The Mandela Myth

myrrWhite liberals are obsessed with Nelson Mandela everywhere outside South Africa.  Black people inside South Africa however are far more blasé about him. In a demographically youthful country where much of the population only came of age once he was out of office, he had already become a part of the vanishing past even before his death.

The generations that lived through Apartheid as adults make up a surprisingly small percentage of the black population. With its high crime rates and high AIDS rates, South Africa has a life expectancy in the fifties. Afghanistan, Sudan and Haiti all have higher life expectancies than South Africa.

There is a reason that many Americans and Europeans remember Mandela’s campaign against Apartheid better than black South Africans do. They are more likely to still be among the living.

To Western whites, Mandela is an iconic figure, a latter-day Gandhi, but to South Africans of all races his memory is entangled with the corrupt infrastructure of the African National Congress and its leaders. Even in office, his approval ratings were shaky among whites and less than perfect among blacks who had their own tribal divisions and conflicts. Out of office he became a convenient symbol for the ANC.

For South Africans, Mandela was a real-life political leader. For the foreigners mourning him as the greatest leader in human history, he existed in some nebulous territory of virtue unrelated to real life political decisions like harboring mafia boss Vito Roberto Palazzolo and favoring his own Xhosa Nostra.

To younger black South Africans, Mandela either occupies the vague space that Martin Luther King does for younger African-Americans, an important figure whom they don’t really identify with or feel made a difference in their lives, or as a sellout who failed to squeeze the white minority for everything they had.

Like Gandhi, Mandela is a more controversial figure inside South Africa than he is outside it. But to many he isn’t even that. In a country torn apart by disease, poverty and crime; he appears far less relevant than he does in Washington or Brussels. Few South Africans want inspiration. Instead they want results.

After leaving office, Mandela blasted his own African National Congress accusing it of being “as corrupt as the Apartheid regime” and warning that, “Some Africans have made mistakes. They now throw their weight about as a majority. There are some Africans who inspire fear in the minorities.”

That began a process that would allow Mandela to detach his reputation from the corrupt sinkhole of the African National Congress. But it is another of the Mandela myths that the ANC became corrupt only after his tenure. The African National Congress was always corrupt. The only difference is that it has become more flamboyantly corrupt now that it has a majority that will always vote for it.

South Africa is for all intents and purposes a one-party state. And it was Mandela who blasted opposition Democratic Party voters as white racists who “would one day die with a heavy conscience.” What other outcome of that could there have been except a one-party state and what outcome of a one-party state could there be except the total corruption that we see in South Africa today?

As a Communist, Mandela had always envisioned a one-party state.

“Under a Communist Party Government South Africa will become a land of milk and honey. Political, economic and social rights will cease to be enjoyed by Whites only. They will be shared equally by Whites and Non-Whites. There will be enough land and houses for all. There will be no unemployment, starvation and disease,” Mandela wrote.

Today South Africa has a 26 percent unemployment rate and a 17 percent HIV rate. There is no equality. Instead, like all wealth redistribution schemes, inequality has been spread along with resentment and a pervasive feeling of injustice for everyone.

South Africans distrust the judiciary and the police. And they distrust the leaders that they elect. Even without the massive brutal Zimbabwean redistribution schemes that Mandela was smart enough not to endorse, but that many black South Africans continue to demand, much of the white population is thinking about leaving. Nearly a million have already left. And they’re not alone.

The middle class blacks that the hopes of post-Apartheid South Africa depend on are nearly as eager to leave as their white counterparts. And taking their place are illegal immigrants from nearby Zimbabwe.

Among the 18-34 age group, 56 percent of whites, 53 percent of Indians and 43 percent of those of mixed race want to leave the country. Among blacks the number is only at 33 percent which still means that a third would like to leave.

The South Africa that Mandela leaves behind is a land in search of a people. There is no milk and honey. Instead there is a desperate scramble for a way out of the country by every race and creed able to agree only on wanting to leave. Post-Apartheid South Africa is an experiment that Western liberals love to admire, but that nobody seems to want to actually live in.

“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P. will destroy capitalist society and build in its place socialism where there will be no exploitation of man by man, and where there will be no rich and poor, no unemployment, starvation, disease and ignorance,” Mandela wrote.

