White-washing Mandela’s Memory

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke   12/16/13
After his mother was raped, and then murdered along with his father last year, sobbing 12-year-old Amaro was gagged and drowned in scalding bathwater. And that’s how the youngest member of the Viana family became a statistic: another in a long line of white South African victims of black violence.

It’s an understatement to say that such crimes have a racial component, yet the government run by the African National Congress — Nelson Mandela’s party — denies even that. It claims that whites are more likely to be victimized in South Africa, one of the world’s most crime-ridden nations, only because they’re wealthier. And this surely is a factor. Yet it doesn’t explain the white car-jacking victim tied behind his vehicle and dragged until his flesh was torn from his back.

Or the young child bludgeoned to death after his parents were murdered.

Or the two-year-old baby thrown into boiling oil.

Or the countless other cases of black-on-white rape, torture and mutilation, incidents clearly driven by more than just greed.

Anecdotal? Try this on for size: numerous whites are murdered every day in South Africa, and the total killed since 1994 currently amounts to more than 70,000. In fact, the world’s most dangerous profession is now that of Boer (white Afrikaner) farmer, with a murder rate of 310 per 100,000 (the homicide rate in London is 3 per 100,000).  Not surprisingly, where South Africa boasted 128,000 commercial farmers in 1980, the number has now been whittled down to 40,000.

If that sounds to you like it’s knocking on genocide’s door, you’re not alone. The respected organization Genocide Watch places white South Africans in the sixth stage of the genocidal process.

There are only seven stages, by the way, with the last — and next for SA whites — being extermination.

If you’re shocked that you haven’t heard anything about this, don’t be. It’s even less politically correct to talk about the extermination of whites than that of Christians, who are currently persecuted in many Muslim lands. The SA police often aren’t interested in investigating crimes against whites (especially since they perpetrate some of them), and the Western media were only concerned about reporting on SA whites when they could be demonized. And the press certainly won’t find its honest pen now, in the midst of its effort to beatify the recently deceased Nelson Mandela. This brings me to my main point.

Mandela, Great Man of Peace, never had much to say about the impending genocide of whites (well, he did have one thing to say, but I’ll get to that).

It isn’t that he didn’t hear the rumblings. Why, SA president Jacob Zuma himself is famous for publicly singing the song “Kill the Boer,” whose lyrics include: “We are going to shoot them; they are going to run. Shoot the Boer; shoot them, they are going to run. Shoot the Boer. We are going to hit them; they are going to run; the Cabinet will shoot them with the machine-gun. The Cabinet will shoot them with the machine-gun….” Not much left for interpretation there.

Once again, this is the president of the country — and just watch this video and note the feeling with which he sings the song.

Then there’s former head of the African National Congress Youth League Julius Malema. While he’s now an ardent foe of Zuma and wants the SA presidency himself, they certainly are of one mind on musical matters: here is a video of Malema disgorging his rendition of “Kill the Boer.” And I don’t remember Mandela, Great Man of Peace, ever making a statement about how singing a genocidal song probably isn’t a prescription for racial unity.

This isn’t to say Mandela belongs in even remotely the same category as Zuma or Malema. Not at all.

Mandela didn’t exhibit nearly the same passion when he sang about killing whites.

Some may point out that Mandela could rock the boat only so much, as some in SA already criticized him for being far too conciliatory toward SA whites — a sellout. Yet if this is why he turned a blind eye to a genocidal movement, and even paid some lip service to it, he sold out the principles of racial harmony and egalitarianism the Western world has ascribed to him. Is this the stuff of which great men are made?

And that’s the point. Mandela isn’t praised as merely someone who had a few admirable qualities, which would be justifiable. After all, it isn’t everyone who could spend 27 years in prison and emerge with a message of forgiveness. He is, rather, becoming what Napoleon considered a foundational building block of history: an “agreed upon myth.”

But the man was always far different from the myth. Mandela founded the armed wing of the ANC, known as Umkhonto we Sizwe. And while current reportage often implies that the US’s branding him a terrorist in the 1980s was a national disgrace, the truth is that the Great Man of Peace was a terrorist. In fact, the SA government offered to release him from prison in 1985 if only he’d renounce violence. He refused to do so.

