Iconic photos of Mandela, along with cherry-picked statements that paint a picture of a man who eschewed bad feelings and revenge will for the most part be all that we see and hear.
The truth is far darker, and the true legacy of Mandela's vision is still yet to be seen.
Firstly, let's look at some of Mandela's less-than-nice activities that occurred prior to his 27 years in prison:
http://www.infowars.com/nelson-mandela-dies-at-age-95/
"...Prior to his presidency, Mandela was incarcerated for 27 years at three different prisons after pleading guilty to 156 acts of public violence, including the Johannesburg railway station bombing.
He was also a member of the South African Communist Party and a co-founder of Umkhonto we Sizwe, a guerrilla warfare group declared a terrorist organization by the United States in the 1960s"
"....Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights:
-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
Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence [in 1985 as a condition of release from prison], Amnesty refused to take his case stating “[the] movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in ‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.”
What is even more frightening are the results of the backroom negotiations that went on between South African business leaders and politicians with Mandela's ANC while he was still in prison. In a move that echoes the dire predictions of Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America *(at bottom), the uber-rich and politically connected would get to maintain their positions in the new post-Apartheid order while the rank-and-file South African whites would be squeezed out of the job market by quotas and other restrictions. Many of them now live in squatter camps. Will the Netherlands and Germany offer them citizenship? Probably not - they are too busy admitting hordes of Muslims.
".....However, as tempting as it is to simply point out Mandela’s past as a Communist terrorist, in some ways his reinvention as a “reconciliator” is worse. It is true that as President of South Africa, Mandela did not unleash a campaign of state directed violence against whites. Instead, he largely maintained the economic system for the benefit of those already in power, while systematically dispossessing middle class and working class whites, especially Afrikaners. Nor was this particularity surprising, considering Mandela and the ANC’s history.Though the African National Congress was aligned with the Communists, they received far friendlier treatment from big business than did their nationalist Boer rivals. Secret meetings were held between the African National Congress and South African business leaders even as the guerrilla war continued, and British business interests were instrumental in setting up talks between Afrikaner elites and the ANC. No such efforts ever took place between the captains of industry and the would-be leaders of an independent Boer Republic, suggesting that business leaders feared Eugene Terre’Blanche’s concept of an economy run for the “folk” more than they feared black rule.
President Mandela and his new regime concentrated on reconciling whites to the new government by means of widely publicized symbolic efforts while stripping them of any collective economic, social, or political identity. Mandela won praise for letting “Afrikaner leaders” such as F.W. De Klerk serve in his government, but this was nothing more than continuing his working relationship with collaborators.
Poverty among Afrikaners has soared in the years since the end of apartheid, with thousands reduced to living in squatter camps. South Africa has one of the highest crime rates in the world and is famous for its gated communities and private security companies. The nation also has a high rate of HIV/AIDS infection, which isn’t helped by black government officials who think the cure is a diet heavy in garlic. Mandela’s response has been to criticize the media for focusing too much on crime. He did nothing to stop what is now widely accepted as the opening stages of genocide against Boer farmers, and implemented anti-white racial preferences even as whites became an all but powerless minority......"
Corruption was endemic in South Africa even early in his Presidency:
http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/04/28/new-mandela-letters-show-waste-corruption/#sth
Violence against South African whites only increased after the rule of the ANC. Mandela was seemingly silent about this horrific pattern. Living largely in rural areas, Dutch (and some German)-descended South Africans ("Boer", which means farmer and,"Afrikaner" both describe those of Dutch descent), live their lives in fear:
South African President Jacob Zuma also rejoiced at these goings-on by singing apartheid-era songs that glorified killing whites (video):
Fearing that what little restrictions on anti-white violence will evaporate in the wake of Mandela's (as he at least preached reconciliation, so he was a sort of safety-valve) death, Some South Africans have been preparing for evacuations in the event that the mob is unleashed on them:
*In Democracy in America, Tocqueville notes both that the very rich often know that they will be able to secure their place in a New order that follows a revolution and that the poor have nothing to lose. He then notes that it is those in the middle who have the most to fear from upheaval. They have less than the rich, but they have labored and saved to have what they posses. He then summarizes:
"Hence, in democratic communities, the majority of the people do not clearly see what they have to gain by a revolution but they continually and in a thousand ways feel that they might lose by one...."
*In Democracy in America, Tocqueville notes both that the very rich often know that they will be able to secure their place in a New order that follows a revolution and that the poor have nothing to lose. He then notes that it is those in the middle who have the most to fear from upheaval. They have less than the rich, but they have labored and saved to have what they posses. He then summarizes:
"Hence, in democratic communities, the majority of the people do not clearly see what they have to gain by a revolution but they continually and in a thousand ways feel that they might lose by one...."
No comments:
Post a Comment