Nelson Mandela: South Africa’s Lenin

Ask the average American what he or she thinks of Nelson Mandela, and the answer you receive will range from generally positive to an advocacy for sainthood. The narrative has been internalized to the point where the people of this country genuinely and uncritically accept the stories that he was a proponent of non-violent struggle against the racist Apartheid regime of the then Republic of South Africa. He was not imprisoned for committing any crime, but rather merely for his belief that black South Africans should enjoy equal rights with the whites. He was his country’s Gandhi, or so we are told.

But as with most historical narratives in the post-World War II era, there is the “truth” of what we are told and there is the TRUTH of what actually happened. And the reality of Nelson Mandela is that he was a violent communist who perpetrated acts of savagery against both his own people and those he sought to replace in governing South Africa. A terrorist who sanctioned unspeakable acts of violence in pursuit of political power. A man who was far more racist than any in the white Apartheid government. Far from being a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King (a flawed and perverted man in his own right, but not a violent one), Nelson Mandela was the Lenin of South Africa. A brutal Marxist despot of whom the best that one can say is that he was not as bad as his successors.

To get a true sense of the man and to break the spell surrounding him, we must go back in time before his birth in 1918. One of the main reasons that popular opinion is so slanted against white rule in South Africa is due to our Western sensibilities, specifically the unfortunate fascination with Democracy and the recent shift in popular opinion against imperialism. It is said that white rule was bad because the whites came and took the land from the native blacks and then worked to keep them in a subservient position through legal restrictions such as Apartheid. The truth is more complex. Simply put, there is no rational justification one can make to support this claim as it applies to either the Dutch nor the English settlers of South Africa viz the Bantu peoples who now form the overwhelming ethnic majority of the nation. Why? The Bantu were not present in the region prior to the arrival of whites. The Cape of South Africa was sparsely populated with primitive Bushmen and it was not until the British and Dutch began commercializing the region that the Bantu began to emigrate. They were an imported source of labor, not the original inhabitants of the land. And they devastated many other tribes on their journey from their Central African homelands to Southern Africa.

The white Europeans found a primitive land and made it prosper. They did not strive to keep the blacks down, but allowed them to thrive. Until the advent of European settlement, no African tribe grew to the size of the present-day Bantu. Their lack of technological development and societal organization precluded civilization and expansion in any real sense of the words. For example, the Bantu had not invented the wheel before they made contact with whites, nor did they have draft animals with which to till and improve the land. Subsistence level societies are, by their definition, limited in size and scope. The surpluses of food created by the white farmers and the hospitals and schools they built created the population boom which was ultimately used to justify the theft of the countries they built out of nothing. Yes, the Bantu now form the majority of the countries of the former British protectorates in the region, but without European intervention, they would remain the half-starved primitives that they had been for thousands of years before our arrival on the Dark Continent. A condition they seem hell bent on returning to if Zimbabwe and South Africa are any indication.

Related image
They don’t make civilization

With the claims of injustice toward the people of Nelson Mandela now shattered, we can now shift our focus to disproving the contention that he himself was put upon merely for the color of his skin and his belief that black Africans ought to run South Africa on the basis of their majority status, regardless of their intellectual or moral capability to do so. As is true of most anti-European movements made by black Africans in the post-war era, the African National Congress (ANC), was an Afrocentric communist organization. Its goal was to overthrow the white regime and expropriate land from whites that it falsely claimed had been stolen from blacks. Afrocentric Marxism is even worse than the system from whence it derives the basis its ideology, because it centers entirely on racial strife. The whites had prosperity and the blacks did not (relative to the whites, irrespective of their condition prior to 1600), thus the former must be destroyed and the latter the beneficiary. Poor whites would not be permitted to enjoy the “fruits” of redistribution and expropriation, as we can see in modern South Africa in the form of one million white persons living in squatter camps. Racial Marxism creates a permanent hatred of the minority group by the majority group and an eternal scapegoat for the failures of the regime: it’s always the white people’s fault, let us take more from them. There is no finer example of this than in the person of Julius Malema, who in no uncertain terms has placed every white life remaining in South Africa in mortal jeopardy with his rhetoric. Should he gain power, a total genocide is a very real possibility. In a cruel bit of irony, Mandela’s Afrocentric Marxism is what Apartheid was accused of being. But I am getting ahead of myself. A slippery slope in logic is a fallacy, in politics it is a certainty.

The ANC of the 1950s was a terrorist organization in every sense of the word, using violent intimidation as a means of causing political upheaval and eventually regime change. There were bombings and murder, as well as armed insurrectionary struggle. Of course, as was true of all the black led communist rebellions, the armed fighting was woefully inept in the face of trained government forces, and the ANC shifted toward a campaign of guerrilla terror, particularly after Mandela founded the militant wing of the ANC the Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation in 1961.  While there were some high-profile attacks against white targets, the majority of the victims were black Africans who were content to remain under white rule. It was in connection to these violent activities, not the political ones of the ANC, that Mandela was arrested and imprisoned for 27 years.

