Mandela: Legend or Terrorist?

Article courtesy of www.afrikanervolksparty.org

It is often said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, however, this usually means that the other man has been less than fastidious in his choice of hero, or that the “freedom fighter” in question was on the crowd pleasing side.

On the 27th of June, London's Hyde Park played host to a concert in honour of Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday and as expected it received wall to wall coverage from a star struck and worshipping media, who continue to laud Mandela as one of the greatest, or indeed the greatest, heroes of our time.
The beaming old man appeared on stage in one of his trademark multi-coloured shirts and cheerily acknowledge the cheers of the adoring crowd, most of whom have been taught to believe in his sainthood since their first days in primary school, which, for many of them, will have occurred around the same time their hero walked free from Robben Island.

The unquestioning belief in Mandela's universally admired saintliness was again on display in the gushing media coverage and by the unending line of politicians and dignitaries from presidents to Prime ministers who queued up to genuflect before him and sing his praises. It is a brave politician or journalist who would dare to question the godliness of this legend and consummate showman, and hence no such questions were raised, nor were his much vaunted “achievements” subjected to any objective scrutiny.

No matter how many speeches are given or how many news articles are written, it will be a long time if ever before the truth about Mandela is told.

In fact the truth about Mandela is so hidden in mythology and misinformation that most know nothing about him prior to Robben island, and those who do tend to exercise a form of self censorship, designed to bolster the myth whilst consigning uncomfortable facts into the mists of history.

For most people all they know about Mandela, prior to his release in 1990, was that he had spent 27 years in prison and was considered by many on the left at the time (and almost everyone now) to be a political prisoner. However, Mandela was no Aung San Suu Kyi, he was not an innocent, democratically elected leader, imprisoned by an authoritarian government.

Mandela was the terrorist leader of a violent terrorist organisation, the ANC (African National Congress) which was responsible for many thousands of, mostly black, deaths. The ANC's blood spattered history is frequently ignored, but reminders occasionally pop up in the most embarrassing places, indeed as recently as this month the names of Nelson Mandela and most of the ANC remained on the US government's terrorist watch list along with al-Queda, Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers. Of course the forces of political correctness are rushing to amend that embarrassing reminder from the past. However, Mandela's name was not on that list by mistake, he was there because of his Murderous past.

Before I am accused of calumny, it should be noted that Mandela does not seek to hide his past, in his autobiography “the long walk to Freedom” he casually admits “signing off” the 1983 Church Street bombing carried out by the ANC and killing 19 innocent people whilst injuring another 200.

It is true that Mandela approved that massacre and other ANC killings from his prison cell, and there is no evidence that he personally killed anyone but the same could be said about Stalin or Hitler, and the violent history of the ANC, the organisation he led is not in question.

According to the Human Rights Commission it is estimated that during the Apartheid period some 21,000 people were killed, however both the UN Crimes against Humanity commission and South Africa's own Truth and Reconciliation Commission are in agreement that in those 43 years the South African Security forces killed a total of 518 people. The rest, (some 92%) were accounted for by Africans killing Africans, many by means of the notorious and gruesome practice of necklacing whereby a car tyre full of petrol is placed around a victim's neck and set alight. This particularly cruel form of execution was frequently carried out at the behest of the ANC with the enthusiastic support of Mandela's demonic wife Winnie.

The brutal reappearance of the deadly necklace in recent weeks is something I shall reluctantly focus upon later.

Given that so much blood was on the hands of his party, and, as such, the newly appointed government, some may conclude that those who praised Madela's mercy and forgiveness, when the Truth and Reconciliation tribunal set up after he came to power, to look into the Apartheid years, did not include a provision for sanctions, were being deliberately naive.

Such nativity is not uncommon when it comes to the adoring reporting of Nelson Mandela, and neither is the great leader himself rarely shy of playing up his image of fatherly elder statesman and multi-purpose paragon. However, in truth, the ANC's conscious decision to reject a policy of non-violence, such as that chosen by Gandhi, in their struggle against the white government, had left them, and by extension, their leader, with at least as much blood on their hands as their one time oppressors, and this fact alone prevented them from enacting the revenge which might otherwise have been the case.

