Terrorist killings - Church Street Anniversary

Yesterday (20th May) was the 24th anniversary of the Church Street bombing in Pretoria, carried out by ANC terrorists acting under the authority and approval. Adriana Stuijt, has published an account of the atrocity, which can be read here.  Warning the report includes some very gruesome images.

 "In his book  Long Walk to Freedom Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism

The Fates of Evil Men

I am going to start this article by believing the premise that a team of US army SEALS, acting under president Obama’s specific instructions, did indeed raid a compound in Pakistan last Monday and shot the world’s most wanted terrorist, when the elderly invalid was unarmed and eminently capturable.

I am going to accept that the soldiers took photographs of the corpse, to prove he was dead but that these were later considered too gruesome to release, because they might antagonise his supporters even more than their tender sensibilities might be inflamed by widely circulated film of Infidel youth celebrating the assassination of an unarmed middle aged cleric. (what other explanation could there be?!)

Going further, and for the purpose of argument, I will believe that DNA tests were carried out which showed a direct link with one of the bin Laden’s sisters. The authorities were, no doubt, able to conclusively rule out the possibility they had accidentally shot one of the many other bin Laden brothers instead of Osama.

I will not question the claim that the US administration assumed that quickly chucking the body of the FBI’s most wanted felon into the sea within 24 hours of his death, and before announcing that death to the world, would not raise any suspicions whatsoever.  I am sure that they truly believed that burial at sea was “in accordance with Islamic tradition” (whereas, in fact, burial at sea is only permissible when it is not possible to bury the body in earth before decomposition sets in – which was not a factor in this case)

I will even struggle to accept that the al Quada leader did indeed make home movies of the back of his own head as he watched himself on TV, from time to time zooming in on his own ear as he did so. It follows that the dishevelled and rather pathetic looking figure in the videos released a few days ago was indeed OBL and not some lookie-likie Arab-American from Battle Creek, Nebraska, flown in specially.

Whilst I am in the mood to extend credibility to lengths which would challenge Ping the Elastic Man, I will also believe that it is merely coincidence that the successful climax of the nine and a half year search for Osama bin Laden coincided so closely with President Obama being forced to publish a rather dubious looking document purporting to be his Hawaian birth certificate, whilst the President’s approval ratings were heading below sea level, and that extremely suspicious conflict in Libya was starting to settle into an uncomfortable and very long stalemate.
                                                                 
More difficult for me is accepting the word of the current US Attorney General Eric Holder, a man who makes Alberto Gonzalez appear a paragon of truth and honesty, when he assures us that the killing was not an “assassination”, but heck, if I’ve gone this far, I may as well go the whole hog, as they say.

Not everybody is rejoicing at the death. Various, Mullahs, jihadis and tenured university professors aside, the arch Bishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams confesses to a degree of queasiness over the shooting of an unarmed man. However, Rowan has a queasy reaction to so many things it is hard to take his moralising very seriously.

Despite Rowan’s nervous stomach, and any quibbling over the legal definition of what took place, the American government takes the view that they were entirely justified in taking out Osama bin Laden. Assuming, as I have for the purpose of this article, that rather than blowing him to smithereens in Tora Bora in 2002, they really did take him out last week, and then chuck him in the sea, bizarre as that may sound.

In that case, many might conclude that they were justified in that view, and I certainly find myself feeling sympathetic to that argument. Bin laden was the self confessed mastermind of violent acts of terrorism which left many American citizens dead, a man who embraced the ideology of violent insurrection against those he viewed as the oppressors of his people, and someone who was the inspiration for others who went on to commit acts of terrible cruelty and barbarism.

Of course, one might be able to argue the something similar about individuals currently employed, on an elected basis, within the Northern Ireland Assembly, and of course, even more so, about one internationally revered elder statesman, currently enjoying a luxurious retirement in South Africa.

It is true many thousands more died in the World trade centre in 2001 than were killed in the Church Street bombing in 1983, which Mandela freely admits he approved.  However, the victims of Church Street were no less dead, and neither were the 130 left with varying degrees of horrific injury any less the victims of terrorism just because they were attacked in Pretoria rather than New York.

If numbers of victims are anything to go by, although worldwide al Quada has killed more, the ANC, under Nelson Mandela’s leadership were responsible for the violent deaths of far greater numbers of South African citizens, mostly black, than the number of American citizens killed by a bin Laden led al Quada. By the most conservative estimate the ratio is almost seven to one. (and the killing still continues)

Hence if the US government is justified in “taking out” Osama bin-laden in 2011, why would the pre-1990 National government of South Africa not have been justified in “taking out” Nelson Mandela?  Both men led terrorist organisations both were equally guilty of orchestrating acts of violent terrorism against states which they perceived as oppressors, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of innocent citizens.

These are men of blood with much blood on their hands, it is only the fashionable prejudice of the world, and the outcomes which they faced which differentiates the two.  One, reviled by the West, and dead at 54, now, allegedly, feeds the fishes of the Pakistani coast, the other, still thriving and applauded in his 10th decade, is held up to our children a some form of living saint.       

When I wrote the article “Mandela the legend and the legacy” I started by saying that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, very little illustrates that point more clearly than the differing fates of Osama bin Laden and Nelson Mandela.

 

Disappearing Diamonds

In testimony at the War Crimes trial of one time Liberian leader Charles Taylor today, supermodel Naomi Campbell admitted receiving a gift of so called "blood diamonds" at a gathering hosted by Nelson Mandela in 1997.

Asked what had happened to the diamonds, Campbell claimed that she had donated them to a charitable fund set up by the then President Mandela. Campbell's testimony was contradicted by the administrators of the Mandela Children's fund, who claimed they had never received the diamonds.

Am I alone in suspecting that not only will the true fate of the diamonds never be fully revealed, it will also never be seriously investigated.

Mandela - The truths he never told

By Robin Hind

On 11 February 1990 Nelson Mandela was released from prison, and gave a speech, now well known, from the Town Hall in the City of Cape Town, which heralded much about subsequent events.

He subsequently received many accolades and tributes which deemed him to be a great statesman, wise, forgiving and an engineer of peace. He has been described as exemplifying compassion, courage, integrity and hope and was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace.

If he were to justify his praise-singers, if he were sincere in his compassion about the conditions of all peoples in Africa, if he were the messenger who could change the attitudes of entire societies and so better the lot of the misfortunate and unsuccessful, if he were to clearly distinguish and separate himself from the criminal political tyrants of Africa, his speech might have taken this form:



********************************************************************

Friends, comrades and fellow South Africans.

I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all.

I stand here before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people. Your tireless and heroic sacrifices have made it possible for me to be here today. I therefore place the remaining years of my life in your hands.

On this day of my release, I extend my sincere and warmest gratitude to the millions of my compatriots and those in every corner of the globe who have campaigned tirelessly for my release.

I have therefore been chosen to act as spokesperson for my people. I speak not only on their behalf, but I speak to them in the hope that they will recognise the value of the country of which they will inherit a mandate via the electoral process.

The adverse anti-white propaganda which has infested Africa and which eventually began to infect South Africa has had the great danger of causing discontent among many in the population. It has afflicted many, from academics to the least educated of the population, and with so many dangerous possibilities, it exists as the greatest threat to the future of South Africa.

At the outset I wish to apologise to the nation for my involvement in the brutality with which I had been compliant, directly or indirectly, in the past. But I wish to salute, and am grateful for, the fair and forgiving judicial system which characterised South Africa and for which I recognise, in retrospect, my personal indebtedness.

I am grateful for my education, and the capacity which it gave me to become a leader, given my humble of origins. I'm grateful to the culture provided to me by white civilisation and which allowed this education to reach me, as little removed as I was, by my accident of birth; from my origins which were so close to elemental man.

I wish to remind the black population of the benefits they received under white administration. South Africa has become, in not more than three generations, the leading Nation in the entire continent of Africa. It must be obvious to all that is solely the result of the capabilities of the white race, and we must remember forever the contribution of the whites to the well being of black South Africa. It is not by chance that millions of people in the impoverished regions of Africa have clamoured to enter South Africa, whilst it was under white rule, and to benefit from the presence of that unique quality of administration, leadership, orderliness and creativity which the white race brought into this small part of this continent.

We are grateful for what has been created in this wild continent within half a century and the economic success which we are inheriting.

We recognise an extraordinary infrastructure, ranging from transportation on land air and sea, through to the industrial giant which has led black South Africans to a wealth which could not possibly have achieved without the presence of the white race. We must recognise, with appreciation, the costs borne by the white race and that tiny group of taxpayers, at all times only a small fraction of the population -- who offered their support to the black population.

My great fear is that the white race will not forgive me, and my people, for what, as the black race, we have done to them in the way of wars and crimes, inflicted on this small and isolated minority, by a greatly outnumbering majority. We, as I stand here, are grateful for their magnanimity.

I wish to make it clear to the black population the magnitude and importance of the white creators, and request that is never be forgotten.

I also wish the black population to understand that the future success of South Africa is bound to the preservation of the white population, with their expertise, skills, and unique understanding of the land, its challengers, and demands.

I wish to thank the past government for their endeavour and great achievement in creating the Bantustans, with the economic development and incentives which the white race promoted. This availed the black race of an instructional pathway towards an understanding of a democratic and capitalist capability. Let us never forget that as a black race we had never been capable of creating this level of sophistication in the past.

I realise, naturally, that separated development was equally important to the white race. This was understandable given the hope that the white race had that the majority of people in South Africa could take their place with the world’s most productive, to the benefit of all. It has to be recognised, also, that the white race required some means of protecting of their complex civilisation and its material manifestations. The only practical way to do this was to ensure that black productivity and creativity caught up with that of the whites. This was the only pathway towards overcoming the destructive effects of that inequality which birth, heritage, chance and circumstances had inflicted upon the black races throughout the world.

We, in South Africa, are totally dependent on the white race to continue to lead us into the 21st century with that prospect of an increasing prosperity for the entire nation.

We are fortunate to be colonised by the white race and their capacity for patronage which was designed to lead the black race ahead towards incorporation as legitimate members into the first world. It was this which made the black races of South Africa uniquely different. In South Africa we are the most fortunate black groups in the whole of Africa, let alone the Caribbean and South-Central America, to have this patronage. Others have had the opportunity of white beneficiation in their counties before, only to mindlessly destroy their prospects by short term greed and long term foolhardiness.

Never make the mistake of regarding the white race as your enemy. They are you greatest allies in the context of the world as a whole, and allies in the commercial competition which South Africa will face in the future. To turn on the white race would be like a snake eating its tail, with the excuse that it is hungry. Remember, by the power of your numbers you are regarded as the jaws of the snake – so powerful and important if used correctly – so destructive if used mindlessly.

A goal which has always been acknowledged, and which has always been the ultimate aim of all South Africans, is that the black race was to evolve and prosper. But we need the guidance of a civilisation far, far older than that of the black races.

If you wish to preserve out superbly successful system of justice, law and social order: if you wish to preserve the academic triumphs of South African education: if you wish to ensure the future of the health, shelter and nutrition of our people, and to approach the standards of living parallel with that of the best in the world, you must ensure that nothing interferes with the desire of the white race to continue to live safely and productively in South Africa.

We must do everything possible to encourage the white race to stay. To that end the new government will enact legislation to prevent any jeopardy to the employment of members of the white race. We must recognise that the vast achievements of this extraordinary minority will not make them immune to the lure of greater and wealthier nations, which will be only too willing to recruit their many arms of expertises. We will encourage those white South Africans, currently abroad to return by assisting them with passages and offering special tax benefits. This should be looked at as an investment in the future of the black races, and an inexpensive investment at that.

I emphasise that there must never and absolutely never be discrimination against our white South African partners, if South Africa is to maintain its position on the very brink of the first world. Nothing must threaten the investments by the first world, and the unique bridge provided by white South Africans in linking the first world to South Africa by their associations, financial links and their language heritage with Europe.

There must never be a place for boasting about past military success or terrorising a population. There is no place for triumphalism: There is no place for gloating over battles in which thousands of young lives were lost.

There is no place for capitalising upon or parading the diversionary issues in the world, such as the communist capitalist divide, praising the causes of rigid and inflexible personalities, or praising those individuals who took a stubborn stances in promoting their cults obsessively and immutably.

Remember that equality begins with the individual. If respect and dignity are required every individual must demonstrate himself or herself as being equally capable to those whose respect is demanded. No one can expect dignity and respect if they remain inferior. The inferior will beget themselves tolerance, compassion and assistance, but it is unreasonable for the inferior to expect to be treated as equals. Each of you, as individuals, will need to generate the responses that you receive reflected back from societies, in the building your self-esteem. But you cannot demand: You get back what you give out. It is now up to you, Black South Africa, to demonstrate that you are up to it. Create your own esteem.

In conclusion I wish to quote my own words during my trial in 1964. They are true today as they were then:

'I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve.’

There will never be a need for any of you to sacrifice yourselves, unless you are foolish enough to let haste, greed, arrogance, aggression, intolerance, lack of humility and avarice become your destructive masters.

Robin Hind

Greatness in Leadership - Verwoerd -v- Mandela

Verwoerd and Mandela

This is a picture of the country which under Verwoerd had the second highest economic growth rate in the world (7.9% per year), an average inflation rate of 2 per cent, was accommodating new labour in the formal sector at 73.6 per cent per year, and enabled the living standards of Blacks in the industrial sector to rise at 5.3 per cent per year as against those of Whites at 3.9 per cent per year. The Financial Mail published a special survey entitled "The fabulous years: 1961-66". And as the previously mentioned Jan Botha wrote, Verwoerd "had launched the greatest programme of socio-economic upliftment for the non-Whites that South Africa had ever seen".

This, Verwoerd achieved in the face of fierce diplomatic and economic opposition from the United States, Britain, Soviet Russia and others. Mandela, on the other hand, has the blessing and support of these powers, yet under his hand the country is disintegrating and has sunk to a state of lawlessness, joblessness and futurelessness unprecedented in South African history. Yet, Mandela is not struggling to emulate Verwoerd, but to denigrate him and his people.
Jaap Marais

-/-

The following open letter was written by the late Jaap Marais Leader of The Herstigte Nasionale Party van Suid-Afrika (Reconstituted National Party of South Africa) to President Bill Clinton on the 14th of January 1999. Now eleven year later his words seem even more prophetic even than they were then.

_______________________

The President of the USA

The White House

WASHINGTON, DC

Mr President

In South African newspapers you are reported to have said in a speech at the White House that the present South African President, Nelson Mandela, had taught you not to hate your political enemies. Mandela is said to have told you that he harboured no grudge against his enemies who "cast him into jail". And you, in the speech concerned, said that your (present) crisis could be compared to Mandela's suffering in jail.

You seem to be under some misapprehension about the circumstances of Mandela's incarceration and the crimes for which he was sentenced to imprisonment, otherwise you may not be desirous to identify with him. And you evidently have been given a distorted idea of how the African National Congress (ANC) under direction of its leader, Nelson Mandela, is vengeantly acting against their political enemies and opponents.

Your remark about Mandela's having been "cast into jail" creates a wrong impression. Mr President, he was not "cast into jail": he was charged for acts of sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Judge President of the then Transvaal Division of the South African Supreme Court after a protacted hearing in which he had had representation and every opportunity to defend himself. He, however, refused to take the oath and testify, and could consequently not be taken under cross-examination. Finding him guilty, the Judge said that he had been wrongly charged for acts of sabotage instead of for treason, in which case the sentence would not have been imprisonment but the death penalty. The trial was attended by journalists, jurists and others from all over the world. None could find fault with the proceedings and the findings of the Court.

Even The Rand Daily Mail, the most outspoken liberal newspaper at the time in South Africa, and in many ways a supporter of Mandela and the ANC, wrote about the sentences passed by the judge, “The sentences pronounced by Judge De Wet at the close of the Rivonia trial are both wise and just. The law is best served when there is firmness tinged with mercy, and this was the case yesterday. The sentences could not have been less severe than those imposed. The men found guilty had planned sabotage on a wide scale and had conspired for armed revolution. As the judge pointed out yesterday, the crime of which they were found guilty was really high treason. The death penalty would have been justified.”

These are the facts of history. Sentencing Mandela to imprisonment instead of letting him be hanged was an act of mercy on the part of his political enemies. Mandela has, therefore, every reason to be grateful and not the least reason to harbour a grudge against them. He owes his life to them. You will agree that this puts a completely different complexion on your statement that "he was cast into jail".

This is by no means all of which Mandela should be grateful for. In the time of PW Botha's prime ministership in the 'eighties Mandela was moved from the Robben Island prison to the Pollsmoor prison near Cape Town, where he received VIP treatment. PW Botha was in this way making the first instalments in Mandela's release on the pretext that he would not wish "an old man to die in prison".

From Pollsmoor prison Mandela was moved to the residence of a senior officer on the staff of the Prisons Department in the town of Paarl in the Western Cape. There he had every convenience at his disposal to play a political rôle, including the use of a fax machine. And he was attended to day and night by a white policeman.

After a carefully orchestrated campaign inside and outside South Africa he was released by the FW de Klerk government to a stage-managed reception in Cape Town, receiving prime coverage from the South African Broadcasting Corporation and providing him with a launching pad for political initiatives. Thereafter the De Klerk government in a treasonable series of acts started peace negotiations with the ANC and moved on to draw up a new constitution on the basis of one man, one vote in an undivided South Africa, which in essence meant surrendering to the ANC and enabling Mandela to become the president of South Africa.

The essence of this political move was spelt out by Paul Johnson, well-known British intellectual, in The Spectator in April 1994. "South Africa under F W de Klerk", he said, "Made a suicidal leap to universal suffrage". He predicted that within ten years the country could be the theatre of Africa's endless civil wars. "In any case it would become an industrial rubble heap, beastly, bloody and bankrupt (...) There is not the slightest hope that it (South Africa) will continue to exist on a system of universal suffrage - it is one of the most divided societies on earth: racially, ethnically, linguistically, as well as economically".

This is De Klerk's achievement. You may recall that you at one stage telephoned him and told him that you "marvelled" at what he was achieving in pushing South Africa along this disastrous course.

Some ten months later (February 1995) The Spectator published another article on South Africa in which its readers were told, "A country ravaged by crime and corruption, with plummeting standards and a people condemned to a sordid and brutal life". The article describes the ANC government as "corrupt and incompetent". This is Nelson Mandela's government.

What is revealing is that while De Klerk was treacherously steering the country towards this national misery, newspapers reported: "Britain fights fervently for FW in UN debate". And later: "Brits full of praise for FW as architect of peaceful change". And eventually: "Brits bear De Klerk, their hero, on their hands". Only an Afrikaner who is a traitor to his own people would be regarded by Brits as their hero. And De Klerk became the hero of Brits by letting loose the man who, according to Judge De Wet, should have been hanged for high treason.

You may sense the degree of loathing on the part of Afrikaners like myself, who had a father who fought, was wounded and kept a prisoner-of-war on St Helena Island by the British for more than two years while they devastated the country and caused the death of over 22 000 children under the age of 16 years and who, a few generations thereafter sees De Klerk being treated as a hero by Brits for having "irreversibly" destroyed White South Africa (as in foolish vanity he said his aim was).

As Mr Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, said in January 1998 that the British "never forget the past even when addressing the future", so we naturally also do not forget the past - also the recent past when the ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP) had their headquarters in London from where with British moral and other support they conducted their terrorism against South Africa.

In the period September 1984 to August 1989 no fewer than 1770 schools were destroyed or extensively damaged, as were 7187 private homes of Blacks, 10318 buses, 152 trains, 12188 private vehicles, 1265 shops and factories, 60 post offices, 47 churches and 30 health clinics. And, what is even worse, there were 300 cold-blooded murders by the barbarous necklace method and 372 deaths of people trapped in homes set alight by terrorist gangs.

These were the means employed in "the struggle" to bring to power, under Mandela, a Communist-controlled organisation, which Peter Younghusband, in the London Daily Mail in November 1994, described as follows, "The ANC never was worth much as a liberation movement - and apart from a few random urban terrorist acts, its military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was equally worth little as a fighting force (...) the ANC very conveniently sat in exile waiting for the world to bring the White regime to its knees". And, he said, Mandela is unable to run the country, and he and the ANC is steadily reducing South Africa to yet another Third World plodder.

It is one thing to say that Mandela bears his political enemies no grudge, but it is another thing to judge him by what he does, by what he allows, and by what he neglects to do.

To consider this one must see it in its historical perspective. When Mandela and his Communist cohorts at their Rivonia hide-out were planning bloody revolution in the early 'sixties, the Afrikaner Nationalist Government (ANG) was under the leadership of Dr HF Verwoerd. And it was under the direction of Dr Verwoerd that this Communist conspiracy to violently overthrow the South African government was stamped out, Mandela and his collaborators landing in jail and the organisation of the Communist Party of South Africa being destroyed shortly thereafter through the efficient action of the security police in infiltrating the Communist cells.

Verwoerd frustrated and humiliatingly defeated Mandela's plans. And for Mandela there is consequently one political enemy not to be forgiven for saving South Africa from a bloody Communist revolution. That is Hendrik Verwoerd. He and his ghost are haunting those who are destroying the results of his unequalled successful statecraft.

Verwoerd was not only the man under whose direction a Communist-led revolution was prevented. He also became the towering South African statesman of this century, and he was equal, if not superior, to any of his contemporaries in the Western World, a statement that may be evaluated on the ground of his achievements in the face of international enmity from the Anglo-American block, the Communist block and the Afro-Asian block.

He not only secured South Africa's survival against this many-sided onslaught: he, more-over lifted the country to a level of stability, well-being and prosperity seldom, if ever equalled in history anywhere under similar circumstances.

To support this remark let me call opponents and enemies of Verwoerd to testify in this regard. Jan Botha, an outspoken liberal, in his book, Verwoerd is dead, refers to "the threats from the United Nations and the arms boycott by the United States and Britain". Then he writes:

"By the time he died, Dr Verwoerd had built his own monument which was there for all to see: the Republic of South Africa. The White people had been forged together in unity, the country was militarily strong and resilient, the police and security forces were effectively dealing with all attempts at subversion and infiltration, the country's economy was dynamic, expanding and had become largely self-sufficient.

"... in the history of South Africa his name will live for ever as the leader who, when his country was threatened with internal disorders and with economic sanctions, boycotts and open aggression from overseas, stood as a symbol of defiance, and the will and determination to survive".

He not only frustrated the objectives of the great power blocks, but he also defeated the ANC's plans to create internal disorder.

That Jan Botha's was not a lone voice, can be shown by quotations from other sources. Paul Barrow in The Statist shortly before Verwoerd was assassinated on 6 September 1966 by the Communist Tsafendas wrote, "At the rate at which South Africa is now expanding, the term 'miracle' is likely to be appropriate to its development in the next few years".

And on 31 July 1966 the unofficial mouthpiece of the South African liberal establishment The Rand Daily Mail, wrote:

"At the age of nearly 65 Dr Verwoerd has reached the peak of a remarkable career. No other South African prime minister has ever been in such a powerful position in the country. He is at the head of a massive majority after a resounding victory at the polls. The nation is suffering from a surfeit of prosperity and he can command almost unlimited funds for all that he needs at present in the way of military defence. He can claim that South Africa is a shining example of peace in a troubled continent, if only because overwhelming domestic power can always command peace. Finally, as if that were not enough, he can face the session with the knowledge that, short of an unthinkable show of force by people whom South Africans are rapidly being taught to regard as their enemies, he can snap his fingers at the United Nations. Thanks to the recent judgment of the Hague Court he can afford to condescend to the world body, graciously remaining a member as long as it suits him".

These are the achievements of the man against whose memory a vendetta is being conducted under the direction of Mandela and his comrades. His name was ordered to be removed from the Verwoerd Building, the Verwoerd Dam, the Verwoerd Hospital, and under Mandela's leadership his statue at the Free State provincial headquarters was pulled down in an act bristling with hatred and vengeance.

Of course, Verwoerd as leader of the Afrikaners being a symbol of his people, the attacks on him have been indirect attacks on the Afrikaners themselves, so that Mandela's followers - never rebuked - felt free to shout: "Kill a farmer, kill a Boer", instigating the killing of hundreds of Afrikaner farmers and their families, 431 in 1997 and 104 from 1 January to 31 August 1998 in 590 attacks. In the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya in the 'sixties only 39 White farmers were killed and in the terrorist war against Rhodesia only 300 were killed in the course of 14 years. Among those who have had as their battle cry "Kill a farmer, Kill a Boer" is Peter Mokaba, promoted by Mandela to Deputy Minister. Other appointments of identified Communists as Ministers and Deputy Ministers tell the same story, highlighted by the appointment of the Communist Mboweni as President of the SA Reserve Bank in a move to further impoverish Afrikaners in the name of "affirmative action". These are ways in which Mandela has been allowing his grudge against the Afrikaners, as his political enemies, to be exploited, while he goes around pretending that he has no grievance against his enemies.

Even more unmistakable are his appointments to the so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the way in which this commission has conducted its business. It was packed by him with enemies and opponents of the former government. The two Afrikaners, De Jager and Malan, who were included among the 15 other, were in different ways opponents of the previous government. However, De Jager resigned in disappointment, if not disgust, and Malan eventually showed his dissension from the majority by writing a minority report on the Commission's findings.

This commission appointed by Mandela has little to do with truth and nothing with reconciliation. It is a hybridization between the Nuremberg trials of German war leaders and Stalin's Moscow Show Trials of the nineteen thirties. Its prime objective was to place Afrikaners on the bench of the accused to be prosecuted, tried and convicted by their enemies, and to treat the ANC terrorists on a completely different basis, which resulted in some amazing events.

In flagrant violation of the provisions of the relevant act it, for example, granted amnesty to a bunch of 37 top level ANC leaders for crimes associated with political motives, without specifying the various acts, which is in conflict with the requirements of the law. In this group there are among others, Thabo Mbeki, Leader of the ANC, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nzo, Minister of Justice Omar and Minister of Defence Modise. Although this decision has been nullified by a judicial verdict, nothing has been done to rectify the situation.

In such cases, the Commission's concern was not seeking and revealing the truth, but suppressing and stifling it - a procedure that would not have been countenanced when it concerned Afrikaners of the Security services who fought against the terrorists. They were paraded as criminals who individually under severe pressure had to confess in detail for whatever amnesty was asked for.

In these various ways Mandela created outlets for his grudges against the Afrikaners -- the very people whose representatives saved him from the gallows and later gave him all the help to become the President of South Africa.

Against this background it is dismaying to read that this man has every reason to hate his enemies, yet does not think of retribution! And while allowing a vendetta to be conducted against the Afrikaners, he is presiding over the decay of this country, which the Afrikaners wrestled from the wilderness, fought wars for against imperial powers and, under Dr Verwoerd, was developing into the industrial giant of Africa.

Where under Verwoerd, "the nation was suffering from a surfeit of prosperity", and South Africa "was a shining example of peace on a troubled continent", under Mandela the nation is suffering from a surfeit of poverty and the country has become the crime capital of the world - 137 reported rapes, 63 murders, 73 attempted murders, 176 robberies, 670 housebreakings and 35 highjackings on an average every day of the year. It is common cause that a government that cannot secure the lives and properties of its civilians is unfit to rule.

"South Africa", read a newspaper report on 29 November 1998, "occupies the first or second spot in all forms of crime on the world list for crime, and it is the young people and the homeless who pay the price". Of the thousands who passed the matric examinations in 1998 less than one in 10 will get a job in the formal sector. In the four years of ANC government the national debt more than doubled - from R194 billion ($34 billion) In 1994 to over R400 billion ($70 billion) presently, the interest on which accounts for 21 per cent of the budget.

In the same period the South African rand lost 80 per cent of its value. And in the first ten months of 1998 more than 2,8 million man-days were lost to a wave of industrial strikes.

This is a picture of the country which under Verwoerd had the second highest economic growth rate in the world (7.9% per year), an average inflation rate of 2 per cent, was accommodating new labour in the formal sector at 73.6 per cent per year, and enabled the living standards of Blacks in the industrial sector to rise at 5.3 per cent per year as against those of Whites at 3.9 per cent per year. The Financial Mail published a special survey entitled "The fabulous years: 1961-66". And as the previously mentioned Jan Botha wrote, Verwoerd "had launched the greatest programme of socio-economic upliftment for the non-Whites that South Africa had ever seen".

This, Verwoerd achieved in the face of fierce diplomatic and economic opposition from the United States, Britain, Soviet Russia and others. Mandela, on the other hand, has the blessing and support of these powers, yet under his hand the country is disintegrating and has sunk to a state of lawlessness, joblessness and futurelessness unprecedented in South African history. Yet, Mandela is not struggling to emulate Verwoerd, but to denigrate him and his people.

Perhaps you will reconsider your emotional identification with Mandela in the light of historical truth.

Yours sincerely

J A MARAIS

LEADER OF THE HNP
_____________________
Hat Tip: Afrikaner Broadcasting Corporation / JVR

The old man endorses the darkness to come

As the beaming and waving old man watched while his favoured political sun wowed the crowd with his favourite party piece, a spirited rendition of "Bring me my Machine Gun", I briefly wondered if even some of the most besotted anti-Apartheid zealots felt a sense of unease and foreboding as to where all this is going. However, I soon dismissed such naivety, for, if they did, they will not admit it until the blood stains stretch from Kimberly to the Cape, as the surely will, and even then they will seek to blame someone else.

The less blinkered amongst us, who long ago gave up trying to believe in what had self evidently become a fairy tale within months of Mandela's release from Robben Island, will have found this development as expected as it is disturbing.

Anyone who still believes in the fabled goodness of this most flawed of living saints must be either deliberately self deluded or what the politically correct amongst us might call "ceribally impaired".

The 90 year old ex-president's visible and sadly still powerful endorsement of the vile, corrupt and dangerous Joseph Zuma set in motion the final stages of bringing Mandela's true legacy to pass, as he intended it to, and that legacy will be a bloody, violent and terrible one.

The ascendancy of Zuma, who appeared on stage in the company of the poisonous Winnie, the aging legend's first wife, and the murderous ANC was, of course, inevitable. However, Mandela was perhaps the one person on Earth, who could have acted to, at least to reduce the size of Zuma's victory, and, as such, his ability to re-write the constitution, and bring about the nightmare he intends. Even by failing to attend today's rally Mandela could have made a statement. That he chose not to was as unsurprising as it is depressing.

Zuma's position as Mandela's true political son, will only be undermined by the worse monsters who will inevitably follow him. However, for the time being, he is the man best suited to carry forward the Church Street murderer's gory standard.

The BBC's Africa correspondent Karen Allen did her best to talk up the rally as an optimistic celebration of Rainbow diversity, however, she sounded less convincing than the bizarre lady on the North Korean TV news, even for her it is hard to hide how grim the reality is becoming.

Anyone, black or white, who can do so would be well advised to get out of South Africa, and those who can't should keep their loved one's close because a terrible darkness is about to descend on the last, albeit sporadically, illuminated tip of a benighted continent.

The darkness to come has been unavoidable ever since the world decided to cast a bloody handed old terrorist and his racist, gun toting acolytes as the saviours of South Africa. The lights may never go back on again, and while the darkness lasts, even those who have seen it coming can not be prepared for what we will see. Yet we will know who to blame, and I don't just mean the bloodstained Madiba, but also a world who pretended he was anything other than what he is.

The Mandela Myth

THE MANDELA MYTH

By guest Contributor: August Pointneuf

Mandela is widely held to be “one of the greatest statesmen in the world”. This seems to be based on these six pillars:

1. Martyrdom. A closer look at this “self sacrifice” is not convincing. Mandela was jailed following an open trial, under one of the best judicial systems. It has never been suggested that this trial was perverted or corrupt. He was found guilty of contravening the laws universal to the land, and more than that, he had promoted a policy of terrorism. He had plans to disrupt law and order and impose a terrorism which would result in the maiming and death of many good and law abiding persons, children and elderly. When subsequently imprisoned he was offered release provided only that he would renounce his support of violence. He would not. Accordingly he remained in prison. Later, by the most extraordinary inversion of innate justice he was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace. It may well be that the Nobel Prize committee will, in retrospect, attempt to distance themselves from it.

2. He saved South Africa from a blood bath. When persons spoke, prior to independence, of an impending “blood bath” they were imaging the events as they had previously occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. These past “blood baths” were not as much exercises in retribution (the veiled threat to South Africans) but simply sprees of looting and rapine. There was probably no possibility whatever of South Africa as a whole rising in this way, because of a well formulated social infrastructure, with an effective police force (operating entirely within an open judicial system) and the other components of a stable society.

Such was the relationship between the communities under apartheid rule in South Africa that an intrinsic stability, and for that matter mutual respect, existed.^[1] There were, of course, the well recorded “insurrections”, but a critical look at the numbers will demonstrate that these were by a minute percentage of the population. “The Blood Bath will come…” was an emotively convenient threat, much along the line “if you don’t give me your ball, I will ask my daddy to beat you up”. This phrase and its implied emotive threats, was something conjured by those who were intent on destroying an existing system by inducing fear.

Far from demonstrating that Nelson Mandela was responsible for “preventing a blood bath”, the evidence points in the opposite direction. He founded and was the head of an organization which promoted bloody massacres of civilian populations.^[2] Not only that, he was leading the ANC which effected a bloody suppression on their own “recruits” in the ANC army-in-exile. The truth and Reconciliation Commission ruled that these ANC activities were a “gross violation of human rights”^[3]

A blood bath did occur, but after “independence” and after universal suffrage, when Mandela was in command. Part of this was black on black violence during the build up to the first election, reported to have claimed more than 20,000 black lives. Did Mandela stop that blood bath? Short answer; no.

The slaughter still continues with the selective execution of isolated (white) farmers by the thousand and the phenomenal homicide, mostly associated with robbery.

Under a “liberated” black government the “blood bath” happened more slowly than the other African atrocities. The difference was that “world opinion” did not want to believe that this was happening after an “independence” which they had promoted. Slowly accumulating statistics of killings do not make headlines.

The looting of South Africa did occur but in a different way from the rest of Africa. What distinguished the looting of South Africa from other historic rampages in Africa was that it was slower and politically engineered, under the leadership of Mandela. The initial looting was by “cold theft” engineered by the ANC by the subtle stripping of the assets under various legislated ploys such as “black empowerment” and “affirmative action”. This was followed by massive corruption, embezzlement and fraud perpetrated by individual members of the ANC, on their own account.

Later the avalanche of confrontational crime, murder, hijackings and wide spread theft cascaded throughout the country as criminals began to appreciate that under a black government there were now no longer the same restraints against lawlessness as there had been under white government.

3. Mandela exemplified pacifism, as claimed in his well publicized comment: “Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC , MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe) was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement would be created soon, so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.”

Mandela founded the MK, and became its leader immediately after he had been acquitted from his first trial. This gives credibility to his initial arrest since. Mandela had been actively promoting terrorism. This earlier acquittal underscores the judicial objectivity of Mandela’s first trial, such that he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted (although it subsequently became clear that he was intent on promoting violence).

The reason for what Mandela called “the initial passive resistance” was not that he did not want violence but simply because there were no funds to run a military campaign. Mandela was hardly the organiser it is claimed that he was. Further he had little support from the black population, despite the consistent emotive rhetoric about a “suppressed people”. At that date the “armed struggle” was an empty fantasy. It was later conceded by the ANC that this was no more than a propaganda strategy primarily geared towards mobilizing mass political support. Mandela was simply garnishing inability with virtue

4. Mandela was dispassionately objective. This attribution later allowed him to act as an international mediator over a wide range of political and legal issues. How objective was he? A demonstration of his lack of impartiality was his speech in Havana on 26 July 1991. Nelson Mandela supported the Cuban version of the battle of Cuito Cuanavale by saying: “The defeat of the apartheid army (at Cuito Cuanavale) was an inspiration to the struggling people in South Africa! Without the defeat of (sic) Cuito Cuanavale our organizations would not have been unbanned! The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today! Cuito Cuanavale was a milestone in the history of the struggle for southern African liberation!"^[4]

Chester Crocker, with his backing of CIA knowledge, and with arguably a more arms-length objectivity, saw it quite differently^[5]. If one accepts Chester Crocker’s countering opinion, Mandela’s views can be regarded as grossly distortive “Black Consciousness Propaganda”.

5. Nelson Mandela personified opposition to black oppression. Undoubtedly Mandela was symbolic to the large and unsuccessful peasant populations, implying that they, also, via their vicarious surrogate, Nelson Mandela, could triumph over the white civilization. This re-ignited the symbolism of Mahatma Gandhi, who also had a reputation for passifism. Ironically he was also a lawyer, who obtained, from the British Government, the benefit of training in law. But his “passifism” must also be doubted.^[6]

Far from “rescuing” the masses from impoverishment the income of most peasant South Africans has decreased since “independence”. Small numbers of selected elite blacks, on the other hand, have become exceptionally wealthy

6. He exhibited supreme statesmanship as President of South Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth. Prior to the release of Nelson Mandela and the truce offered to the ANC, Mandela and the ANC were approached by South Africa’s very successful financial and industrial cohort. This was as an “economic truce within a political truce”. It must be remembered that the entire population of South Africa, in distinction from the rest of Africa and most of the rest of the world, were the beneficiaries of the extraordinary successful system evolved by Colonialism. In pre-independence meetings with ANC, notably in Lusaka, the high probabilities are that the cohort wanted to explain to the ANC that they would be inheriting a jewel. It would have been pointed out to them that damaging this financial axis would damage the entire country, probably in an irreparable fashion. Those affected by damaging the South African economy would be the most vulnerable, the poorest.

There could have been no other reasons for the Lusaka meeting other than that portrayed here. Paternal, as it might have been, for Mandela to heed this cautioning from the people then in power was vital to the future welfare of the entire population of South Africa and beyond.

The preservation of South Africa’s economy depended upon Mandela’s leadership.With huge international and internal support no politician could have had a stronger mandate than Nelson Mandela.

Despite such support, and despite august warnings, Mandela failed totally to protect the existing structures, and within a short period after “independence” it became clear to the financial and industrial core of South Africa that the ANC would proceed on its own agenda, which would destroy the industrial/financial infrastructure of South Africa^[7].

This resulted in the financial axis, exemplified by Anglo American, Liberty Life and Old Mutual, rapidly exiting. While powerful companies in South Africa had sufficient resources to relocate into the First World many lesser businesses did not and remained trapped. Therefore individuals, seeing themselves threatened, emigrated en masse^[8], thus further reducing the professional and other skilled resources of the country, and so by a cascade damaging the financial benefit which had made black South Africans the best cared for, best educated, healthiest and most affluent in (at least) sub-Saharan Africa.

Once in office Mandela took control of only one portfolio, Race Relations, which was unlikely to be controversial, and could hardly fail. However, in the circumstances, this instantly invested him with more virtue. He took some interest in the military where he tried to ensure the language of operation was not English. He was rapidly over-ruled, having displayed an astounding lack of common-sense, let alone a lack of statesmanship. For the rest he delegated to his ministers showing little interest in their management, and so effectively abdicating any leadership.

Therefore Mandela’ failed as a politician by not recognizing the extraordinary infrastructure which he, and the ANC, had inherited. He failed protect it and failed to support the existing structures in a way which could multiply South Africa’s past success. The jewel which was South Africa – in stark contrast to the rest of Africa - should have been obvious to the blindest. But Mandela permitted the progressive erosion of the South African infrastructure by nepotism and crime at an administrative level and by gain-seeking individuals - primarily those with political connections to him – and who were (nominally) under his “statesmanship”. Most of the “statesmanship” purported to originate from Mandela’s office was in reality orchestrated by the now defunct Thabo Mbeki. An illusion of his political capacity was thrust upon him by a surge of world wide emotion which obscured his limited intrinsic abilities,

Mandela abandoned his role as leader of the country after the least possible period, and while it still needed stable leadership. However he was in office long enough to accumulate a substantial wealth, which further distanced him from the increasing poverty of the population under his control.^[9]

No saintly asceticism here.

Conclusion. The greatest condemnation that must be leveled at Mandela was his failure to accept that with universal franchise all playing fields had been leveled. He failed to demand that the future success of individuals and groups would depend upon their intrinsic capabilities. Instead, he over-saw an astonishing exercise which effectively said that the groups coming into power should have their past inferiority recognized by being given advantageous benefits, in the form of black empowerment, affirmative action and similar. This shows the hollowness to his oft quoted statements

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve”.

Further, those persons who had previously created the successful socio-financial axis were intentionally and unfairly discriminated against.^[10] This inflicted a substantial deprivation of human rights and an injury to those individuals who had historically created for their communities from the parched earth of what had been a derelict country when they arrived.

This paper aims to be factually correct. To ensure veracity Mandela and others are invited to respond correcting any inadvertent errors.

August Pontneuf

References:

^[1] In a separate essay it will be posed that the black population, if extremists are excluded, fully recognised that the basis of apartheid was no more than the natural, and expected, protection by the white population of their complex culture, and material social creation. The indigenous population recognised that apartheid was not a system of malice, and far from exploiting the indigenous culture, it offered the opportunity for the indigenous population to enter the realm of capitalist Christian Democracy.

² Report (Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)) 2: 333. http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/TRC%20VOLUME%202.pdf. "THE CONSEQUENCE IN THESE CASES, SUCH AS THE MAGOO’S BAR AND THE DURBAN ESPLANADE BOMBINGS, WERE GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THAT THEY RESULTED IN INJURIES TO AND THE DEATHS OF CIVILIANS.”

³http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/TRC%20VOLUME%202.pdf. "THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ‘SUSPECTED AGENTS’ WERE ROUTINELY SUBJECTED TO TORTURE AND OTHER FORMS OF SEVERE ILL-TREATMENT AND THAT THERE WERE CASES WHERE SUCH INDIVIDUALS WERE CHARGED AND CONVICTED BY TRIBUNALS WITHOUT PROPER ATTENTION TO DUE PROCESS BEING AFFORDED THEM, SENTENCED TO DEATH AND EXECUTED.".

⁴ ^ Castro Ruz, Fidel Alejandro and Mandela, Nelson (1991). How Far We Slaves Have Come. N.Y.: Pathfinder Press. pp. 18–20. ISBN 0873484975.

⁵ ^ Crocker, Chester A. (1992). High Noon in Southern Africa: Making Peace in a Rough Neighborhood. W.W. Norton. ISBN 0393034321. http://books.google.com/books?id=9D1xAQAACAAJ&dq=High+Noon+in+Southern+Africa:+Making+Peace+in+a+Rough+Neighborhood. "In early October the Soviet-Fapla offensive was smashed at the Lomba River near Mavinga. It turned into a headlong retreat over the 120 miles back to the primary launching point at Cuito Cuanavale. In some of the bloodiest battles of the entire civil war, a combined force of some 8,000 UNITA fighters and 4,000 SADF troops destroyed one Fapla brigade and mauled several others out of a total Fapla force of some 18,000 engaged in the three-pronged offensive. Estimates of Fapla losses ranged upward of 4,000 killed and wounded. This offensive had been a Soviet conception from start to finish. Senior Soviet officers played a central role in its execution. ... Huge quantities of Soviet equipment were destroyed or fell into UNITA and SADF hands when Fapla broke into a disorganized retreat... The 1987 military campaign represented a stunning humiliation for the Soviet Union, its arms and its strategy. ... As of mid-November, the UNITA/SADF force had destroyed the Cuito Cuanavale airfield and pinned down thousands of FAPLA's best remaining units clinging onto the town's defensive perimeters." Crocker was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Reagan Administration

⁶ Gandhi, also famed for pacifism actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians in Natal into the army, during the Zulu war. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship.

⁷ Anglo-American Corporation has moved almost all its gold interests out of South Africa.

⁸ Semi-official figures state that one quarter of the white population has emigrated. The true figure will be considerably higher.

9 The number of “Mandela Trusts is obscure, but there are at least three. Best known is the Mandela Children’s Fund. Totally separate and less known is the Nelson Mandela Trust holding funds available to Mandela personally. One of the scams relating to “Nelson Mandela Signed Artwork” was expected to make for the Nelson Mandela Trust (i.e. Mandela personally) 200,000,000 rand in two years. Clearly there are immense funds in Mandela’s purse.

¹⁰ See “The comparison of Nazism with the ANC”