Of course, Mandela could have just agreed and then resumed his militancy once freed, and that he instead stood on principle is praiseworthy. Moreover, there are things worth fighting for, dying for and, even, being violent for. But what was Mandela’s cause?

While Mandela denied being a communist during his terrorism trial, it’s now known that he was allied with the Communist Party of South Africa. He was supported by Fidel Castro, and the ANC and its Umkhonto we Sizwe received financial support from the Soviet Union. Rounding out his leftist credentials, Mandela also advocated abortion and faux marriage.

Not surprisingly, his ANC used communist-level violence. Mandela admitted that the organization would regularly use torture on suspected “enemy agents,” with most of its victims during the Apartheid era being fellow blacks. Poor laborers were killed in bombings, and Zulus associated with the Inkatha Freedom Party were sometimes dispatched by “necklacing,” which is when a tire is filled with fuel, placed around a victim’s neck and set alight. Mind you, this “technique” was endorsed by Mandela’s wife at the time, Winnie.

Of course, Mandela didn’t seek to purge whites from SA upon becoming president. What he did do, however, was take this racial minority — which had willingly relinquished political power — and initiate the process of stripping them of economic opportunity via anti-white racial quotas. The result is that poverty exploded among Afrikaners, and, with jobs often denied them, it is said that hundreds of thousands of whites now live in squatter camps. Mandela, true to form, had nothing to say about this.

And this spirit of persecution is intensifying. As Genocide Watch put it, writes the Daily Mail, “The murders of ‘Afrikaner farmers and other whites is organised by racist communists determined to drive whites out of South Africa, nationalise farms and mines, and bring on all the horrors of a communist state.’” And Malema is forming a new political party with the expressed purpose of “fighting white males.” You see, whites are South Africa’s “Bush” — everything is their fault. Mandela and his cohorts hobbled the country with a corrupt government and listing economy, but whites’ economic activity is to blame. So their property must be expropriated. They must be taken down a notch. Then the ANC will arrive in the promised land.

The best thing I can say about Nelson Mandela is that he wasn’t Jacob Zuma or Julius Malema. And maybe he delayed the inevitable. But the inevitable is that whites will be purged from SA, with the only question being how many will escape before that final stage and final solution. Whatever the details, at least this time Mandela will have a good excuse for saying nothing.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (2676 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to White-washing Mandela’s Memory

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Liberals never mention this because blacks as a group are less powerful than whites as a group in America (this may no longer be true in the land of Obama and Holder, but liberals are very slow to adjust to changes like that), which means that they feel (which is what counts for liberals) that all blacks everywhere have less power than all whites everywhere. And since they always support the underdog . . .

    • LibertyMark says:

      Well, they try to make you believe they support the underdog. Actually, they want to make everyone into an underdog. Then pit each underdog group against the other in some political incarnation of dog fighting (pun intended).

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Quite right. They intend to function as the arbiters between the snarling dogs fighting for their share of the pie in a zero-sum (i.e., government-controlled) economy.

        • faba calculo says:

          They’re EVIL, I tell you!


          It must be so convenient to have one’s opponents be such caricatures.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I congratulate you on your brilliant fact- and logic-based refutation.

            • faba calculo says:

              Sorry, Timothy, but back at you. This Snidley Whiplash mustache that you and Liberty Mark are taking turns painting on liberals in general is just farcical.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I’ve been observing liberals for decades, and my views are based on that, and are an attempt to understand why they act as they do. You still haven’t explained why you think we’re mistaken. It isn’t hard to guess why.

              • LibertyMark says:

                If it makes it more impersonal for you, switch “The Left” for “liberals”. Or Progressivism. Or Statism. Whichever.

                The point is that identity politics has the results of dividing the body politic into warring factions. The Left/Dems/Statists exploit and exacerbate this, pitting this imaginary victim group against that imaginary victim group. Until every group is a victim requiring redress. Even the term “middle class” is an identity politics trope invented by Marxism.

                When you are a victim, any action is justified, based on past or present perceived victimization. From Pigford to Knockout Games, From Occupy Wall Street to Food Stamp Nation there is no moral imperative larger than my getting whole as a victim, nothing more germane than my retribution against imagined perpetrators, and no behavioral boundary within which I am limited, other than getting even.

                I believe this pervasive Victimocracy will spell the end of our society and our Republic. An The Left fosters, cultivates and harvests from this, con gusto!

