
-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988
-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986
-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 – limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead
-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987
-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988
But hey! It’s only whites who were killed and maimed. So that’s alright then.
The Left/Liberals get Mandela very wrong. His dalliance with Marxism was merely a vehicle for his real aims; the destruction of white rule and the imposition of the rule of his own, black people. He said at the Rivonia trial that he had fought against white domination and black domination (well, he would, wouldn’t he), but does any realistic person truly believe that he would have spent his life fighting for majority rule in South Africa if it had meant white and not black majority rule?
Or if it had not been obvious that in the nature of things, black majority rule would mean black domination of whites? It is because majorities do dominate willy nilly, regardless of imposed ideology, that white leftists and liberals want to destroy the white nature of Britain and the West.
In truth, notwithstanding his methods, Mandela was a hero, not of multiculturalism and multiracialism as left-liberals believe, but of ethnic nationalism. As he said at the trial: ‘I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the African People’. He fought for his own people, and that is something we white nationalists can admire and emulate.
The idea of Apartheid or separate development was not in itself unjust. Ethnicities the world over want to rule themselves, just as they did in South Africa. It failed and made a hero of Mandela because the South African whites were unrealistic about what they could keep for themselves and how they could do it. As it slides into Third World barbarism, as they knew it would, they and the country they created are now paying a heavy price for their mistakes.
—————————————————————————————
A very good account can be read at the following link:
3
The significance for Britain of Mandela was the manner in which devious politicians turned him into a secular saint so they that could then be photographed with him and bathe in the reflected light of his halo.
He must have got privately sickened by the way he was exploited. People arriving at his door for the career essential photo of Mandela smiling with them like old friends. People whose views and objectives he had absolutely nothing in common with.and whose purposes were domestic politics in their own countries.
Mandela’s revolution did not achieve a rainbow utopia or even a fair South Africa. It simply replaced one race rule with a different race rule. Corruption and murder are rife.
The fair solution would have been to give the Boers a homeland. The probability is that in the end all the whites will leave. Curiously, when that sort of thing happens to white people it’s fine.
We all know what the deluge of Mandela coverage on the BBC and elsewhere is about – and it’s not about Mandela.
It’s to further create a left-wing mythology about how Britain should be run akin to holy text and which cannot be challenged except by heretics who are to be cast into utter darkness.
The cynicism is breathtaking.
(Party Member) I would not want his actions on MY conscience. He now knows the 10% he got right and the 90% he got wrong.
(Party Member) Upon hearing the news I put on a coat ran out of the house and delivered one hundred of our Enoch Powell leaflets to local houses. If I am ever asked “Where were you when Nelson Mandela died?”, instead of looking at them in disbelief at the question, I can say “Leafleting for the British Democratic Party”.
The sickeningly endless epitomes regarding Mandela have left me feeling physically sick.
This communist, and anti-white racist, who happily sanctioned terrorist actions against white South Africans is no “Gandhi” figure. He is not someone who put peace and non-violence at the heart of his preachings was he? He did, however, argue for his own race to be given the right to rule over themselves and only later adopted the idea of seducing the white ruling elite into allowing themselves to be ruled over by the blacks, convincing them that they would be respected and kept safe.
His real legacy is a South Africa where there are now 50,000 murders every year. Where large numbers of white farmers are being murdered without much concern from the authorities, just as in Rhodesia. His own family are at war with each other. The usual corruption and criminality of leadership that we see in other African countries is now evident. If Mandela had wanted a South Africa where all races were equal then why do they now have a policy where blacks must be given priority over whites for jobs? If we, the Brit Dems, were to advocate such a policy here in the UK what would we be called by the media and the establishment parties? The hypocrisy of the media, especially the sickeningly left-wing biased BBC is nauseating.
Ironic that a black nationalist terrorist, who naturally hated the West, was kept alive so long thanks to Western technology. Don’t expect any acknowledgement of this reality as the mass media manufactures Mandela mania.
To be honest if I’d been in his shoes then I probably would have turned to violence too; imagine a Britain ruled by black/brown people where white people are not allowed to vote and have various other restrictions placed upon them……
Violence did not win.
What won was the fact that you could not run a modern society like it for long. What was needed was separate states. The Boers were unrealistic and the black population underrated the value of white technology and management to them.
The violence only created a tradition of violence.
But I note the increasing restrictions placed on white people in Britain in the opposite direction. Jobs and freedom of speech. Not long before whites are told to move out of certain areas.
Jobs quotas are on the way and de facto already here in some occupations.
Re Charlotte: ‘Imagine a Britain ruled by black/brown people’ = like Britain circa 2070?
‘He refused to renounce violence while he was inside. Amnesty International would not campaign for his release, arguing that “it could not give the name of Prisoner of Conscience to anyone associated with violence’..
Daily Express
The blacks were given the opportunity to rule themselves and make their own destiny in the homelands.
These weren’t generous enough though and the whites didn’t make sure that they had a homeland of their own with no black population in it, even if had been the Cape Province which would have left the mineral wealth and white farming land to the black population. That was their big mistake.
What I don”t like is this making a saint of Mandela when he was no such thing. While I can understand his taking up arms, he was no better than in this than, say, Gerry Adams. But of course Mandela was a black opposing whites. If he was magnanimous when he was released, it is easy to be so when you have won. There was right and wrong on both sides in the struggle in a South Africa.
Now there is still racial discrimination in South Africa but it is black on white in jobs and so forth whilst white farmers are murdered in their many hundreds every year. The country is turning into a crime-ridden hell hole with cities like Joburg becoming Third World slums.
It is no surprise that between one-quarter and one-third of whites have fled the country.
Many whites supported Apartheid because they had a good idea of what a black-ruled South Africa would be like.
I agree with the article in that he did ‘fight’ for his people, although I was under the impression that there was more than one race of black people in South Africa. So did he fight for all of them, or will his particular race come to lord it over the others? Will we see massacres as in Ruanda?
I don’t watch TV and I don’t read the nauseating stuff about him in the on-line rags. What I do object to very much is that every time I go to the South Bank I see his statue standing there as if he is one of our heroes who did good works for our country. I believe I have seen another statue of him somewhere else in London, but I thankfully can’t remember where….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2519806/Enid-Blyton-Famous-Five-childrens-classics-axed-school-win-race-equality-award.html
(Party Member) It occurs to me that Ghandi and Mandela have a lot in common and it is not things our ghastly media would admit. Both thought they were struggling for ‘freedom’ and a better future for their people. Both died very disillusioned at the behaviour of their people and the eventual disintegration of their respective countries became apparent. It is also a fact that about a third of people in India did not want so-called ‘independence’ and rightly feared the future. In South Africa the three million strong Zulu Nation always opposed the A.N.C., having an excellent relationship with the South African Government. They were ruled by their own King and his council of elders with strict tribal laws within their own historical homeland.
While living in South Africa, Ghandi, as an Asian, objected to being classified with the black people.
Yes, it is very little-known fact that Ghandi was a little bit ‘racist’ on the quiet.
Here is the link to the story on Arthur Kemp’s blog:
http://www.arthurkemp.com/2013/06/nelson-mandela-nationalist-reappraisal.html?spref=fb
After reading Arthur Kemp’s blog post about Nelson Mandela I feel I need to reply to his criticism of right-wing comments which regard Mandela as a terrorist. He was without doubt an advocate of armed resistance. He was not therefore a man of peace, and was culpable for advocating and sanctioning the murders of many thousands of people, mostly blacks. Saying that he was fighting for the rights of his own people is true enough, but without massive support from millions of white people around the world and their governments he wouldn’t have got very far. He refused to renounce violence and stayed in prison much longer than he could have done otherwise.
I don’t think there is any clear parallel between South Africa and our own problems with mass immigration here in Britain though. We cannot condone violence as a legitimate means of political change here, although it was perhaps the only choice left to Mandela in South Africa. My own dislike of the adulation being showered on Mandela over his death in the media comes from the fact that, whatever he achieved for black South Africans, he is not the kind of person who deserves to be exalted by us.
