Support Political Realities

Oklahoma Blogs

Explore Blog OklahomaNextPreviousExplore Blog Oklahoma

Categories

Nelson Mandela - Just Another Thug

Nelson MandelaNelson Mandela is reportedly in bad condition in the hospital and may soon die.  When that happens I fully expect the media, the United Nations and countless governments and leftist groups around the world to respond as if Jesus himself had just died.  Mandela is certainly not Jesus and he is also not the peace-loving moderate portrayed to the world since his release from prison in 1990.  Anyone examining his past will see clear ties to terrorism and overwhelming support and admiration for communist countries and their dictators.

His terrorism ties began in 1961 when he formed the belief that violence was the proper way to oppose the apartheid government of South Africa.  Already in the African National Congress for more than a decade, he and the communist Joe Slovo formed the ANC’s guerrilla force called Umkhonto we Sizwe, which means Spear of the Nation.  Over the next twenty-nine years this group was responsible for countless attacks, explosions, car bombings and many deaths.  The ANC was listed with the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization.  Mandela was jailed in 1963 when the police raided the group’s headquarters on a farm outside Johannesburg.  Twice while imprisoned, in 1976 and 1986, Mandela was given an opportunity to be freed if he would renounce violence.  Both times he refused.  In 1990 the apartheid government waved the white flag, removed the ban on all political parties and released all ‘political’ prisoners, including Mandela.  Not even once did Mandela renounce the violence and murders or so much as express regret

Colin Freeman of The Telegraph has an excellent article detailing Mandela’s ties to the South African Communist Party.  The article tells of a book by British historian Professor Stephen Ellis, who wrote about the Umkhonto we Sizwe receiving bomb making lessons from the Irish Republican Army and intelligence training from the East German Stasi, which they used to conduct brutal interrogations of suspected spies in the ANC.

After apartheid ended and Mandela was freed he wasted no time in lavishing praise on communists and thug dictators.  In 1991 he and his wife Winnie went to Cuba, which they called their second home, to celebrate the communist revolution with Fidel Castro.  While there he said, “Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro… Cuban internationalists have done so much for African independence, freedom, and justice. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious imperialist campaign designed to destroy the advances of the Cuban revolution. We too want to control our destiny… There can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death. The Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people.

Mandela also said of Cuba, “There’s one thing where that country stands out head and shoulders above the rest.  That is its love for human rights and liberty.”

Of Libya’s dictator, Moammar Qaddafi, Mandela said he admired his commitment to fight for peace and human rights in the world.

And in a speech given in Harlem, he referred to four Puerto Rican terrorists who shot and wounded five Congressmen and said, “We support the cause of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is.  I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades you refer to.”

Under ANC rule, South Africa has severely deteriorated.  According to the Centre for Research on Globalization, most black South Africans are worse off now than they were under apartheid.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs have vanished, costs for electricity, water, food and rent have skyrocketed, unemployment hovers around 40% and South Africa has become the violent crime and rape capitol of the world.

In spite of all this and more, Mandela is considered by many to be a great statesman.  Why?  What has he accomplished other than terrorism, murder and vocal support for violence, thugs and communists?  The answer is nothing.  But because he targeted an apartheid government with his terrorism he is given a free pass for all that he did.  Instead of rotting in prison where he belongs he is free to be lauded by the U.N. and all the leftists in our country and the rest of the world.  When he dies he will be heralded as a great reformer and leader who brought about change in South Africa.  What we will not be told about is the terrorism he and his comrades used to bring about that change.

About Charles M. Phipps

Charles M. Phipps has written 24 posts in this blog.

I am a native Oklahoman, technology addict, political junkie, blogger, fisherman, Southern Baptist and Sooner fan. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. If you're offended by something you read here... you just might be a liberal.

20 comments to Nelson Mandela – Just Another Thug

  • Burke

    Mandela is no saint, but his virtues should justly also be credited. Notably, the Boer government negotiated with Mandela and virtually handed him power through an interim constitution and the ensuing 1994 election. Why did they do so, in spite of Mandela’s communist ties, sympathy with revolutionary causes around the world, and willingness to endorse violence to bring the Black majority to power?