Today 77 percent of South African households face food insecurity and most teachers are not able to teach students how to read independently. The Communist utopia of universal literacy, plenty and equality has not come and isn’t coming.

To many white liberals, Mandela has taken his place in the pantheon alongside Gandhi and the Dalai Lama as a Third World saint who led a resistance based on forgiveness and acceptance. This need for Third World saints that led to a white cult growing around Gandhi and the Dalai Lama has more to do with the decline of spirituality in the West than with the reality of the three political figures who like most leaders understood the value of symbolism when it came to cloaking their more human agendas.

Mandela was neither a monster nor a saint. Instead he occupied a troubled middle ground which saw him employ terrorism and align with unambiguous monsters like Castro and Gaddafi.  The man who preached a utopian creed with a violent edge proved to be a pragmatist. If there is any virtue to take away from his life, it is that when push came to shove, he chose pragmatism over ideology.

Those progressives who worship Mandela as a saint might instead consider that his real lessons were not moral or ethical, but political. And those lessons still weren’t enough to save South Africa.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • artexeres

    “ah cry the beloved country”, this land has been raped by the previous regime, the spoils have been plundered by this regime, and through the mists of too much color, we have become blinded to the truth, a weak people who have forgotten our roots, therefore we let evil prevail, because we are moral cowards. what an awesome read, thank you very much.

    • PAthena

      Who wrote “Cry The Beloved Country?
      Whatever happened to Chief Buthulezi?
      South Africa, like Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) was prosperous. Since the ANC took over (and Mugabe in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe), it has become impoverished. The legacy of Communism everywhere.

  • UCSPanther

    All it will take for South Africa to join Zimbabwe in the abyss is a president with a similar mindset as Robert Mugabe, and any good that Mandela may have done will be no more than a footnote.

    It may take a decade or two, but things are shaping up for it to happen.

    • gray_man

      Why are you talking about Mugabe? Under Mandela South Africa became the most dangerous country in the world.
      Mandela was a disgusting thug.
      Good riddance.

      • Fifty Ville

        Unfortunately, those he left behind are worse.

    • Drakken

      It is not a decade, it is here and now, but all those elite while leftist turn a blind eye, it is because of that, I have no sympathy nor empathy for them when the same happens to them.

      • UCSPanther

        It’ll start with the government willfully turning a blind eye with attacks on unwanted minorities (Afrikaaners, people from outside South Africa, etc.) But eventually, the “official” persections will start and that is when it will become apparent.

        The same pattern happened in Zimababwe. It started out low-key, but once Mugabe announced it as official policy, there was no hiding it.

  • Fifty Ville

    From the Daily Mail: “With chilling echoes of neighbouring Zimbabwe, where dictator Robert Mugabe launched a murderous campaign to drive white farmers off the land in 2000, [Julius] Malema wants all white-owned land to be seized without compensation, along with nationalisation of the country’s lucrative mines.

    Ominously, Malema, 32, who wears a trademark beret and has a fondness for Rolex watches, this month promised his new party will take the land from white people without recompense and give it to blacks.

    Malema is an up-and-coming political figure in South Africa. The idea of redistribution of wealth via confiscation of white farmers’ land is going to be very popular and the path to the presidency.

    This is Mandela’s legacy. Sell out and run while you can, because if they can’t learn from the fate of Zimbabwe’s white farmers, then they will experience the same.

    • Scotsirish

      My Dad once said to me, Blacks do not have good leadership qualities.”
      Take it or leave it but do give it some thought.

      • Judahlevi

        It is not that “blacks” do not have good leadership qualities, it is that certain individuals don’t. You cannot assign a value judgment to groups of people. All individuals are unique and different.

        That is the collective trap that liberals fall into – seeing people as groups, not individuals. They are the true racists and sexists because of their collective thinking.

        What you should say is that no one should be placed into a leadership position primarily because of their skin color. The same thing happened here in the US with Obama. Liberal’s voted for him to “make history” and because of his skin color, not because of his competence.

        You put people in leadership because of their competence, not skin color or gender.

      • Steve

        Wrong….The Republican party has many amazing and brilliant black leaders. Liberals have just been successful at keeping them either invisible or seen as lunatics. In fact I’m much more impressed by our black spokespersons right now than the rest of the party

        • Blatherwick Ashburner

          Are you talking about the amazing black leaders in Detroit?