  2. faba calculo says:

    “I’ve been observing liberals for decades, and my views are based on that, and are an attempt to understand why they act as they do. You still haven’t explained why you think we’re mistaken. It isn’t hard to guess why.”

    No it isn’t. It’s because this thread was never about why. You never said why you believe this (until this post), you just took turns making liberals into people who were looking to transform everyone into dogs in a fight. You didn’t just say that that that is how things would end up, you made that to be the goal of liberals in general.

    As for the reason why you give here (i.e., that you’ve been watching liberals and thinking about it for decades, well guess what? Me too. Stalemate. But which liberals do you read regularly? Which sites do you go to on a regular basis where you can hear liberals talk in their own terms without first passing through a conservative filter? And, as I’ve said to more than one liberal in the past, “everyone you know”, or “every liberal you know” isn’t a random sample. And if you are going to speak to what liberals in general believe or have as their goal, a random sample matters. But, lacking that, having at least a couple of liberal websites to follow would be helpful.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      So, you’re argument isn’t that I’m wrong, but that you want me to cite sources for everything? Who are you, anyway, jukeboxgrad’s twin brother? I’ve been reading the Curious Journal (including the op-ed pages since we moved there in 1966), though over time I’ve read fewer and fewer liberals. (For example, I stopped reading David Hawpe, the editorial-page editor, after he stated in late 1998 re Lewinsky that the only political lies he objected to were those used to support causes he opposed, and I stopped reading Tom Friedman after his fascistic defense of Janet Reno’s kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez). I also have observed the behavior of liberal politicians and liberal activist groups, and at least occasionally read liberals on the net (usually when someone like Hot Air has a link to Politico or Bloomberg), as well as the liberal writing that shows up in the magazine The Week.

      There, is that enough to satisfy you? And I repeat: What do you think is actually incorrect in what we said about liberals, and why do claim it is? Or is it just your dream to become the resident troll?

      • faba calculo says:

        “So, you’re argument isn’t that I’m wrong, but that you want me to cite sources for everything?”

        No and yes, respectively. I do think that you are wrong, and I was asking which liberal sources you read on a regular basis. I asked the latter question because I wanted to know if you ever bothered to actually listen to the other side before making your blanket condemnations. From your description, its sounds like you do on an occasional basis. Fair enough.

        “Who are you, anyway, jukeboxgrad’s twin brother?”

        More like his mirror image. I respect the fact that he often puts in very strong links in his writing, especially when he’s discussing the debt and the budgeting process. I’ve learned a fair amount from some of his links on those topic. Nor has any of the myriad conservatives I’ve read arguing against him ever managed to touch him on these topics. Still, there’s no denying that gets engaged in pissing matches with opponents and frequently starts them himself. But he argues from the left, while I do so from the center-right, so, to that extent, we are mirror images of each other, rather than twins.

        “And I repeat: What do you think is actually incorrect in what we said about liberals, and why do claim it is?”

        I’ve already said what I thought was wrong: your painting all liberals with a broad stroke in terms of their motives. If you’d just said “some liberals”, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. All liberals may support things that you and I would agree would produce bad results. But believing that liberals in general have those bad results as their goal is something else again.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I’m making generalizations, all of which are subject to the First Law of Generalizations: There are always exceptions.

          • faba calculo says:

            For it to even be true as a generalization you need to cross the 50% line.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Liberalism is defined by the Inner Party, and I suspect my description is generally accurate for them. Or perhaps it’s the Democrats, not the liberals per se, to the extent that there’s really a difference between them. But the primacy of identity-group politics in liberalism is obvious.

              • faba calculo says:

                Even accepting the primacy of identity-group politics in liberal thinking is a long way from equivocating between what the result of this policies will be with what the original goal/motive was.

  3. faba calculo says:

    “If it makes it more impersonal for you, switch “The Left” for “liberals”. Or Progressivism. Or Statism. Whichever.”

    It isn’t impersonality I’m looking for but accuracy. If it’s the dangers of identity politics (of which I’m generally in agreement), then say “defenders of identity politics”.

    As an aside, thanks for the mention of Pigford. Among other things, it’s Wikipedia page is just god-awful. It looks like someone took a single liberal source and rewrote it into that page. It definitely needs to be cleaned up by having less biased data added.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *