Login | Register

Post Reply 
Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media
12-07-2013, 06:01 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2013 06:02 PM by BRIC Countries.)
Post: #1
Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media
http://rt.com/news/mandela-sharp-quotes-media-860/

Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media

Published time: December 06, 2013 21:58

As the world remembers Nelson Mandela’s legacy as South Africa's first black president and anti-apartheid icon, he was also deeply skeptical of American power, the Iraq invasion, and was a key supporter of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Here are seven quotes from the leader that are less likely to be published as his life is honored and his death commemorated in the mainstream media.

Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, Mandela slammed the actions of the US at a speech made at the International Women’s Forum in Johannesburg, declaring that former President George W. Bush’s primary motive was ‘oil’, while adding that Bush was undermining the UN.

Quote:“If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings,”
Mandela said.

Mandela did not hold back from making hard-hitting statements against the US, and repeatedly spoke out against the prospect of the country invading Iraq. As the US prepared its mass-action in 2002, Mandela told Newsweek:

Quote:“If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace.”

Mandela was a long-time supporter of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and made a speech to reporters in 1999, in which he agreed to be a political mediator between Israel and its neighbors.

Quote:“Israel should withdraw from all the areas which it won from the Arabs in 1967, and in particular Israel should withdraw completely from the Golan Heights, from south Lebanon and from the West Bank,”
Mandela stated, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency’s Suzanne Belling.

Mandela met with Fidel Castro in 1991, giving a speech alongside him entitled “How Far We Slaves Have Come.” The country was commemorating the 38th anniversary of the storming of the Moncada, and Mandela hailed Cuba’s ‘special place’ in the heart of the people of Africa, its revolution, and how far the country had come.

Quote:“From its earliest days, the Cuban Revolution has also been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of the vicious imperialist-orchestrated campaign to destroy the impressive gain made in the Cuban Revolution….Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro.”

Mandela urged for the end to harsh UN sanctions imposed upon Libya in 1997, and pledged his support for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was a longtime supporter of his.

Quote:“It is our duty to give support to the brother leader…especially in regards to the sanctions which are not hitting just him, they are hitting the ordinary masses of the people … our African brothers and sisters,”
Mandela said.

On the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, December 4. 1997, Mandela assembled a group “as South Africans, our Palestinian guests and as humanists to express our solidarity with the people of Palestine.” At the speech, he called for the metaphorical flames of solidarity, justice, and freedom to be kept burning.

Quote:“The UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system. But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 06:39 PM
Post: #2
RE: Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media
he seems to be anti Jew and anti Murica


why is he upheld in the American Jewish media again? Intredastin.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 07:04 PM
Post: #3
RE: Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media
^ Because he was a supported radical that mostly played ball.

I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2013, 03:26 AM
Post: #4
RE: Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media
(12-07-2013 07:04 PM)GMB13 Wrote:  ^ Because he was a supported radical that mostly played ball.

This is true.

I read a book a while back by a South African communist who accused the the ANC of selling out and of being racist. If I recall, he accused them of not only making a pack with the economic elite, but of also targeting other leftists that didn't play ball.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2013, 09:13 AM
Post: #5
RE: Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media
(12-08-2013 03:26 AM)BRIC Countries Wrote:  
(12-07-2013 07:04 PM)GMB13 Wrote:  ^ Because he was a supported radical that mostly played ball.

This is true.

I read a book a while back by a South African communist who accused the the ANC of selling out and of being racist. If I recall, he accused them of not only making a pack with the economic elite, but of also targeting other leftists that didn't play ball.

Makes sense to me. It should be clear to everybody that Mendela is/was "establishment approved." That is not a positive thing.

I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 03:43 AM (This post was last modified: 12-09-2013 03:44 AM by BRIC Countries.)
Post: #6
RE: Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media
Mandela: White Genocide with a Whimper

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 5, 2013


[Image: Mandela.jpg]

Madiba’s true legacy.

Nelson Mandela is dead, and South Africa without “Madiba” will be much the same as it was before: a wreck of a country with slowly collapsing infrastructure, high crime, and the slow-motion genocide of Afrikaners.

None of this much matters to the opinion makers of what used to be the West. For them, the true hallmark of leftist totalitarianism isn’t brutality—it’s kitsch, and we’ll see plenty of that. Mandela will be on every magazine cover, the Internet will be drowning in sentimental schmaltz, and Facebook will be littered with sanctimonious status updates.