        • Softly Bob

          There are exceptions and Allen West is a great example of such an exception. But the truth is that generally Blacks do not have great leadership qualities.
          I suspect that this is not a racial or a genetic thing but a cultural one. I see no reason why a person’s race should dictate whether he has leadership qualities or not, but the culture behind the race will often determine it.
          The Black ghetto culture in the U.S. does not produce great leaders. Likewise the tribal and feudal culture of Black Africa produces bad leaders, who at best are only capable of becoming tyrants.
          Any good Black leaders are relative novelties, unless of course they come from a different cultural background than the typical Black one.

  • truebearing

    It figures that the Left has deified Mandela. He was a communist and black. That is as deep as they want to go. Honestly analyzing his life accomplishments isn’t anything the delusional Left dares do. It’s too much like facing the rest of their abysmal failures.

    • BS77

      Last night on the Barbara Simpson radio show I heard the long list of associations Mandela had with appalling people like Kaddafi, Arafat, Mugabe, Castro etc etc. The present day ORWELLIAN media has turned truth to lie, lie to truth. The left has deified this man, completely purging his image of any flaws. He was a Communist and a terrorist by his own admission. Look at SA today….a miserable place where poverty, squalor and murder flourish. The hack media….shameless propagandists.

    • Randy Townsend

      Well said. There is a difference between “a figurehead for a movement” (Mandela) and a “leader” (not Mandela). You notice how all the discussion about Mandela’s life and his accomplishments omits modern-day South Africa completely. This is intentional, for if you evaluate the effect Mandela had on the nation of South Africa as it exists today, even the libs would be hard pressed to call him a savior.

  • ApolloSpeaks

    AS IF BY AN ACT OF PROVIDENCE

    the humane, saintly but very flawed Nelson Mandela (he was a deluded communist at heart) became president of South Africa on May 10, 1994, the 129th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War; and left office 1861 days later, symbolizing the year the American Civil War began. For more on the fascinating subject of Providence and Mandela click http://www.apollospeaks.com

  • Mike Miller

    Daniel, Again you have hit the nail on the head! For years I have been frustrated because I haven’t been able to articulate my feelings about Nelson Mandela. You have done it for me better than I ever could. Nelson Mandela was a marketing and strategic genius. Similar to Barack Obama. And in both cases they hi-jacked the people they serve so that they should be served.

    There is a fascinating link between “Left wing Liberal” minded people and a hatred of Judaism. It makes perfect sense that “Liberals” are drawn to Moslems. Especially Jewish Liberals. The reason is because Judaism imposes “restrictions” that Liberals cannot tolerate. Islam likewise cannot tolerate the same restrictions and it’s restriction seem more tolerable to Liberals who believe that once Judaism is obliterated they will be able to live in liberated peace.

    Nelson Mandela fitted into the category Peaceful Liberal Freedom, as are his fellow ANC cohorts. But they need so much Capitalist Made money from state coffers to satisfy their freedom. And they justify what they steal from us as payment for maintaining our “freedom.” And rich liberals are happy to pay. It’s a laugh a minute.

  • Jason

    You mark my words. Mandela was the only thing keeping Jacob Zuma and others of his ilk from committing genocide. The Boers will once again have to fight to survive as a people and a culture. The entire country will collapse into war, with the whites fighting the blacks, the tribes attacking eachother, and the coloureds, by god the coloureds will be completely destroyed. The rainbow nation will instead be only one colour, red for the blood that will bleed from it now. 300 years of racial tensions, this was the calm before the storm.

    • Boerewitman1

      And the sad part is, the British started all of this and the moment they saw whats going to happen, they gave South Africa independance and ran away. Now they sit on the border line and bark. I still maintain that the British accept responsibility for there part of dividing this nation. Also for the gruel way they killed the farmer’s wife’s and kids during the Anglo Boer War. They poisoned the women and kids and even went as far by putting glass in their food.

      • mehercle

        South Africa has been independent since 1910 .

        How did the British divide South Africa ? The created it as a country .

        Your comments on the Boer War are propagandist , Leftist and untrue .