    Time was inexorably running out on Boer rule due to the rising Black population, their bitter sense of grievance, the Boer government’s international isolation, and the existential menace that guerilla warfare and mass violence might bring a radical Black majority regime to power. Accepting Mandela as the head of a successor Black majority government was the least bad alternative.

    As expected and promised, in power, Mandela disapproved racial violence, pursued national reconciliation, and enacted relatively moderate policies that permitted South Africa’s economy to continue to function. His successors have mostly done worse.

    Rampant crime and corruption and murderous anti-White violence are established features of South African life today under Black rule, and the country may yet go the way of Zimbabwe. But millions of South Africans of all races respect Mandela and are grateful for the relative moderation that he exercised in power — an unusual record for a Black leader in Africa.

    • From what I’ve read the sanctions against South Africa were crippling the nation and the Boer government saw the end coming. Giving in may have been seen as their only option, other than continuing on and seeing their country face economic ruin, which it has now anyway.

      Mandela’s moderate policies as leader did allow the economy to continue, but he did nothing to improve the damage done by the sanctions imposed on South Africa due to apartheid. From what I’ve read he as much as coasted through his presidency.

      In all of his leadership roles, as president, in the ANC and in the Umkhonto we Sizwe, the only real action he seems to have been passionate about and pursued vigorously was one of violence. To me, a man of violence who openly supports other men of violence, dictators and thugs is nothing but a thug himself.

  • Billiam

    Don’t leave out that evil bitch of a wife of his. Her hands have blood on them.

  • I already have my post written for when Mandela dies… All I need is a closing date and then people can try to justify what a wonderful guy he was in the face of irrefutable proof that he was a hardline Commie…

  • Bettybb

    I have to wonder how you would describe our Founding Fathers. They destroyed the inventory of the biggest multi-national at the time. Today’s equivalent would be if Occupy destroyed all the inventory of every Walmart in the nation. Then they committed treason and started a war.

    Whatever you think of his politics, when it became clear that Blacks would be the governing majority in S. Africa, everyone was expecting a total blood bath. Mandela prevented that. The world was stunned how smoothly the transition went. That kind of control and ability to persuade only comes from extraordinary leaders. He is one.

    Let us hope that in 20-30 years when Whites in the US become the minority, that there will be true leaders among the majority who are so respected,that they can prevent the majority engaging in pay back for all the discrimination they have historically suffered.

    • I would not describe our Founding Fathers as terrorists or communists. Anyone who attempts to automatically has zero credibility with me.

      Do not discount the work of President F.W. de Klerk, who paved the way for a peaceful transition and began abolishing many apartheid laws in preparation. And Mandela did not prevent a blood bath. You’re referring to a white-on-black blood bath that never happened, but there was a huge black-on-black blood bath. In the four years after the ANC was unbanned there were at least 13,000 black-on-black murders, mostly politically motivated, and some estimates go as high as 20,000. Mandela did nothing to stop it.

      If the hypothetical majority you speak of is similar to the majority in South Africa under Mandela, it will be the majority who murder each other in their quests for property, positions and power.

      • Bettybb

        The British sure did describe our Founding Fathers as terrorists. They despised the guerrilla warfare tactics used by the Americans. And of course, the Americans were revolting against British authority. Communism as a theory did not exist at the time. But to the British all this Enlightenment ideology which our Founding Fathers were promoting was as radical as communism is today. It was the era of the divine right of kings, with rule by the aristocracy.

        Mandela prevented Black on White violence in S. Africa during the transition. He was remarkable in his ability to rise above vindictiveness and revenge even though his treatment at the hands of the Whites had been abominable.

        And no, he was not able to stop the black on black tribal violence that erupted after S. Africa moved to majority rule. But Whites still live in S. Africa due to Mandela.

        I live in a city that some years back became a minority majority city. It is not “hypothetical”. In 20-30 years, Whites will be the minority in America. Let us hope there is no violence. If there is, it will most likely come from Whites. There will certain be power plays among the various minority or oppressed groups once that happens. But the reality is, a coalition has been formed between various people of color and women, those who have suffered under “White Male Privilege” but those bonds which are being forged right now will be even stronger 20 years from now.