His imprisonment did not end his connections to the ANC’s campaign of terror. The government of South Africa required merely that Mandela renounce the use of violence in pursuit of his political aims in order to secure his release. Not only did he refuse this offer, but he continued to direct terrorist activities from his jail cell. It is here we will discuss the practice of “necklacing”, in which a person is bound to the ground with ropes, has a tire placed over his or her head which is then with gasoline and set aflame, leaving the person writing in horrible agony for the brief remainder of life afforded to him or her. This practice was so heinous that not even the authors of Mandela panegyrics could ignore it, particularly given that most people so murdered were black. Because it cannot be denied that these murders occurred and were obviously committed by the ANC, the blame had to be shifted away from Nelson. His wife Winnie represented a convenient scapegoat for fans of Nelson. Specifically, they point to the couple’s divorce shortly after Nelson’s release from prison as “proof” that he did not approve of her violent tactics. This is utter nonsense, as he himself founded the Spear which she ran in his absence. Had he condemned Winnie and these attacks, he would have been a free man. That he did not is proof that he condoned them if not outright participated in their logistical planning and execution from his cell.

Related image
Winnie Mandela

Upon his release in 1990 and subsequent assumption of the role of President of South Africa in 1994, the real Mandela continued to be far worse than the one we heard about on TV. While it is true that he was one of the less radical members of the ANC and angered a great many people by not going far enough in his pursuit of Marxist retribution against the whites in South Africa, that does not change the fact that his communist regime punished the successful whites on the basis of their skin color. Not only to the detriment of white people, but to his own people, as the economy of South Africa imploded because of ANC policies. This is worth noting, because the nation had enjoyed economic prosperity despite being an international pariah because of Apartheid; Mandela helped to kill what economic sanctions could not: a vibrant South African economy.

Politically, the situation was little better, with Mandela’s ANC forming a stranglehold on the electoral landscape, creating a system of one party authoritarian rule under the hollow sham of democracy. This was in no small part due to the animus instilled by the rhetoric of the ANC. This sad turn of events had been predicted by Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith in 1976, should black majority government take the place of white minority rule. Imposing a system foreign to a people and not developed organically leads to disastrous results. To borrow from Smith again, by jumping the gun and giving all blacks a voice in politics before they were ready, it ensured the success of a party and a system which has done nothing but destroy their country was selected. This is a phenomenon not unlike the more recent Arab Spring, in which democracy led to the adoption of militant Islamic fundamentalism replacing westernized totalitarianism. As bad as democracy is generally, it is worse if a people have not undergone the political and social evolutionary processes which precede its adoption.

While the universal franchise has created a disastrous outcome for the blacks of South Africa, it has been even worse for the whites. White voices are not heard, and white concerns ignored despite the fact that even in the face of economic terrorism enacted by the ANC, they still form the backbone of the economy. And when the government had failed to improve the material standard of the black majority –indeed it declined along with the economic fortunes of the nation generally—Mandela, and even more so his successors, leaned harder and more heavily on the white population to the detriment of all South Africans. This is of course to say nothing about the guerilla campaign of terror against white Africans, to the tune of at least 80,000 murders in the past decade.

Four years after the death of South Africa’s Lenin, the nation stands in crisis. The economy is worse than it has ever been, threatening to tumble down the Marxist rabbit hole of starvation and hyperinflation its Zimbabwean neighbor to the north did under Robert Mugabe. The ANC itself is on the brink of civil war, and it is quite clear from the rhetoric of both factions of the party that whoever wins, the white minority will lose. Their property if not their lives. The only question is who will be the South African Stalin to Mandela’s Lenin. Nelson was no hero. He was no saint. He was a terrorist communist and a man who might very well end up having the blood of 4 million whites on his hands thanks to the political organism he helped bring into being. A toll to be added to the unknown number of people he and his organization killed during its march to power.

Image result for nelson mandela communist
Mandela & Castro.

The white government was a blessing, not a burden, for the South African people. While it is true that the blacks had a lower standard of living than the whites, that standard was far higher than it had been prior to the arrival of European settlers and higher than it is now under black “democratic” government. And while I hold no illusion of a return to a white-ruled South Africa, nor even of policies friendlier to these people, I do think we must act in trying to save them. Property can be replaced. People cannot. We can and must stand up for them when the media and governments of the world are turning a blind eye toward their plight.

Slot Machine’s Vera Winterose contributed to the research and fact checking of this piece. If you want to learn more about South Africa’s history and the dire situation of the nation’s white people, please visit http://slotmachine.libsyn.com/ or you can catch Vera’s podcast which is hosted here on Identity Dixie and on TRS.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s