        • Boerewitman1

          South Africa were a british colony till 31 May 1961. If in any doubt please check the history out on Google and get the facts. , secondly I am no leftist, I am a South African and I got the facts, I live in South Africa since birth in 1953.
          You prove to be one of the miljons of totally mis informed peoe around the world. Rather believe the people that stayed in South Africa, than the anc members which was scattered all over the world.

          • mehercle

            The Union of South Africa , from 1910 to 1961 , had the same status as Canada , Australia , New Zealand , Jamaica and a whole host of other independent countries have today . They are not British colonies , they are independent states who share HM The Queen as their Head of State .

            I do not regard Mandela as a hero , I seem to share many of your opinions on him .

            I was correcting the factual errors in your anti-British statements .

        • Boerewitman1
          • mehercle

            Yes . I know . I’m on the same side as you .

        • Götterdammerung

          Maybe you should brush up on your history. The Anglo-Boer war was about one thing and one thing only – control of the Goldfields. To that end the British murdered in excess of 30 000 women and children in Concentration Camps long before the Germans ever thought of the idea. They followed a scorched earth policy burning everything in their path, employed blacks as soldiers of fortune with the express function of raping Boer women and pillaging Boer farms. I know this as I am in possession of my Great Grandmothers diaries in her own hand as well as diaries kept by assorted other family members that did not survive the Concentration Camps. After the peace accord was signed in Vereeniging the British tried everything in their power to annihilate the Boer – from forcing them to be taught in English to the destruction and vilification of their war heroes. The 1913 Land Act was just another milestone in race based legislation starting with Rhodes in 1882, continued by Milner and completed by the English lackey Jan Smuts whom had no compunction in hanging his fellow Boer during the great Mine Strike of 1922. Even though South Africa became a Union in 1910 the SAP party – which was nothing more than English sycophants and English industrialists – kept control of SA until 1948 and even then SA was not independent of the British Empire. As was the case with Rhodesia. The Apartheid laws that the world – under the leadership of the USSR with its abysmal Human Rights record – had declared a crime against humanity was only an extension, and sometimes an ordering, of race based legislation enacted by the British decades previously. Now tell me again that it is propaganda and Leftist lies.

          • mehercle

            “The Anglo-Boer war was about one thing and one thing only – control of the Goldfields”.

            Maybe the Boers declaring war on , and invading , the British Empire had something to do with it ?

            What about the treatment of the hated Uitlanders who ran the gold-fields and created the wealth that the Boers were so happy to receive in taxes , but not so keen to create themselves .

            “Murdered” ? Tell me about the gas chambers . Your pal Boerwitman1 has already given us the British official policy of putting ground glass in prisoners’ food . It’s rubbish , designed to feed your own victim fantasies and impress European Leftist idiots in 1900 .

            ” After the peace accord was signed in Vereeniging the British tried everything in their power to annihilate the Boer”.

            We must have been a uniquely powerless superpower to exert all our force to so little effect . Indeed , putting the Boers in charge of the whole of South Africa in 1910 would seem to be a strange method of annihilation .

            Oh ! I forgot . Botha , Smuts , Hertzog , Malan , Strijdom and Verwoerd were “English lackies” , who , groaning under the colonial yoke , represented no one but the genocidal anti-Boer British world-wide conspiracy . Possibly also Freemasons . And Jews .

            1913 Land Act . Promulgated by the evil English lackies , who just happened to all speak Dutch (but they were traitors , really).

            1922 Strike . That would be the one led by the Communist Party with the catchy slogan “Workers of the world, unite and fight for a white South Africa” ?

            Rhodesia was never a Dominion , like South Africa . It was only a self-governing colony until UDI .

            Apartheid was , by your own admission , an extension of racially discriminatory laws made by the former British administration . Laws which did not apply in the homeland , or in much of the rest of the empire .

            The Boers are not , and never have been , the most oppressed people in the world . That is a sickening Leftist victim fantasy . It has been put there to oppress you . Get over it .

            PS . I still don’t like Mandela , the Communist Party , or the ANC .

          • Götterdammerung

            Jameson Raid, First Boer War, broken agreements ring a bell? Emily Hobhouse sound familiar? Spoken like a true British apologist. Ignorance is bliss and in your case, seems to be a preferred way of life. Once you can actually counter the horrors of the Boer women in the concentration camps with any believable evidence to the contrary you are full of BS.