        • Betty, you’re a broken record. Trying to justify the terrorism of the ANC by essentially calling our Founding Fathers terrorists is so ridiculous I will not comment further on it.

          And your claim that if there is violence it will come from whites is also a broken record. The exact same claims were made in South Africa and those claims were 100% wrong.

  • It’s almost hilarious to see how the liberals are all weepy-eyed over the possibility that Nelson Mandela could be passing from this world. His deeds have been completely whitewashed into something they never were.

    • It’s a tactic right out of the liberal playbook – rewrite history and ignore the facts.

      • Bettybb

        There is no question Mandela was a violent man. Most revolutionaries are. He led a revolution and his people to freedom. My husband mused on what leads a man like Mandela, to wake up one day, say I will be a slave no longer, and to start to fight.

        • He did not lead a revolution. He led a terrorist organization that blew up innocent citizens and murdered people.

          • Bettybb

            Mandela is a freedom fighter, and the father of his nation. He used many of the same techniques, like guerrilla warfare, that our Founding Fathers used.

            In 1961, MK published a manifesto entitled “Umkhonto we Sizwe (Military wing of the African National Congress): We are at War!
            “Our men are armed and trained freedom fighters not terrorists.
            We are fighting for democracy—majority rule—the right of the Africans to rule Africa.
            We are fighting for a South Africa in which there will be peace and harmony and equal rights for all people.
            We are not racialists, as the white oppressors are. The African National Congress has a message of freedom for all who live in our country.”

            Mandela started out and for a decade used peaceful protest.

            He and the ANC only adopted violence after S. Africa passed laws making all peaceful protest illegal, and after many massacres of peaceful protesters by the S. African Government.

            It is the Africaners who were the thugs and terrorists.

            When De Klerk finally was willing to end the enslavement of Blacks, Mandela chose forgiveness, not retaliation.

            “By making peaceful protest almost impossible, to borrow a phrase from Dr. King, the South African government made violent protest virtually inevitable. That was the grim conclusion the African National Congress reached almost 30 years ago after nearly a half-century of bloody state-sponsored repression.”

            Timeline
            · 1700s: Riding on horseback and covered wagons, Dutch farmers (called Boers) migrate across land inhabited by Bantu and Khoi peoples. Armed with shotguns, the Boers seize land used by the tribes for cattle and sheep grazing — the basis of their economy. Without land, the tribes must work on Boer farms to support themselves.

            · 1910: The South Africa Act takes away all political rights of Africans in three of the country’s four states.

            · 1912: The African National Congress is formed. This political party aims to organize Africans in the struggle for civil rights.

            · 1913: The Native Lands Act gives 7.3% of the country’s land to Africans, who make up 80% of the population. Africans are prohibited from owning land outside their region. Africans are allowed to be on white land only if they are working for whites.

            · 1920s: Blacks are fired from jobs which are given to whites.

            · 1946: African mine workers are paid twelve times less than their white counterparts and are forced to do the most dangerous jobs. Over 75,000 Africans go on strike in support of higher wages. Police use violence to force the unarmed workers back to their jobs. Over 1000 workers are injured or killed.

            · 1951: The Group Areas Act sets aside specific communities for each of the races (white, colored (mixed race or Indian), and native (African/black) ). The best areas and the majority of the land are reserved for whites. Non-whites are relocated into “reserves.” Mixed-race families are forced to live separately. They are stripped of their citizenship and need passports to enter while controlled and can only entered to do menial jobs for whites.

            · The homelands are too small to support the many people in them. In Soweto, for example, seventeen to twenty people live in a four-room house.

            · The African National Congress (ANC), a political organization for Africans, encourages peaceful resistance to the discriminatory laws of apartheid. The ANC issues a Freedom Charter that states, “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of the people.” The government reacts by arresting people and passing more repressive laws.

            1952- Abolition of Passes and Coordination of Documents Act. – requires all Africans to carry id booklets. Between 1948-1973 over 10 million arrests because the books were not in order. Burning pass books became a common form of protest.

            · 1953: Preservation of Separate Amenities Act. This law created “separate but not necessarily equal” beaches, parks, post office, and other public places for Africans (blacks), coloreds (the term used for Asian and mixed-raced people) and whites.

            · 1953: Bantu Education Act: Through this law, the white government supervises the education of all blacks. Schools condition blacks to accept white domination. Non-whites cannot attend white universities.

            - 1950s, Mandela banned, arrested and jailed for peacefully protesting apartheid

            -1960 – Mandela continued nonviolent resistance until the ruling National Party crushed all opposition by declaring a state of emergency to try and justify all the restrictions on black travel, and employment. For peacefully protesting, Mandela and 155 of his fellow ANC members were arrested and tried for high treason, and underwent a 5 year trial.

            1960- A large group of blacks in the town of Sharpeville refused to carry their passes. The government declares a state of emergency and responds with fines, imprisonment, and whippings. In all, 69 people die and 187 people are wounded.

            The African political organizations, the African National Congress and the Pan-African Congress, are banned. Mandela and other ANC leaders form the armed wing, MW.

            1960-1990: MW launches guerrilla attacks against government installations.

            · 1963: Nelson Mandela, head of the African National Congress, is jailed for travel without his passport. He remains in a brutal jail for 27 years because he will not renounce violence while apartheid is in place.

            1976: The Soweto uprising: People in Soweto riot and demonstrate against discrimination and instruction in Afrikaans, the language of whites descended from the Dutch. The police react with gunfire. 575 people are killed and thousands are injured and arrested. Steven Biko is beaten and left in jail to die from his injuries. Protesters against apartheid link arms in a show of resistance.

            · 1980s: Hundreds of thousands of Africans who are banned from white-controlled areas ignore the laws and pour into forbidden regions in search of work. Civil disobedience, demonstrations, and other acts of protest increase.

            1990- Mandela still considered violence as a possible method for resisting against apartheid if it was not ended , but chose to advocate for peaceful negotiations with de Klerk to see if it could be abolished and Blacks have full human rights. When apartheid ended, and Blacks were free and had a fully representative government, violence ended.

            Why he was forced to use violence, in his own words
            According to Nelson Mandela, all of the founding members of the MK, including himself, were also members of the ANC. In his famous “I am prepared to die” speech, Mandela outlined the motivations which led to the formation of the MK:[2]
            “At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

            This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is exhibit AD, we said:

            ‘The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.’

            Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or take over the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer with violence.”

            http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-06-30/news/9002220709_1_nelson-mandela-american-south-dr-king
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe
            http://moralheroes.org/nelson-mandela
            http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/discrim/race_b_at_print.asp

  • Gary

    Why Mandela is loved by the Western Elites: 1.Under him SA became the first country in the world to give sodomites constitutional protection. 2 SA legalized baby -murder(abortion).3 He can use his media-imposed messiah-like status to persuade many reluctant African and other Third World countries to blindly follow SA example.4 He along with his buddy Desmond Tutu are promoted as great “moral” leaders to the youth of this world.

  • A mixed bag, at best. Mandela did great harm but also great good. I am reluctant to judge him simply because who knows how I would have reacted had I walked in his shoes.

    Still, a well written article.

  • east oak

    even if you don’t refer to the “founding fathers” as terrorists that is exactly what they were called by the british, bettybb has a point there. charles deftly skips over her arguments and dismisses her as a liberal but her point still stands. the fight for freedom has very rarely been pretty and our beginnings as a nation is no exception. so how to explain the reluctance to acknowledge that mandela’s struggle for freedom (blacks from white rule) mirrored our own? easy, charles phipps is neck deep in ideology so he can’t really be expected to actually debate anything contrary to his position. comments that echo his position get a positive response because they are in line with his ideology otherwise they are dismissed as “out of the liberal playbook”. presumably there is a conservative playbook out there somewhere? i don’t know. stepping outside of ideology is painful and more than a little confusing. this is true regardless of the ideology.


  • Trackbacks:

Add Comment Register

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>