As the first post Apartheid president of South Africa it would, be unfair if not ludicrous to judge Mandela entirely on the basis of events before he came to power, and in any event there is many a respected world leader or influential statesman with a blood stained past so let us now examine Nelson Mandela's achievements, and the events which have occurred in South Africa in the 14 short years since he took power in following the post Apartheid election in 1994, and the new South Africa which he created after coming to power on a surge of worldwide optimism and hope in 1994, when, following the end of Apartheid, he and his followers promised a new dawn for what became termed the Rainbow Nation.

Today South Africa stands out as one of the most dangerous and crime ridden nations on Earth which is not actively at War. In 2001, only seven years after the end of Apartheid, whilst the city of Amsterdam in the Netherlands with 5,6 murders per 100,000 population was declared the "murder capitol of Europe", Johannesburg, with 61.2 murders per 100,00 population and remains the world's top murder city.

In South Africa as a whole, the murder rate is seven times that of America, in terms of rape the rate is ten times as high and includes the ugly phenomenon of child rape, one of the few activities in which South Africa is now a world leader. If you don't believe me, you can read what Oprah Winfrey has to say about it here.

All other forms of violent crime are out of control, and Johannesburg is among the top world cities for muggings and violent assault, a fact seldom mentioned in connection with the 2010 World Cup which is scheduled to be hosted in South Africa.

As always with black violence the primary victims are their fellow blacks, however, the rape, murder and violent assault of whites is a daily event, and there is more ...

As with the Matabeleland massacres, news of which the BBC, together with much of the world media suppressed for twenty years to protect their one time hero, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, another secret genocide is being ignored by the world media, the genocide of white Boer farmers, thousands of whom have been horribly tortured to death in their homes since the end of Apartheid. Anyone who clicks on this link should we warned that it includes some very gruesome images as the savagery of these attacks belie the authorities attempts to dismiss them as nothing more than a "crime wave".

Given that it is now all but illegal in South Africa to report the race of either victim or the perpetrator of a crime (unless the perpetrator is white and the victim black) and as modern South Africa's official crime statistics are notoriously massaged, it is impossible to know the exact numbers of farm murders that have taken place. Many reliable sources estimate the figure as close to 3,000, but even if we take the more conservative figure of 1,600 quoted in the politically correct South African press (but not quoted at all in ours) this is three times the numbers killed by the South African security forces over a period of 43 years, and which the UN calls a crime against humanity.

To put this in perspective, the population of South Africa is 47 million, (13 million less than Britain despite its far greater land mass) of which the 4.3 million whites account for 9.1%, about 1% less than the immigrant population of Britain. Can you imagine the outcry if 1,600 (let alone 3,000) members of a minority community in Britain were tortured to death by the native population?.

Yet when the victims are white, there is hardly a peep in the South African press and silence from the international media. Compare this to when a white youth is the killer, such as in the case of Johan Nel, who shot three Africans, a story which became instant world wide news with the predictable screams of racism and machete wielding mobs baying for his blood.

(And they accuse us of hate?!! Don't such people nauseate themselves with their hypocrisy?!)

Crime aside, Mandela and his ANC inherited the strongest economy in Africa, indeed, despite economic sanctions, South Africa was still one of the richest world nations, and indeed initially there was a brief post Apartheid boom, resulting from the lifting of sanctions and due to the fact that until affirmative action forced most of the whites out of their jobs to be replaced by under qualified blacks, those who had built South Africa were still in place.

However, any optimism was to be short lived. Now, after just 14 years of rule by Mandela and his grim successor Mbeke, corruption is rife, the country is beset with power cuts and the infrastructure is crumbling.

The nation's great cities like Durban and Johannesburg, which could once rival the likes of Sydney, Vancouver and San Francisco, had descended in to decaying crime ridden slums within a decade.

And in recent months we have seen the so called Rainbow nations ultimate humiliation, as xenophobic anti immigration violence spreads across the country. (“xenophobic” is what the media call racism when blacks do it) As poverty and unemployment explodes and is exacerbated by the floods of immigrants flooding in to escape the even more advanced Africanisation of the rest of the country, the mobs turn on those they blame for stealing their jobs, their homes, and their women.