          • mehercle

            Was Jameson not tried and jailed in Britain for his misdeeds ?
            Was the First Boer War not started when the Boers fired on the Connaught Rangers at Bronkhorstspruit ?

            Emily Hobhouse ? Wasn’t she British ? She was definitely a Leftie .

            Which brings us back to the point of debate .

            Many Boer women and children died or suffered in concentration camps . It was unfortunate and wrong , but they were not murdered and the camps were eventually shut .

            To the European Left the Boers of 1900 were the Palestinians of their day . Poor oppressed victims of the evil occupier . Their myth-making was designed to weaken the British Empire and hasten world revolution .Look at this drawing , from a Leftist French publication , about that 1922 Communist strike .

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Randrebellion.png

            Notice any similarities with this sort of stuff ?

            http://www.ccun.org/Editorials/2007/October%20articles/israeli_border_police17s7imemc.jpg

            Could there , perhaps , be more to both stories ?

            I’m not a British apologist , by the way – I’m British .

          • Boerewitman1

            When the brits came to South Africa in the 1600′s it was them that started the first war out here, killing 1000′s of zulu’s then they were in war with the xhosa’s. The brits went to war with the Boers, why because they want their land and its wealth. Everything that went wrong in SA were due to the greed of the brits and when they saw shit coming they gave independence to SA and ran away like cowards. Now the sit on the sideline and bark and support the Communist anc. they, brits , is the biggest bunch of cowards ever created.

    • Seek

      Mandela’s people would respond, “We never promised you a rose garden.” Of course, not! They’re black. The only thing the black promises is pain and suffering.

      I see no hope for South Africa. Its descent into the abyss is virtually a fait accompli. I pray that Afrikaners, what presence they still have in that country, have the good sense to leave — and that the U.S. has the decency to receive them. That’s an immigration policy I can support.

    • No RNC

      Maybe all those worthless leaders going to the funeral will meet with the real Mandela necklace….perfect for Obummer, Bush-Biden and Cruz!

    • Drakken

      It is too bad De Klerk didn’t go to war right off the bat and drove them all out in one fell swoop and called it a day. I’ll bet they wished they did now.

      • Boerewitman1

        Very good idea, but the world as it is today would’ve turn their backs on South Africa, like they do at present, turn their heads and eyes away not to see or hear about the threatening genocide

      • Guest

        No the opportunity to show British incompetence at putting the ANC in power was just too wonderful to give up. We only had to wait 20 years, exactly like Verwoerd said

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Surprisingly evenhanded. Well, perhaps not surprising given that Greenfield wrote it. But it’s a breath of fresh air between slobbering eulogies from both left & mainstream conservatives, and the vilification from the few paleo-types that appear in comment sections.

    Mandela seemed too old and set in his ways to break completely with Marxism but let’s remember that he got out of jail just as the Soviet Empire crumbled and even Ortega was voted out of office. It looked like communism had passed. Yet that’s all Nelson knew. His pragmatism limited the harm he could have done. Perhaps a few decades before he would have been another Castro or Chavez … but at that moment he seemed blink long enough to let the moment pass.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      He had enough common sense to realize that some grand bid to seize everything would have only brought on a civil war and nuked any possibility of building a working state.

      It was a pragmatic decision for a man who had been a Communist and continued to flirt with totalitarian regimes and celebrate their revolutions.

      • Drakken

        Mandela only delayed the inevitable, Rhodesia times ten.

  • doubleblack4

    Couldn’t believe the 17% number for HIV victims. Then I checked the 2014 world almanac and you were right on. Literally a dying country sinking into a morass of fantasy by lefty liberals.

  • mtnhikerdude

    Communism the Left’s messiah .

  • keithbreedlove

    And what is South Africa to do when all the producers have left and only the parasites and the sick remain?

    • Drakken

      Blame whitey for leaving and demanding billions in aid to feed themselves, and useful idiot leftards holding foodathons for the poor starving children and gullible dummies giving money to feed them and warlords stealing the food and money. Typical African endeavor.

      • keithbreedlove

        Aided and abetted by American glitterati. Although, I know, personally, that Catherine McPhee (American Idol runner up(?)) has done some good in Burkina Faso, and of course, Oprah who built a school in Africa because the kids there would appreciate it, not like here (“where’s my new Air Jordans?”). But they did that with their money, unlike our Libtards who demand that it be done with other people’s money.