We are witnessing the downfall of not just Apartheid but civilization in South Africa. Whites have been leaving in droves because of the lawlessness and political prejudice against them. The legacy of Mandela is not one of a wonderful rainbow nation, where reconciliation has shown what a saint Mandela became, for God’s sake. Why are the world’s leaders paying such homage to him? It’s this that makes me feel ill, not the fact he did what he felt necessary for his people. I see nothing good about him that has made the world a better place.
“After reading Arthur Kemp’s blog post about Nelson Mandela I feel I need to reply to his criticism of right-wing comments which regard Mandela as a terrorist”
Do not misquote me.
I never said any such thing in my blog post. You are making that up.
What I did say was that from a black perspective, he fought for black liberation from white rule. Do you actually want to deny that is the truth?
“He was without doubt an advocate of armed resistance. He was not therefore a man of peace.”
You obviously are unaware of the history of South Africa. Let me enlighten you:
The ANC was founded in 1912, two years after the Union of South Africa in 1910, and three years BEFORE the National Party (which was of course the “apartheid” party) was founded.
From 1912 to 1962 – a period of 50 years — the ANC engaged in non-violent opposition to white rule. Understand what that means: half a century.
It was only after all their peaceful efforts over a 50 year period to dislodge white minority rule had failed, that they, under Mandela’s leadership, resorted to the “armed struggle.”
This flow of events is simple fact, whether you like it or not, and irrelevant to what your opinion of Mandela may be.
I suggest you re-read my blog post and try and gain an understanding of what I actually said, and what its meaning and implications are for ANY movement seeking to free its people from foreign domination.
The South African communists have lost their most prominent member.
Crackdown on bad taste jokes update.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520662/Neil-Phillips-quizzed-8-HOURS-police-Nelson-Mandela-Twitter-jokes.html#comments
Be careful out there.
(Party Member) There is something wrong with my television. It is stuck on the same subject whatever channel I select. I had hoped for news of the awful trial of the alleged murderers of our Lee Rigby!
The BBC even managed to get Mandela into East Enders.
.
There was a screen where two characters look at an edition of the London Evening Standard with a photo of Mandela on the front page.
One character says she wants to cry. The other, Cat, says: “It gives you hope”.
The assumption is that we all think Mandela was wonderful. Do we? He had his good points and was certainly a fighter for black people.
But he was also a terrorist who was in jail for twenty seven years for murdering and maiming – and rightly so.
Nothing could better express the sheer political fakery of the Mandela send off than the sign language interpreter for the deaf. He turns out to have been a fake making meaningless hand gestures.
You really could not make it up could you?
Wail for the country that was South Africa. The breadbasket of not just Africa but much of the commonwealth. Just like Rhodesia was before it.
Even had Mandela been the saint painted we all knew that the next in line would not be so.
Mind you there were thousands of empty seats at his memorial. So I guess people knew the truth. For it fills up for a Springbok rugby match. Believe this, this particular zeitgeist of the moment has run its course being held together with increasingly difficulty by the arch liars, who people are waking up to.
The Mandela obsequies go on …and on….and on….as this sadly overrated figure is finally laid to rest.
Is there no end to this torrent of right-on wailing, clothes-rending, breast beating and public weeping?
There seem to have been whole days devoted to it on TV. I’ve never seen the like. The whole left liberal media have gone into overdrive in turbo-charged expressions of a grief which is world wide (or so they tell us), It is taken for granted that we all agree he was a ‘colossus’.
I personally find it a colossal exercise in self-flagellation on the part of Western liberals and the left, who measure Mandela’s stature as corresponding directly to their perception of the vileness of whites..
My goodness, the sheer tedium of it all.
We know learn that there was a fight with punches thrown at the memorial service VIP lounge. World leaders arriving had their minions physically fighting to get them in.
Just sums up the entire affair as what it is – a sham designed to make ‘world leaders’ look as though they are saintly. Good luck with that!