Thread: Mandela: White Genocide with a Whimper

Not everyone is fan.
Mandela: White Genocide with a Whimper


Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 5, 2013



Madiba’s true legacy.

Nelson Mandela is dead, and South Africa without “Madiba” will be much the same as it was before: a wreck of a country with slowly collapsing infrastructure, high crime, and the slow-motion genocide of Afrikaners.

None of this much matters to the opinion makers of what used to be the West. For them, the true hallmark of leftist totalitarianism isn’t brutality—it’s kitsch, and we’ll see plenty of that. Mandela will be on every magazine cover, the Internet will be drowning in sentimental schmaltz, and Facebook will be littered with sanctimonious status updates.

The truth is, the saintly visage of Mandela—all crinkly eyes and warm smiles—conceals a violent past as a terrorist. He was the founder of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress, and played a key role in the ANC’s embrace of armed struggle after a “general strike” failed miserably. The first terrorist attacks took place in 1961. In 1962, Mandela left South Africa on an international trip to win support for a violent struggle against the South African government. He negotiated for aid for the African National Congress with various anti-Western governments, including East Germany and Communist China.

Among the countries that pledged him full support were Communist Cuba and the Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser, a fellow “anti-colonialist.” Mandela’s international activities also included detailed meetings on strategy with Algeria’s National Liberation Army. Perhaps most importantly, with Mandela acting as an international agent for the ANC, the Soviet Union provided massive amounts of financial and military aid to Unkhonto we Sizwe.

After this perverse version of international diplomacy, Mandela underwent intensive military training in Ethiopia, where he learned sabotage, bombing, and guerrilla warfare. Upon his return to South Africa, Mandela was arrested for leaving the country without a passport and for inciting a strike. Later, he was tried along with other members of the ANC in the famous Rivonia Trial. The government alleged 235 separate acts of sabotage.

Most importantly, the South African authorities captured documents about Operation Mayibuye, a plan for a sweeping military confrontation with the government. Mandela was found guilty, along with almost all the other defendants. Because of international pressure, Mandela was sentenced only to life imprisonment rather than death, even though the government believed it had prevented a bloody civil war.



Though Mandela was imprisoned before he could personally direct his organization’s campaign of terror, there would still be blood. Mandela’s group and the African National Congress went on to kill scores of innocent people, some via the infamous “necklacing” technique endorsed by Mandela’s wife, Winnie. The group became notorious for its bombing campaign, most notably the Church Street bombing which killed 19 people. The group also mined rural roads used by farmers, which killed at least 120 people, many of them black laborers.

In 1985, the South African government offered to release Mandela if he would repudiate violence as a means to bring about political change. He refused the offer. Mandela was later forced to admit that the African National Congress “routinely” used torture against suspected “enemy agents.” Many of the ANC’s violent activities were not directed at the apartheid government but against the Zulus and their political movement, the Inkatha Freedom Party. However, whites always remained a special target. Even after his release, Mandela was willing to indulge in musical fantasies about killing whites.

At the time of his trial, Mandela denied being a member of the Communist Party—something we now know was a lie. Mandela worked closely with the Communist Party of South Africa, and the African National Congress was sustained and supported by the Soviet Union. Mandela never renounced any of his ties with Communist leaders. Only last Thursday, the Huffington Post, which is scandalized by just about everything sensible, casually reported on the close relationship between Nelson Mandela and Communist dictator Fidel Castro.


Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro

Because of these long-standing associations and violent tactics, Margaret Thatcher condemned the African National Congress in 1987 as a “typical terrorist organization,” and said anyone who thought they would ever run the government was “living in cloud cuckoo land.” The Conservative Party youth distributed propaganda calling for him to be hanged.

The United States listed the African National Congress as a terrorist organization until 2008, and President Ronald Reagan strongly resisted efforts to impose sanctions on the beleaguered South African government. In this, he was supported by most of the American conservative movement, although Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, and Richard Lugar argued for confrontation with the white government, promising it would “win Republicans the black vote.” (Some things never change).

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.


Eugene Terre’Blanche and the AWB fought for Afrikaner autonomy.

In the negotiations that preceded the end of white rule, the ANC, business leaders, and the ruling National Party formed a united front against Boer nationalists and Afrikaner patriots, even to the point of opposing leaders such as General Constand Viljoen, who betrayed a Boer secession plan in exchange for a promise that a Boer homeland would be considered. Once Mandela got the concessions he wanted, he refused any such consideration.