  • Gee

    From 1948 to 1993 South African security forces killed some 7,000 South Africans. Since 1993 the security forces have killed some 70,000 South Africans

  • El Desdichado

    “This need for Third World saints that led to a white cult growing around
    Gandhi and the Dalai Lama has more to do with the decline of
    spirituality in the West than with the reality of the three political
    figures who like most leaders understood the value of symbolism when it
    came to cloaking their more human agendas.”

    This is so true. Well said. They go on and on about him because they need to bolster their humanistic religion as an alternative to biblical Christianity.

    • PG

      Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King – don’t forget him; he might not have been from the Third World, and he might have been Christian, but he was black so he qualifies – and Mandela. Sorry Obama, you’ll just never make the list of Cool Saints.

  • theoprinse

    In the Netherlands I wrote the same opinion on Mandela in Dagelijkse Standaard owned by author Joshua Livestro under a pro Mandela article by Michael van der Galien.
    Joshua Livestro blocked me from his website.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Mr. Livestro blocked you because you committed “blasphemy”. It’s the digital equivalent of the Medieval burning at the stake.

  • GuyGreen

    As sane, compassionate and accurate an eulogy as I have seen. Not in the least surprised it comes from Daniel Greenfield. He maintains his strangle hold on reality. Lonely duty well accepted.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thank you

      • GuyGreen

        No extra charge.

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    “This need for Third World saints that led to a white cult growing around
    Gandhi and the Dalai Lama has more to do with the decline of
    spirituality in the West than with the reality of the three political
    figures who like most leaders understood the value of symbolism when it
    came to cloaking their more human agendas.”

    This says it all. Yesterday, I had to suffer a series of people extolling the virtues and saintliness of Mandela, at my church. I know these people. Half of them are agnostics, and the others are either atheists or grudging theists. I walked out half-way through this disgusting display of “worship” …

    … one of the ushers came to me, on the way out, and said, “I’m with you, brother.”

    • ronald54321

      Look for a church where the members aren’t fools.

  • sbuffalonative

    The fawning ‘progressive’ liberal media keeps reporting that Mr. Mandela was imprisoned by the ‘racist’ apartheid government of South Africa implying he was simply a victim of racism. They completely ignore why he was sent to prison.

    At his trial, Mr. Mandela pled guilty to his involvement in terrorist bombing campaigns most notably the Church Street Bombing in Pretoria which killed 8 blacks and 9 whites. As a devout Communist, Mr. Mandela had no qualms about killing blacks in the cause of bringing the ANC to power.

    The meme should be: Mandela was the Timothy McVeigh of South Africa.

  • Samo

    The only upside to the media deluge of Mandela worship that I see is that he is being portrayed as a great conciliator. The (what should be) obvious contrast with Obama and the way that he behaves bodes well for the cultures overall belief in the integrity (Or lack of integrity) of our dear leader.
    Mandela the Saint vs. Obama the self absorbed, mean hearted cry-baby.
    I think that the millennials have gone past the tipping point and their trust will never be regained.
    The focus on What Mandela was and what Obama ain’t is nothing but good for the country.

  • cacslewisfan

    Good article Dan, but I think you could have hit much harder. What about Mandela’s necklacing wife? Talk about guilt by association. He was a Marxist lunatic riding a wave of Western Communist sympathy and telling fairytales about earthly paradise to abused people. If the West wasn’t controlled by Liberals, they would have seen what he was doing and condemned him. Someone far better would have risen to the occasion, and South Africa wouldn’t be the genocidal hell hole it is now. Once again Communists and Liberals pollute what they touch, and destroy what they control.

  • jackcb

    Chris Christie ordered that the flags be at half staff throughout the state, in honor of Mandela. He is constantly showing his left-Liberal colors and everyone should be aware of this when he gets the nod from the RINO’s to run for President. He is a counterfeit Republican, but the RNC is loaded with them

    • No RNC

      Chris Christie would be the perfect fat man for the African cannibals, let’s send him there!

  • al_kidya

    Don’t be surprised if you see teenagers sporting Mandela t-shirts. Teenagers know nothing, or very little, about the man as history tells very little about him other than the “Mandela the hero” movies you see coming from Hollyweird. He was a vile, ruthless human being and so was Winnie. The “Winnie necklace” is reminiscent of the burning tires put around the necks of blacks who rubbed elbows with whites.