The truth is, the saintly visage of Mandela—all crinkly eyes and warm smiles—conceals a violent past as a terrorist. He was the founder of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress, and played a key role in the ANC’s embrace of armed struggle after a “general strike” failed miserably. The first terrorist attacks took place in 1961. In 1962, Mandela left South Africa on an international trip to win support for a violent struggle against the South African government. He negotiated for aid for the African National Congress with various anti-Western governments, including East Germany and Communist China.

Among the countries that pledged him full support were Communist Cuba and the Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser, a fellow “anti-colonialist.” Mandela’s international activities also included detailed meetings on strategy with Algeria’s National Liberation Army. Perhaps most importantly, with Mandela acting as an international agent for the ANC, the Soviet Union provided massive amounts of financial and military aid to Unkhonto we Sizwe.

After this perverse version of international diplomacy, Mandela underwent intensive military training in Ethiopia, where he learned sabotage, bombing, and guerrilla warfare. Upon his return to South Africa, Mandela was arrested for leaving the country without a passport and for inciting a strike. Later, he was tried along with other members of the ANC in the famous Rivonia Trial. The government alleged 235 separate acts of sabotage.

Most importantly, the South African authorities captured documents about Operation Mayibuye, a plan for a sweeping military confrontation with the government. Mandela was found guilty, along with almost all the other defendants. Because of international pressure, Mandela was sentenced only to life imprisonment rather than death, even though the government believed it had prevented a bloody civil war.

[Image: MandelaPrison.jpg]

Though Mandela was imprisoned before he could personally direct his organization’s campaign of terror, there would still be blood. Mandela’s group and the African National Congress went on to kill scores of innocent people, some via the infamous “necklacing” technique endorsed by Mandela’s wife, Winnie. The group became notorious for its bombing campaign, most notably the Church Street bombing which killed 19 people. The group also mined rural roads used by farmers, which killed at least 120 people, many of them black laborers.

In 1985, the South African government offered to release Mandela if he would repudiate violence as a means to bring about political change. He refused the offer. Mandela was later forced to admit that the African National Congress “routinely” used torture against suspected “enemy agents.” Many of the ANC’s violent activities were not directed at the apartheid government but against the Zulus and their political movement, the Inkatha Freedom Party. However, whites always remained a special target. Even after his release, Mandela was willing to indulge in musical fantasies about killing whites.

At the time of his trial, Mandela denied being a member of the Communist Party—something we now know was a lie. Mandela worked closely with the Communist Party of South Africa, and the African National Congress was sustained and supported by the Soviet Union. Mandela never renounced any of his ties with Communist leaders. Only last June, the Huffington Post, which is scandalized by just about everything sensible, casually reported on the close relationship between Nelson Mandela and Communist dictator Fidel Castro.

[Image: MandelaCastro.jpg]
Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro

Because of these long-standing associations and violent tactics, Margaret Thatcher condemned the African National Congress in 1987 as a “typical terrorist organization,” and said anyone who thought they would ever run the government was “living in cloud cuckoo land.” The Conservative Party youth distributed propaganda calling for him to be hanged.

The United States listed the African National Congress as a terrorist organization until 2008, and President Ronald Reagan strongly resisted efforts to impose sanctions on the beleaguered South African government. In this, he was supported by most of the American conservative movement, although Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, and Richard Lugar argued for confrontation with the white government, promising it would “win Republicans the black vote.” (Some things never change).

However, as tempting as it is to simply point out Mandela’s past as a Communist terrorist, in some ways his reinvention as a “reconciliator” is worse. It is true that as President of South Africa, Mandela did not unleash a campaign of state directed violence against whites. Instead, he largely maintained the economic system for the benefit of those already in power, while systematically dispossessing middle class and working class whites, especially Afrikaners. Nor was this particularity surprising, considering Mandela and the ANC’s history.

Though the African National Congress was aligned with the Communists, they received far friendlier treatment from big business than did their nationalist Boer rivals. Secret meetings were held between the African National Congress and South African business leaders even as the guerrilla war continued, and British business interests were instrumental in setting up talks between Afrikaner elites and the ANC. No such efforts ever took place between the captains of industry and the would-be leaders of an independent Boer Republic, suggesting that business leaders feared Eugene Terre’Blanche’s concept of an economy run for the “folk” more than they feared black rule.


[Image: EugeneTerreBlanche.jpg]

Eugene Terre’Blanche and the AWB fought for Afrikaner autonomy.

In the negotiations that preceded the end of white rule, the ANC, business leaders, and the ruling National Party formed a united front against Boer nationalists and Afrikaner patriots, even to the point of opposing leaders such as General Constand Viljoen, who betrayed a Boer secession plan in exchange for a promise that a Boer homeland would be considered. Once Mandela got the concessions he wanted, he refused any such consideration.

President Mandela and his new regime concentrated on reconciling whites to the new government by means of widely publicized symbolic efforts while stripping them of any collective economic, social, or political identity. Mandela won praise for letting “Afrikaner leaders” such as F.W. De Klerk serve in his government, but this was nothing more than continuing his working relationship with collaborators.

Poverty among Afrikaners has soared in the years since the end of apartheid, with thousands reduced to living in squatter camps. South Africa has one of the highest crime rates in the world and is famous for its gated communities and private security companies. The nation also has a high rate of HIV/AIDS infection, which isn’t helped by black government officials who think the cure is a diet heavy in garlic. Mandela’s response has been to criticize the media for focusing too much on crime. He did nothing to stop what is now widely accepted as the opening stages of genocide against Boer farmers, and implemented anti-white racial preferences even as whites became an all but powerless minority.

Mandela achieved a reputation for magnanimity, presumably because he didn’t simply try to kill all his political enemies, as many of his “democratic” colleagues did in other African countries. A great deal of this was simply media friendly gestures, such as Mandela wearing a Springboks jersey (a tale worthy of movie apparently) or honoring former State Presidents when they died. Mandela was smart enough to understand that South Africa depended on whites keeping their wealth and technical skill in the country; he wanted to squeeze the goose that laid the golden eggs, not kill it. Wealthy South Africans and business interests, who were his allies early on, kept the South African economy from collapse, albeit from behind gated communities guarded by private security forces.

[Image: PlaasmoordeMonument.jpg]

“Farm Murders”–monument to South African farmers.

Nonetheless, Afrikaners as a people have been destroyed. The names of Afrikaner heroes have been torn from towns, streets, and public squares, and replaced with those of “anti-apartheid” leaders. The collective white defense forces known as “commandos” have been outlawed, meaning that those unable to afford private security companies are left vulnerable to black violence.

Since Mandela refused any consideration of a Boer homeland, numbers alone ensure that Afrikaners are politically disenfranchised. More than 750,000 whites have left the country, but Boer farmers are trapped. Their wealth—their farmland—is illiquid. If they did try to leave, confiscatory taxation would leave them all but penniless. Mandela’s magnanimity consisted in keeping whites around to pay taxes to keep his one-party ANC dictatorship going, but denying them meaningful representation.

It will only get worse. His critics on to his left, including his murdering ex-wife, complained that black poverty has not notably improved since the ANC takeover. Because there is no thought to lifting the restrictions on white economic activity and thus creating more wealth for everyone, blacks are turning to their usual policy alternative: outright confiscation. Julius Malema, former ANC youth leader, is forming a new political party with the specific purpose of “fighting white males.” The government is even trying to stop charities from helping poor whites. South Africa is already exploring “land reform” on the Zimbabwean model, which has plunged the former Breadbasket of Africa into dystopian chaos—to the indifference of the world.

[Image: ChildrenPlaying.jpg]

Children play outside an Afrikaner squatter camp.

Even the largely symbolic magnanimous gestures, like keeping the Springboks, have been reversed. As the social norms of the state founded by whites fade away, everything declines. Today, the State President of South Africa is a polygamous Zulu who thinks you can wash away HIV with a shower, and he’s probably better than whoever is coming next.

Mandela deserves full responsibility for all of this. From the beginning, his dream was of a unitary South African state dominated by black voters supporting a leftist political party, with a thin crust of whites to fund it and keep it going. South Africa’s decline into criminality and chaos is simply these ideas playing out to their logical conclusion. Independence, apartheid, and even the terrorism of the AWB were all Afrikaner attempts to avoid exactly what has occurred: political dispossession followed by measures that will lead to collective economic and social extinction.

[Image: AWBWasBetter.jpg]

If anything, a sudden outbreak of anti-white violence upon Mandela’s death would be a good thing. It would give the Afrikaners—a warrior people if there ever was one—a reason to fight back. Instead, the legacy of Mandela is the slow genocide of the people who turned South Africa into a First-World nation in the midst of the Dark Continent. Though some whites will be suffered to live, work, and die for the benefit for their black masters, whites have no future in South Africa, and what few opportunities they have for even a decent life are shrinking every day. Mandela represented exploitation under the guise of magnanimity, murder in the name of democracy, genocide with a smile. We should mourn the old terrorist’s death only because he didn’t live to see his destructive work undone on the day when the Boers—and the rest of us—are once again free.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 03:50 AM
Post: #7
RE: Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media
http://www.vdare.com/articles/conservati...time-and-i

Conservatism Inc.’s Mandela Problem—The Grassroots Still Think It Was Right First Time. And It Was.

By Alexander Hart on December 8, 2013 at 12:22am

“Conservatives have a Mandela problem” runs the headline of a December 6 Salon post by Alex Halperin. Actually, according to Halperin, [email him] conservatives—by which he means what VDARE.com calls Conservatism Inc.— have not one but two Mandela problems, rooted in its current fawning praise of the late Nelson Mandela. (To give credit where it’s due, some well-known conservatives such as Joseph Farah, David Swindle, Robert Stacy McCain, Diana West, Gateway Pundit and Tim Graham of the Media Research Center have been critical of Mandela.)

Conservatism Inc.’s first problem: the grassroots of the movement appear stoutly unreconstructed. The comment sections at most of the Conservatism Inc. websites has been overwhelmingly anti-Mandela.

The Left seems particularly fascinated by Ted Cruz’s Facebook page. Cruz gave a typical gushing statement, calling Mandela “inspiration for defenders of liberty around the globe.” But many of his supporters expressed skepticism. And these were not crazed “racist” ramblings, but the same criticisms that many Conservatism Inc. operatives themselves made in the 1980s. Of the thousands of comments left on Cruz’s page, the worst the Daily Beast’s Jamelle Bouie could point-and-splutterat were:

Quote:“Let’s not forget that Mandela called Castro’s Communist revolution ‘a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people,’”
“Mandela was a communist trained by the KGB who sings racial hate songs…and now, the South Africa is a worst country for both whites and blacks,”
“Ted, long before you were born, his reputation was the complete opposite. He was, in fact, a terrorist and a criminal, he persecuted and killed Zulus. All the apartheid BS you hear in today’s media is all lies.”

Ted Cruz Commenters Hate Mandela, By Jamelle Bouie, December 6th 20131:

And Bouie wasn’t the only one to point-‘n’-splutter about Cruz’s evil supporters: ABC News, MSNBC, Huffington Post and dozens of other mainstream/left-wing outlets run stories about how Cruz’s Facebook fans don’t like his pandering. An Austin Chronicle columnist proclaimed the comments were just proof Teddy Kennedy was correct to say that the GOP is the “party of Apartheid” not the “Party of Lincoln” and snarked: “Poor Ted [Cruz]. Maybe he should just head back to the safer turf of praising old school race baiters like Jesse Helms.” [Conservatives Blast Cruz for Praising Mandela, By Richard Whittaker (email him), December 6, 2013]

Advice likely ignored. Sigh.

This Leftist outrage is similar to the outrage over the Republican National Committee’s tweet "Today we remember Rosa Parks' bold stand and her role in ending racism." The RNC’s suggestion that anyone ended racism was held to be in itself proof of racism. A Google News search of “‘Rosa Parks’ ‘Ending Racism’ tweet” shows over 800 stories, almost all criticizing the RNC about the tweet.

The GOP’s response to getting attacked as racists because of its pandering: More pandering. CITE

Conservatism Inc.’s second Mandela Problem: through the 1980s, the conservative movement—from Reagan to Thatcher to Buckley to George Will—really did oppose sanctions against South Africa, denounced Mandela as a terrorist and a communist, opposed his release from prison etc. So Joan Walsh of Salon calls Conservatism Inc.’s current stance the “right-washing of Nelson Mandela’s legacy” by pointing-‘n’-sputtering at the past GOP criticism of Mandela without acknowledging they were, well, right.

Peter Beinart—whose parents immigrated to the U.S., or at least to Cambridge MA, from South Africa—was a little more honest in the Daily Beast,

Quote:From their perspective, Mandela’s critics were right to distrust him. They called him a “terrorist” because he had waged armed resistance to apartheid. They called him a “communist” because the Soviet Union was the ANC’s chief external benefactor and the South African Communist Party was among its closest domestic allies. More fundamentally, what Mandela’s American detractors understood is that he considered himself an opponent, not an ally, of American power. And that’s exactly what Mandela’s American admirers must remember now.

[Don’t Sanitize Nelson Mandela: He’s Honored Now, But Was Hated Then, December 6, 2013. Link in original]
I say “a little more honest” because the Left’s attempt to resurrect Mandela’s radical legacy is (as with Martin Luther King) a bit of a bait-and-switch. Had the Left admitted Mandela’s radical goals and tactics back in the 1980s, the international movement to free him would have received much less support from non-Leftists and he certainly would never have become a secular Saint. But now that he is sainted, the Left argues, we have to support his radical policies.

Some conservatives have tried to reconcile their past opposition to Mandela with their current go-with-the-flow encomiums. Thus black conservative Deroy Murdock acknowledged in National Review that he and other conservatives feared “that releasing Nelson Mandela from jail, especially amid the collapse of South Africa’s apartheid government, would create a Cuba on the Cape of Good Hope at best and an African Cambodia at worst.” [Nelson Mandela, R. I. P. ]. The Wall Street Journal editorial obituary opened “The bulk of his adult life, Nelson Mandela was a failed Marxist revolutionary and leftist icon, the Che Guevara of Africa.” [Nelson Mandela | A would-be Lenin who became Africa's Vaclav Havel, December 6, 2013]

However, Murdock and the WSJ both praised Mandela for his subsequent racial reconciliation, and his embrace of market policies. Thus according to Murdock:

Quote:Rather than follow [socialism], Mandela looked to economic growth as the path his nation should follow… While some wish he had gone further, this was a far cry from the playbook of Marx and Lenin.

And the WSJ opined:

Quote:“Mandela ditched the ANC's Marxism and reached out to business. Somehow—another miracle—the illiberal ANC and the illiberal National Party together negotiated a liberal new constitution with strong protections for minorities and an independent judiciary.”

This is just ignorant libertarian happy talk. The “New South Africa” version of “economic growth” and “reaching out to business” (and for that matter, racial reconciliation) is actually racial socialism, redistributing wealth from the productive (white) minority to the politically-favored constituencies. South Africa’s constitution explicitly enshrines discrimination against whites with the Orwellian proclamation that “Discrimination … is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair” under the guise of “Black Economic Empowerment,” which essentially squeezes white-owned businesses and taxpayers into subsidizing black elites.

For example, two years ago the WSJ’s South African correspondent Peter Wonnacott wrote about BEE under the frank headline Black Empowerment Roils South Africa. March 9, 2011.But, typically, after Mandela’s death, Wonacott’s article about BEE was entitled “Mandela's Pragmatic Focus on Reconciliation,” and praised Mandela’s South Africa for not being Zimbabwe.

In addition to permitting anti-white discrimination, what the WSJ calls the “liberal new constitution” has a Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to “housing,” as well as “Health care, food, water and social security.” Just last year, Conservatism Inc. went nuts when Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that Egypt look to South Africa’s constitution for inspiration.

National Review’s editorial obituary began by recounting Mandela’s long history of advocating violence and ended by criticizing his opposition to the Iraq War and support of Gadhafi. But NR nonetheless called him a “great man” who deserves the “gratitude of his country.” Why? Because “South Africa could have gone the way of Zimbabwe,” but instead “took a democratic path, however stony.” And because (NR now discovers) “apartheid was wrong,” Mandela’s “stony” democracy was presumably the best compromise between Mugabe and Verwoerd.

My view: On balance, South Africa under black rule is probably a less pleasant place to live—for blacks and whites—than it was under Apartheid. Still, it is not Zimbabwe.

The unfortunate truth: Despite its institutionalized anti-white racism, stagnating economy, sky-high crime rate, and far-Left constitution, South Africa as it is now is about the best we can expect out of a black-run government in a country with a small white minority.

But, putting racial policies aside, South Africa is undeniably less “conservative” in every conceivable aspect than it was 30 years ago. Knowingly or not, the Conservatism Inc. types who praise Mandela and South Africa’s transition are in effect saying they are willing to trade public safety, conservative governance and, ultimately, economic growth, for racial egalitarianism.

South Africa was forced to choose between disenfranchising the majority of their population or having a First-World government and economy.

But as whites in America are not yet in such a small minority, they do not have to make this choice. Instead, we can just stop mass immigration.

Of course, the GOP and Conservatism Inc. can’t get past its belief that praising Leftist black icons like Mandela instead of promoting patriotic immigration reform will keep them from being called “racist.”

Oh wait…

Alexander Hart (email him) is a conservative journalist
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 04:11 AM
Post: #8
RE: Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media
Good info thx brics
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-16-2020, 05:14 PM
Post: #9
RE: Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media
ttt
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Blood Crime: Team Fires Soccer Player For Wife's Counterrevolutionary Statements Skookum Charlie 6 317 Yesterday 02:06 AM
Last Post: Chaos Reigns
  Mainstream Media Finally Admits Fluoride is Bad For You THE_DEAN 16 7,284 06-19-2020 03:14 PM
Last Post: pug-thug
  Highly cited Epidemiologist Nial Ferguson DRASTICALLY revises downwards death toll pug-thug 3 163 03-27-2020 10:09 AM
Last Post: pug-thug
  ‘QAnon’ conspiracy theory creeps into mainstream politics pilgrim 44 1,109 02-16-2020 05:32 AM
Last Post: jho

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)