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.

Mandela achieved a reputation for magnanimity, presumably because he didn’t simply try to kill all his political enemies, as many of his “democratic” colleagues did in other African countries. A great deal of this was simply media friendly gestures, such as Mandela wearing a Springboks jersey (a tale worthy of movie apparently) or honoring former State Presidents when they died. Mandela was smart enough to understand that South Africa depended on whites keeping their wealth and technical skill in the country; he wanted to squeeze the goose that laid the golden eggs, not kill it. Wealthy South Africans and business interests, who were his allies early on, kept the South African economy from collapse, albeit from behind gated communities guarded by private security forces.



“Farm Murders”–monument to South African farmers.
Nonetheless, Afrikaners as a people have been destroyed. The names of Afrikaner heroes have been torn from towns, streets, and public squares, and replaced with those of “anti-apartheid” leaders. The collective white defense forces known as “commandos” have been outlawed, meaning that those unable to afford private security companies are left vulnerable to black violence.

Since Mandela refused any consideration of a Boer homeland, numbers alone ensure that Afrikaners are politically disenfranchised. More than 750,000 whites have left the country, but Boer farmers are trapped. Their wealth—their farmland—is illiquid. If they did try to leave, confiscatory taxation would leave them all but penniless. Mandela’s magnanimity consisted in keeping whites around to pay taxes to keep his one-party ANC dictatorship going, but denying them meaningful representation.

It will only get worse. His critics on to his left, including his murdering ex-wife, complained that black poverty has not notably improved since the ANC takeover. Because there is no thought to lifting therestrictions on white economic activity and thus creating more wealth for everyone, blacks are turning to their usual policy alternative: outright confiscation. Julius Malema, former ANC youth leader, is forming a new political party with the specific purpose of “fighting white males.” The government is even trying to stop charities from helping poor whites. South Africa is already exploring “land reform” on the Zimbabwean model, which has plunged the former Breadbasket of Africa into dystopian chaos—to the indifference of the world.


Children play outside an Afrikaner squatter camp.

Even the largely symbolic magnanimous gestures, like keeping the Springboks, have been reversed. As the social norms of the state founded by whites fade away, everything declines. Today, the State President of South Africa is a polygamous Zulu who thinks you can wash away HIV with a shower, and he’s probably better than whoever is coming next.

Mandela deserves full responsibility for all of this. From the beginning, his dream was of a unitary South African state dominated by black voters supporting a leftist political party, with a thin crust of whites to fund it and keep it going. South Africa’s decline into criminality and chaos is simply these ideas playing out to their logical conclusion. Independence, apartheid, and even the terrorism of the AWB were all Afrikaner attempts to avoid exactly what has occurred: political dispossession followed by measures that will lead to collective economic and social extinction.



If anything, a sudden outbreak of anti-white violence upon Mandela’s death would be a good thing. It would give the Afrikaners—a warrior people if there ever was one—a reason to fight back. Instead, the legacy of Mandela is the slow genocide of the people who turned South Africa into a First-World nation in the midst of the Dark Continent. Though some whites will be suffered to live, work, and die for the benefit for their black masters, whites have no future in South Africa, and what few opportunities they have for even a decent life are shrinking every day. Mandela represented exploitation under the guise of magnanimity, murder in the name of democracy, genocide with a smile. We should mourn the old terrorist’s death only because he didn’t live to see his destructive work undone on the day when the Boers—and the rest of us—are once again free.

http://homemculto.com/2013/12/05/man...ith-a-whimper/

Backlash to Pro-Mandela Coverage

Cliff Kincaid — December 16, 2013



British comedian Rowan Atkinson makes people laugh as the humorous “Mr. Bean.” But his brother, Rodney Atkinson, a political writer and commentator, isn’t laughing about the attempt by the media to make Nelson Mandela into a savior of South Africa.

He is quoted in the London Daily Telegraph as saying, “Mandela and his ANC [African National Congress] were about to turn South Africa into a Marxist, communist country when they were bought off by the American Democratic Party and big multi-national business who showered the new black rulers with wealth and power, and, above all, with favorable international media coverage, in the lead on which was, of course, the BBC, despite its treatment by that other genocidal racist Marxist, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.”