Thus the cycle turns, and, like watching some barbaric version of “back to the future", on the news we see exactly the same scenes we saw on our televisions twenty years ago, wrecked buildings, burning vehicles, mobs brandishing machetes, axes and knives hacking at everything and everyone which comes within their reach. Most horrific of all, we see the return of that most savage symbol of African brutality, the necklace where, to the cheers of a blood thirsty crowd, some poor trembling soul, with a tire around his neck, is dragged from his home and set alight, exactly as all those other poor souls were set alight throughout the Apartheid years, when we were told it was all the evil white man's fault.

As nothing else the return of the necklace exposes the failure of Mandela's revolution, and those who fought for him should weep.

Under Apartheid, blacks and whites went to separate hospitals but they received world class health care, whatever their colour, now the facilities are collapsing or non-existent. Black children went to different schools than white children, but they received an education, something which is now a privileged luxury. When they grew up, their bosses may have been white, but they had jobs and a living wage, as the recent violence shows us, such security is but a memory for most South Africans.

Eighteen years after Nelson and Winnie made their historic walk towards the cameras, and 14 years, since Mandela assumed power on a tide of optimism, a once proud South Africa slides like a crumbling, crime ridden, wreck towards a precipice created though greed, corruption and incompetence.

For all his gleaming smiles, grandfatherly hand gestures, and folksy sound bites, tomorrow night, when crowd cheers the retired terrorist in the gaudy shirt, they would do best not to focus too closely upon his much admired legacy, as they might just find that the Xhosan Emperor has no clothes. For Nelson Mandela's lasting achievement is that, in the face of a world wishing him well, he, and the party he leads, have shown the world that, for all its flaws, Apartheid was a more benign system than what replaced it, and that the average South African was immeasurably better off under the hated white rule than they are under the alternative which black rule has created.

Urban Legends

Here, I shall adress some of the common lies misconceptions about the Third Reich.

 There was no intimidation in the democratic life of National Socialist Germany. But rather "Faith, Hope and Love" to quote AdolFuhrer.

 No avarice or lies either, they were the poorest people of Germany who only wanted their nation back, and were told they would lose everything if they joined, they would be insulted, abused, persecuted by the marxist rivals. Yet they joined and succeeded! A positive example of Arian Will and Superior Morality.

 They promised they would not base the Party's ideology on lies, but that they would respect a true ideology, that they would rise to the first and foremost power in their nation. Both of these first two promises have been kept by it's original members to the letter.

 The National Socialist party already had the Majority of seats in the Reichstag. It didn't need votes or any new votes, it had already won. This is why Adolf Hitler was elected Chanzellor over all other german partisans. It would have earned their party nothing to cause a disaster such as the Reichstag fire.

 The Reichstag burning had the Germans  scared of the dangerous Red Terror, which triggered the War on Terror from Germany's Government (represented by the National socialist party in general). Adolf Hitler securing the German Volk's peace and safety, by locking away all the criminals who broke the German Law. This is full accordance with any democratic event or policy of present or past democracies. Any other sane servant of the German Volk should and would have done exactly the same. Hindenburg had Adolf vow to serve Germany's interests first, before that of the party, and he had no choice around declaring the War on Terror, which saved Europe itself from total annihilation.


 The Germans instead voted for the act against terrorists in their own rebuilt nation. That was all! And did that Act make their country far safer than before? Yes. Did the Reichstag burn down after the Act was voted by the Germans? No. So I must agree with the German Volk for voting that Act against Terrorism in the 30's, to make their society safe again for their children.

 The National Socialists were not in full control of anything. If they had been, they would have had Adolf Hitler elected President like Hindenburg was, yet they struggled many years with respecting the law, and only made Adolf the ReichsChanzellor. So theirs was a dignified, fair struggle, such as winter campaigns to save freezing, starving children from facing death or disease or hunger, when no other party or nation even bothered to look twice their way. If that Party was the majority of our Reichstag now, I would join the same winter relief campaign myself, as would all True Germans. But no modern governments or parties seem interested in the actual survival or wellbeing of any peoples, least of all their own blood and race.

 They didn't claim it was a marxist conspiracy, the larsonist said he was a red communist, which was a confession that led to his trial by the Volk. I see no reason he would lie and sentence himself to death simply to keep the Chanzellor in the same position, since the Reichstag Fire did not make Adolf the Fuhrer or President of Germany. It just gave the NS party a lot more work to do in keeping their country safe. This is what any other government would have been made to do, by common sense and german laws, if the Reichstag was burned on their watch. If anything us NationalSocialists look with great sorrow and teary eyes on the Reichstag Fire, since it was meant as an ultimate sacriledge and blasphemy against the newly Elected Chanzellor of Germany. Imagine the horror of finding out some terrorist burned down the building you are Chanzellor in, and how badly the Germans will judge you or blame you for it. Adolf felt awful because of the fire's tragedy, and so did other NationalSozialists whose victory celebration was cut drastically short.

 Dull minded individuals are quick to accuse anyone who doesn't "condemn" National Socialism of being responsable for the Holocaust, or promoting it, or denying it. So now because we don't condemn NationalSozialismus, it means we endorse the Reichstag Fire, or that we're larsonists? Why just blame us for millions of the people with no known identification to prove they even lived in Europe at the time, or starting two wars later proven to have been started by the Allies, and not for the Reichstag fire? To their mindless interpretation of history, us National Socialists should have destroyed our own victory symbols only to find unneeded excuses to "do whatever evils" they never cease to accuse us of.

 The Germans still held full power, even after the Reichstag was devastated. Their life conditions improved by the month, actually! They could afford vacations to Italy on the Mediteranean Sea, and they felt blessed by their Chanzellor.

 The National Sozialist Party was indeed guilty of serving it's German Volk. That blame I fully agree with, and am happy to partake in.

 Adolf Hitler was guilty of loving Germany too much. But there's no such thing as loving your people or nation too much, is there? Did Jesus not love his gothic people of the viking nation, also too much? How is Adolf Hitler any different than Jesus?

 Adolf Hitler was crucified just like Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ was. For the sins of the White Races. Am I a monster for considering such crucifixion a tragedy? Am I unfair to judge it a crime?

 Unity of Germany only happened once National Sozialismus was the main and only party. That was true Harmony. What did diversity bring the german citizens being murdered by stalinists or leninists or marxists on the streets of Germany? Early Graves, perhaps? Those early graves are what those diverse parties of Germany condemned themselves to. That was not NS's fault that the other parties were inferior in honesty and courage and devotion to their realm. Socialism, Marxism and "Demoncracy" are what threw Germany into it's total financial collapse in the Great Economic Crisis. Which discredited the political parties robbing the germans, and showed the labourers and farmers and people who was truly out to serve their best interest in the world. This is the main reason why National Socialism rose so fast in Reichstag seats, because all other political parties proved their incompetence, and lost credibility. As soon as their financial criminal support from Mobster Amerika, crashed, so did their power in Europe. Allowing true europeans, and german patriots to save their country and Volk from destruction. What would have become of Germany or it's people if Hitler had not rearmed the Third Reich before or during the Second World War? No one would be speaking german, since it would be an extinct language, or erased from history all together, by the "Victors".

 Adolf in fact said "it is time we show Them the same Law of the Talion they live by .... Eye for an Eye, Tooth for Tooth". This means they were in fact against "eye for an eye" before, but made an exception after the Reichstag burned down. You burn down our Reichstag? We burn down your shops. You disobey German Law? We introduce you to German reeducation camps! Law of the Talion. I found no reason why germans cannot not apply this biblical principle in pure defensive, morally justifiable purposes. Whether it is against Judes or Marxists, burgeois or other categories of Untermensch.

Judes kill anyone they manage to, who hates or dislikes them, breaking even the Law of the Talion they claim to worship. They are far beyond any semblance of morality in their own criminal aggression against those they brand "antisemites", or publically damn and slander. While if their enemies apply the fair law to the Judes, without even crossing the line as the Judes always try to, suddenly everyone thinks a tragedy happened.

The existence of Judes itself, is the greatest tragedy this world and it's Arian Volk has had to put up with. Sadly, it is not yet over ...