It’s true that leading Democrats, such as former President Bill Clinton, have been raising money for the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

Meanwhile, Jim Allister, who represents a unionist political party in Northern Ireland, said, “I think the uncritical hysteria following the death is verging on propaganda.” He added, “Mandela had been blessed with a long life, drawn to a close only by natural causes—something brutally denied to the victims of his ANC and the victims of the IRA, which his ANC so avidly supported!”

On December 6, he posted this comment: “When Baroness Thatcher died the BBC fell over itself to show balance; Mandela dies and BBC eschews anything approaching balance.”

The British Daily Mail reports that that the BBC aired more than 100 programs about Mandela in one week, and that a total of 1,834 viewers and listeners had complained “as the airwaves continue to be flooded with tributes disrupting radio and TV schedules.”

The BBC responded, “Nelson Mandela was one of the most important world leaders of the 20th century whose long and complex life story represents a moment of historical change for people in South Africa and around the world. His death was something we regarded as sufficiently significant both to break into our scheduled coverage and extend our news programs. His political and cultural influence was global and as both a UK and international broadcaster it is important that we reflected that, and the range of reactions to his death, to all our audiences.”

Some complaints are being directed against U.S. media coverage of Mandela, who was depicted even by some conservative commentators as a George Washington-type figure or a freedom fighter.

Going beyond this fawning coverage, NBC’s usually reliable foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, turned in a strangely positive story about a rising South African political figure by the name of Julius Malema, who has singled out white people for racist treatment and confiscation of their property.
Engel reported, “When Julius Malema was a teenager he was in the crowd cheering for Nelson Mandela. Now he’s running for president as champion of the have-nots. His plan is a radical redistribution. White South Africans, just 10% of the population, own most of the land.” Malema told Engel, “They [the whites] must give a portion of their land to black people.”

Malema is the head of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which Engel forgot to mention is openly Marxist-Leninist. He used to run the Youth League of Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC). The group is a self-declared “radical, leftist, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movement with an internationalist outlook anchored by popular grassroots formations and struggles.”

The EFF manifesto includes “Expropriation of South Africa’s land without compensation for equal redistribution in use.”
A recent EFF event featured banners declaring the “Honeymoon is over for white people in South Africa,” and, “To be a revolutionary you have to be inspired by hatred and bloodshed.”

Rather than portray Malema as a serious threat to the white population, Engel depicted the whites in charge of the “white-owned farms” as backward thinking and fanatical in their determination to protect their land through force. Some were labeled as “white extremists” for training with weapons for self-defense.

The EFF also has a foreign policy that declares, “…we call on the Apartheid state of Israel to end its racist occupation of Palestinian lands, and join on the call for the international isolation of the Israel through boycotts, divestment and sanctions until they end the occupation. Furthermore, we join the international call on the release of the Cuban Five and lifting of the trade embargo on the Cuba and its people. We also believe that all economic sanctions on Zimbabwe must be lifted and the people of Zimbabwe must be given a chance to enjoy in the wealth of nations.”
The Cuban Five are Castro’s spies imprisoned in the U.S.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, under fire for human rights violations and even accused of genocide, received “thunderous applause” from thousands of black people who turned out for the Mandela memorial service.

Instead, however, media attention has focused on a sign-language interpreter who was a fraud, and a “selfie” photograph joined in by Obama.
The prospect of “white genocide” in South Africa, however, is a non-story.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/backla...5258-224224701

WND


Mandela's legacy: The freefall of South Africa
Rapes, murders, disease, corruption, poverty, communism rampant



Mandela’s legacy: The freefall of South Africa
wnd.com
A Free Press For A Free People Since 1997

WND EXCLUSIVE

Mandela's legacy: The freefall of South Africa

Rapes, murders, disease, corruption, poverty, communism rampant – and maybe genocide

Published: 14 hours ago

The horror stories about life in South Africa under apartheid are endless, of course, and the fall of that morally repugnant political system is universally hailed as a triumph.
But two decades after the white-led government relinquished power, and especially in the afterglow of worldwide praise for the nation’s former president Nelson Mandela after his passing at age 95, an objective look at South Africa today is very disturbing.


In fact, even among the harshest critics of apartheid and racial oppression, there is an acknowledgement that in many ways the “rainbow nation,” under African National Congress and South African Communist Party rule, is heading downhill.
Fast.
“What I said during my several visits to South Africa, during the era of apartheid, is that blacks weren’t for personal liberty; they mostly wanted to change the color of the dictator,” George Mason University Economics Professor Walter Williams, who studied the apartheid system, told WND.
Mandela’s recent death prompted analysts immediately to opine that South Africa is facing a fork in the road that will define it for generations to come: an acceleration of the ongoing shift toward tyranny, or not.
“This is the first time I have felt anxious about the future,” admitted Leon Louw, a prominent anti-apartheid activist and executive director of the South Africa-based Free Market Foundation. He told WND that throughout all of the turmoil in South Africa in recent decades, “We never felt pessimistic, we felt optimistic all along, but now, I feel worried for the first time.”
Today, he said, “most government positions, most of the cabinet are … the ultra-left, socialists and communists.”
That some things are better than under apartheid is not disputed. Many more blacks are in the middle and upper classes and the standard of living has improved for millions since the revolutionary 1994 events.
But still, unemployment, poverty, AIDS, murder, corruption and crime all have surged, and South Africa now regularly tops the charts worldwide in terms of rape and murder as average life expectancy has plummeted. Also troubling to broad swaths of the public, as well as many analysts and economists, is the direction government and society itself are heading.
President Jacob Zuma, for example, still regularly sings “struggle” songs advocating the mass-murder of European-descent South Africans. And genocide experts even say planning and preparations to exterminate and drive out certain minorities in South Africa are well under way while vicious hate crimes escalate, as WND has reported.
What, then, is the status of South Africa as its leftist leaders move ahead in a world without the influence of Mandela for the first time in generations?
Economy
Officially, about 25 percent of South Africans are out of work, double that from 1994. If one counts “discouraged workers,” the real rate is closer to 40 percent.
Experts who spoke with WND pointed out that official figures do not tell the whole picture because large numbers of South Africans work outside the formal economy, at least partly due to burdensome government labor-market regulations.
However, there is little doubt that the nation has a massive and chronic unemployment problem affecting all races, and especially blacks, despite intensifying “black economic empowerment” schemes.
Since the end of apartheid in 1994, on the surface at least, it would appear economic conditions in South Africa have improved substantially. The real Gross Domestic Product, for instance, has risen by more than 30 percent over the last 20 years.
But the fact that the real GDP-per-capita growth for other emerging markets during that time was 115 percent sheds light on South Africa’s deficiencies.
Shortly after the fall of apartheid, South Africa did see some moderate economic growth, at least compared with the previous decade of civil turmoil and punishing foreign sanctions.
The growth phenomenon was largely attributed by economists to an influx of foreign investment, relaxation of draconian race-based economic restrictions imposed under white rule and an end to harsh foreign sanctions aimed at the apartheid government.
“To my mind, the main reason for the improvement in South Africa’s growth performance after 1994 lies in the lifting of economic sanctions and the subsequent reintegration of the South African economy with the global economy,” says Jac Laubscher, group economist for the South African financial company Sanlam.
Competing views
Louw, the Free Market Foundation chief, argues there is no debate: The vast majority is now better off, despite some individually troubling scenarios.
He said the South African government is “very peculiar” in that it constantly harps on how bad things are in its nation, noting, “All of that is an excuse for more power, more intervention, more patronage, more racial, race-based policies.”
He called the sometimes-government-propagated insinuations that life for blacks was better under apartheid “implausible” and “extremely bizarre.”
One of the most important measurements in analyzing the question, he said, was the proportion of blacks with incomes above the white average, which he said “certainly tells a very different story.”
In 1994, Louw explained, about 200,000 blacks had incomes higher than the average whites. Now, that figure is closer to three million, even though white incomes have gone up drastically in real terms, too, he said.
The other side
But other indicators suggest something else.
Between 1995 and 2000, for example, the respected U.S.-based National Bureau of Economic Research found a dramatic decline in real income among South Africans.
“Average incomes of South African men and women fell by about 40 percent between 1995 and 2000, and … there has been little improvement since then,” concluded the NBER study, released in 2005. “The brunt of the income decline appears to have been shouldered by the young and the non-white.”
“South Africans are worse off than they were before the end of apartheid, at least as measured by real incomes,” the researchers argued at the time, noting the poor were hit hardest.
Meanwhile, statistics cited by other experts suggest that by 2006, the number of people in South Africa living on less than $1 per day had doubled over the 1994 rate.
And in 2008, the United Nations reported that a quarter of South Africans were still living on less than $1.25 a day, with more than 40 percent living on less than $2 per day.
Quality of life
Ironically, perhaps, considering the oversized influence of communism on the political scene, South Africa now has among the most unequal distributions of wealth in the world.
Mandela, the first president of the “rainbow nation,” was a Central Committee member of the South African Communist Party, which remains a formal ANC alliance partner in ruling South Africa today.
While many experts and especially economists warn that measures of income equality are counterproductive, the dramatic and growing disparities are trumpeted by Marxists and big-government proponents within and outside of South Africa calling for even more drastic state control over the economy.
The U.N. Human Development Index, or HDI, reveals a bleak picture in terms of where South Africa has gone over the last two decades.
Prior to 1994, despite apartheid, South Africa’s HDI ranking was steadily climbing upward, and the nation was ranked well above most of Asia and the Arab world, and far ahead the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa. It was also higher than the world average.
But by 2001, South Africa’s HDI score had fallen below the 1975 level.
Today, the ranking – which takes into account life expectancy, health, education, income, poverty, economy, equality and more – is 121 out of 187 countries, and significantly below the world average.
Under ANC-Communist Party rule, South Africa has fallen more than 50 places on the index, despite the added emphasis the ruling establishment placed on the metric. Officials still blame apartheid for the embarrassing numbers.
While access to decent housing, electricity and running water has expanded significantly since 1994, huge swaths of the population still live in shanty towns, and progress toward relieving poverty has largely slowed over the last decade.
There are positive indicators, with anecdotal evidence of prosperity, including having among the highest levels of active cell phones in the world. On the other hand, metrics such as life expectancy and health paint a darker picture.
Between 1960 and 1990, overall life expectancy in South Africa went from 51 to 61. While whites were still far better off, historian and apartheid critic Hermann Giliomee explained that racial gaps had started to narrow.
In 1994, average life expectancy in South Africa was generally accepted to be around 64, comparable to Europe.
By 2009, according to The Lancet journal, average life expectancy had plummeted back to 54. Today, the U.N. puts it at 53.4.
The global average, by contrast, was 70 in 2011, according to the World Health Organization.
Part of the spectacular decline is attributed to the fact that South Africa in 2013 suffers from among the worst rates of AIDS on earth, too; often being dubbed the “AIDS capital of the world.”
Other diseases also pose problems.
How bad is it really?
Louw said both the left and right have an agenda in making South Africa appear worse off than it is.
Forces on the right, he said, want to make the current regime and leftists in general look bad, and some also have a “racial agenda – blacks can’t govern, that sort of thing.”
“The agenda on the left is toward more socialism, bigger government, more nationalization, more retribution against whites, and so on,” Louw said. “It is interesting to see the right and the left have this very bizarre, unusual common interest in simply falsifying data.”
Indeed, despite claims and anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Louw said it is an “objective fact” and “not debatable” that blacks as a whole are better off, even economically, now than under apartheid.
Crime, corruption, racism
One of the worst plagues to wreak havoc in 2013 South Africa is violent crime, with the nation now widely lambasted as the rape and murder capital of the world.
“The objective data all points to a massive rise in crime,” said Louw. “The anecdotal data does the same; people are nervous, people don’t walk around the streets at night, and everybody knows somebody who has been carjacked, or robbed, or brutalized, or even killed.
“This is a simple manifestation of the breakdown of the state,” he said. “Government is just appallingly bad at everything it does: education, healthcare, infrastructure, security, everything that is a government function is in shambles.”
He told the story of a man who was found dead in his car. Everyone at the scene “spontaneously started grabbing his valuables and putting them in the trunk of the nearest car,” Louw explained.
“Everybody assumed that a complete stranger was safer than the police for this person’s valuables,” Louw said, noting that he returned the items to the man’s grateful family later.
“The police are inefficient, they are corrupt, they run the roadblocks that are kind of the modern version of highway robbery – collecting what I call ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ fines,” he added.
Official estimates suggest that between 15,000 and 20,000 people are murdered each year in South Africa, about 50 murders per day, or around 31 per 100,000 individuals over the year.
In reality, international organizations such as Interpol have argued that the real murder rates are likely twice as high as South African authorities admit.
Anecdotal evidence, especially when it comes to murders of Afrikaner farmers, also very strongly suggests that officials are dramatically understating the extent of the killings.
South African-born Ilana Mercer, author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” noted that Mandela’s presidency led to a society where “more people are murdered in one week under African rule than died under the detention of the Afrikaner government over the course of roughly four decades.”
Ironically, depending on whose figures can be believed, South Africa, with its strict gun-control regime, has a murder rate in the neighborhood of 1,000 percent higher than in the United States.
Rape numbers also drastically underestimate the real prevalence, experts say, and show that South Africa recorded more than 132.4 rapes per 100,000 people in 2010 – the worst in the world. The official U.S. rate is less than 27 per 100,000, according to the FBI.
Other evidence indicates the true figures for South Africa are far higher.
A study conducted by the Medical Research Council, for example, found that more than one in four South African men – 27.5 percent – admitted to having raped at least one woman or girl. Almost half of those said they had raped multiple victims.
Another survey by the same organization later found that 37.4 percent of men admitted to perpetrating a rape, with more than one in four women saying they had been raped.
“Most people don’t bother to report crimes,” said Louw. “This is a manifestation of the failure of government, and that is basically true of everything the government does.”
Widely cited estimates suggest some 500,000 rapes occur in South Africa every year.
But few perpetrators are convicted. Indeed, on corruption, South Africa ranks at 72nd place worldwide on the Transparency International index, earning a 42 out of a possible 100 (with 100 being the cleanest).
The police force, packed with actual convicted criminals, is viewed as the most corrupted institution.
Racism
Despite the dream of a “rainbow nation,” polls and surveys suggest that racism and de facto segregation remain widespread in South Africa, which experts say is driven in large part by government and politics.
Critics of the ANC-SACP regime say racial tensions are certainly not eased when Zuma and other top officials publicly sing “struggle” songs at political rallies about massacring whites with machine guns – especially considering the many thousands of European-descent farmers and family members brutally slaughtered by blacks since 1994.
Dr. Gregory Stanton, head of Genocide Watch and a man who personally fought against the apartheid system, warned last year that South Africa was at Stage 6 out of 8 on the road to genocide: the planning and preparation phase.
“There is thus strong circumstantial evidence of government support for the campaign of forced displacement and atrocities against white farmers and their families,” said Stanton, after a fact-finding mission to South Africa last year. “There is direct evidence of government incitement to genocide.”
The end goal is to impose communist tyranny on South Africa, Stanton argued.
While blacks suffered under official racism during apartheid, the reverse is now true, many experts and Afrikaners say, with whites and mixed-race individuals being targeted by race-based so-called “black empowerment” legislation in everything from employment and business to welfare and charity.
Think “affirmative action” for the majority – on steroids.
Some 90 percent or more of government workers are black, well above their ratio in the population, and virtually all of the welfare and housing grants go to blacks as well, critics point out. So, the racial quotas go only in one direction.
A poll taken last year, almost two decades after apartheid, showed that more than 80 percent of blacks still believe blacks in South Africa are poor because of the former regime.
Public sentiment
Incredibly, polls taken about a decade after the fall of apartheid showed that some 60 percent of South Africans felt the country was better managed under the previous, white-led regime.
“It’s not that they want to return to apartheid, but in retrospect it was a time when trains ran on time,” poll director Robert Mattes was quoted as saying in 2002 media reports from South Africa. “It was a harsh, repressive, but seemingly efficient government.”
It was not clear whether more recent polls had been conducted on the subject, but the results of the 2002 survey sent shock waves around the world.
Still today, despite the ANC and SACP stranglehold on power, some of the most prominent figures in South Africa publicly acknowledge it.
“This government, our government, is worse than the apartheid government, because at least you were expecting it with the apartheid government,” claimed Bishop Desmond Tutu after the ANC-SACP government, under pressure from communist China, refused to grant a visa to the Dalai Lama.
In recent months, one of the most extreme figures in South African politics, Marxist and virulent racist Julius Malema, the former ANC youth leader, also claimed that the current regime was worse than apartheid.
“Our people did not die for a house that will not last for three months,” he argued, suggesting that government ought to be building houses, in line with his new political party’s plan for full-blown socialist rule and nationalization. “There is nothing dignified about the houses.”
Malema, also known as “Juju,” ended his speech by singing the infamous “struggle” song advocating the slaughter of white farmers, a common theme among his new “Economic Freedom Fighters” party, widely viewed as an ANC spinoff.
“Robert Mugabe is a great example of what you must do, with some lessons of course,” Malema was quoted as saying recently.
Marxist despot Mugabe in Zimbabwe, of course, tortured, murdered and butchered his opponents, including white farmers, who were driven out of the country or killed. While it used to export food, Zimbabwe now is dependent on food aid.
Today, virtually nobody in South Africa or abroad seriously believes a return to often-brutal racial segregation and apartheid rule is feasible, much less desirable.
However, discontent over South Africa’s current trajectory is intensifying, as illustrated recently when South Africans loudly booed their president on the world stage at Mandela’s memorial service.
A widely reprinted letter that originally appeared in the Business Day newspaper also highlighted the feelings of despair.
“South Africa is in a serious moral crisis. We are a violent society disintegrating by the day. Ghastly murders are committed daily,” wrote Farouk Araie from Johannesburg. “We have become delusional. Forgetting that life is absolutely intrinsic and inviolable, our country is awash with demonic monsters in human garb, savages fit only for the wild, and satanic beasts ill-equipped for civil society.
“One child raped every three minutes, three children murdered each day,” Araie added. “We are sliding towards the edge of the abyss and our people are crying out for sanity to prevail.”
Causes
Experts and commentators are divided on why “democracy” did not instantly bring the widely anticipated super-boom in prosperity and societal harmony.
But with white supremacists claiming blacks are to blame and black supremacists claiming whites are to blame, there appears to be little middle ground on which to build.
Solutions
Many economists, though, say government policies explain the situation.
“The benefits of liberty and protected private property rights are often lost in discussions of how our blessings can be extended to the world’s poor nations,” explained Walter Williams, the celebrated George Mason University Economics Professor and syndicated columnist. He authored the 1989 book “South Africa’s War on Capitalism,” arguing that the apartheid system represented socialistic forces.
“We often hear suggestions that it is natural resources, right population size, or geographic location that explains human betterment,” Williams noted.
“The United States and Canada are population scarce and have a rich endowment of natural resources and are wealthy,” he added. “However, if natural resources and population scarcity were adequate explanations of wealth, then one would expect that the resource rich and some of the population scarce countries on the continents of Africa and South America to be wealthy. Instead, Africa and South America are home to the world’s poorest and most miserable people.
“A far better explanation of wealth has to do with cultural values that support liberty,” the internationally respected economist explained.
“People in countries with larger amounts of economic freedom, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan are far richer and have greater human rights protections than people in countries with limited free markets such as Russia, Albania, China and most countries in Africa and South America,” Williams concluded.
Leon Louw, who leads one of the most influential think tanks in Africa, echoed those sentiments, saying what South Africa really needs is economic freedom and the rule of law.
“Democracy, in and of itself, is no solution,” he told WND in an extended interview. “What is important is checks and balances, separation of powers, which has virtually vanished in South Africa. We now have basically the executive doing everything – writing the law and adjudicating. The legislature and the judiciary have been rendered increasingly redundant. And we don’t have real law … we have discretionary power, which is the main reason why we have this corruption.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/mandelas-...UvO9WvyrcGF.99

“Democracy, in and of itself, is no solution,” he told WND in an extended interview. “What is important is checks and balances, separation of powers, which has virtually vanished in South Africa. We now have basically the executive doing everything – writing the law and adjudicating. The legislature and the judiciary have been rendered increasingly redundant. And we don’t have real law … we have discretionary power, which is the main reason why we have this corruption.”

Sound familiar???

Wednesday, 18 December 2013 15:15 Obama: Schmoozing With Terrorists and Tyrants at Mandela Memorial

Written by William F. Jasper

• E-mail
  

At the December 10 memorial for Nelson Mandela, President Obama joined a sordid lineup of heads of state — a UN-style dictators’ club — to lavish unstinted praise and adulation upon the former president of South Africa, who died on December 5. In his eulogy, President Obama compared Mandela to America’s Founding Fathers and referred to him as “a giant of history” and “the great liberator,” invoking Mandela’s name as an inspiration for the advancement of freedom, justice, equality, and human rights throughout the world.


However, as The New American has reported for decades, the carefully constructed sainted image of Mandela is marred by a host of facts and overwhelming documentary evidence, to wit:


• Mandela was, throughout his entire adult career, not only an underground member of the violent, Soviet-directed South African Communist Party, but was also a
top leader, a member of the Central Committee of the SACP.

• Mandela worked closely for decades with Joe Slovo, head of the SACP (and a Soviet KGB colonel) to help the Reds take control of the African National Congress and purge it of all leaders who opposed the SACP’s Soviet ties and Communist terrorist tactics. (The photo below shows Mandela and Slovo giving the communist

clenched-fist salute in front of a large image of the Soviet hammer & sickle.)



• Mandela and Slovo were appointed by the SACP as the co-leaders of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the Communist-created terrorist group that viciously tortured and murdered thousands of black South Africans, as well as whites, often employing the ANC’s signature “necklace” method of terror/torture/murder.


• Mandela steadfastly denied, time after time over the decades, his membership in the SACP and Umkhonto we Sizwe, but on the day after his death, the SACP released a statement acknowledging that he had been a top SACP leader all along. This admission is also an admission that Mandela was a lifelong liar.


• Those who argue that the SACP/Umkhonto we Sizwe ties belong to an earlier, younger Mandela and shouldn’t reflect on his later, wiser years, must deal with the facts of his continued involvement in and support for the organizations to the end of his days, and the video of him singing the Umkhonto we Sizwe anthem, a genocide song used to stir up black mobs to kill whites.




Not surprisingly, the Mandela memorial attracted many of the world’s worst oppressors, all of whom joined President Obama in posturing for “peace,” “justice,” “freedom,” and “democracy.”


President Obama went out of his way to meet and shake hands with Cuban Communist dictator Raul Castro (see photo at right), who, together with his more infamous brother Fidel, has ruled the island prison-state with an iron fist, since 1959. Reportedly, the meet-up was scripted to appear as a chance encounter at the memorial, but had been carefully choreographed as part of an overture by the Obama administration to begin normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations.


Far less known than Castro, but now casting a much larger shadow, as leader of the most populous nation in Latin America, with the largest economy, is Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff a lifelong communist activist, who was actually a “most wanted” terrorist in her youth (much like President Obama’s friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists). Rousseff’s police mug shot after her capture is shown below.


Like Mandela, Rousseff’s radicalism was not merely a youthful indiscretion; she continues on the same path, as this recent Brazilian news video of her addressing a large Communist gathering demonstrates — on a stage flanked by giant portraits of Marx and Lenin and festooned with flags and symbols sporting the communist hammer and sickle. She is also a longtime member and participant in the notorious Sao Paulo Forum, an annual gathering of dictators and terrorist leaders. Among the many communist-style programs she has foisted on Brazil is the criminal, forced removal (at gunpoint, using the military) of whole towns and thousands of Brazilians from their ancestral homes in the name of environmental “sustainability.”


By embracing and kissing Rousseff at the memorial — an image that not only flashed around the planet but was used extensively by the pro-Rouseff media in Brazil — President Obama gave the impression that the most powerful nation in the world fully supports her pro-communist regime.


Among the many other notables at the memorial, whose presence and prominence belied the much-stated claims of eulogists’ commitments to peace, justice and liberty, were (to name only a few):


• Mahmoud Abbas, successor to Yasser Arafat as head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorist group and president of the Palestinian National Authority since 2005.
• Li Yuanchao, vice president of Communist China.


• Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s own president, whose lifelong involvement in the terrorist SACP/ANC/ Umkhonto we Sizwe is accented by a recent video of him leading a mob in a vicious song that urges the murder of white (Boer) South Africans.

^{All photos above are from AP Images except for the mugshot of Dilma Rousseff}

Related articles:
Fake Interpreter at Mandela Memorial Implicated in Brutal Murders
Obama Praises Mandela, Shakes Castro’s Hand, at Memorial
“Saint” Mandela? Not So Fast!
South African Communist Party Admits Mandela’s Leadership Role
New Evidence Shows Mandela Was Senior Communist Party Member
Mandela's Messianic Image: The Rest of the Story
The Comrades' Necklace
Genocide and Communism Threaten South Africa

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ndela-memorial