    • Debbie G

      I thought of that too, al. Just like their idolization of Che Guevara.

    • Seek

      I think there has been only one.

  • Melbo58

    Sir, you are a d**n liar. You are why the GOP is going the way of the dinosaur. Please stay as you are and, never change. In the mean time a flash from your faded reprobate memories.

    • robert clark

      You are certainly deluded we all know that the KKK was the armed wing of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and here is a website written by a black war hero that proves my point
      http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

      • Seek

        Actually, the KKK — all 34 or so members who still remain — are not in any meaningful sense a Democratic Party adjunct. For one thing, almost everyone in the South was a Democrat. That included anti-Klan activists. For that matter, Northern Democrats were resolutely anti-Klan. Hey, JFK and LBJ, each a Democratic president, were completely anti-Klan. And Northern Klan chapters during the 1920s — the Klan was popular in the North during the 20s — were overwhelmingly Republican.

        The Klan, founded immediately after the Civil War (i.e., long before liberalism became implanted), always has been about three things: 1) total separation of the races; 2) secrecy in the service of intimidation; and 3) Protestant fundamentalism (the Klan, among things, always has been anti-Catholic with a vengeance).

        Instead of tapping into your inner Jonah Goldberg, you’d know all of this already.

        • robert clark

          you obviously did not read the web (black-and-right) link or you would not be posting this rubbish

          • Seek

            I didn’t bother to read your web link for the simple reason that I’ve read your brand of rubbish a thousand times over in the blogosphere. The idea that Klansmen = Democrats = liberals is a chain of reasoning so ludicrous and divorced from historical experience as to be laughable. Yet through sheer repetition it’s become the coin of the realm among so-called “conservatives,” petrified of being called a racist.

            I am much more concerned about my fellow whites than about a tiny sliver of blacks who might vote Republican if only we “reached out” to them. We’re been reaching out to blacks ever since Nixon. It hasn’t worked yet — never will.

            Get an education.

    • Drakken

      Pssst shortbus, the KKK hasn’t been around with any type of influence in over 40 years, good luck riding the shortbus because obviously you drank too much kool aid. The again you are probably a self hating, self loathing liberal, communist, progressive moron who gets a sick twisted kick out of watch as our country dies, just so you don’t hurt anyones feelings.

    • Judahlevi

      It is only the Democratic party which has a history of the KKK, lynch mobs, destruction of Republicans voting booths, and even the lynching of Republicans who were trying to recruit other Republicans in the South. This history has nothing to do with the Republican party whose first president was Abraham Lincoln. Democrats own this history – they cannot try to transfer it to Republicans.

      Even worse, their collectivist policies today probably do more damage than the KKK.

      As with most things liberals say, you must reverse their comments to get to the truth. They protest too loudly.

      • Seek

        The Klansmen were not behaving as “Democrats” when they did these things. However they voted — indeed, if they voted — was irrelevant. They were acting as white Christian patriots. Like it or not, that’s how they saw themselves.

        • http://tinatrent.com/ Tina Trent

          I take your point regarding the Democrat meme. But you repeat the same error by naming them “Christian patriots.”

          The Christian and the patriot terms are a projection just like “Democrat.” Klansmen were condemned by Christian leaders throughout the twentieth century, and within Klan groups and their non-Klan neighbors alike, I don’t think you’d find easy definitions of “patriot” or Christian. They might have claimed it — just like they voted Democrat.

          Most “Klan members” today — and for decades — are interns for the Southern Poverty Law Center clacking away anonymously on comment threads trying to smear ordinary Americans as racist.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I know all men with beards look alike to you…. but there isn’t much of a Confederacy in Brooklyn

    • UCSPanther

      By invoking that largely dead organization of thuggish bedsheet-wearing freaks in your attempts to attack us, you have simply shown that you have no argument, period.

  • ronald54321

    Some communist. The only thing Mandela wanted to be is rich and a member of the Nomenkatura.

    • Ex Dutchman

      Really? What was Mandela’s reaction to the salary he was being paid a prime Minister of SA? Do yourself a favour an look at the retirement home he built himself in Qunu.
      While I agree with the bulk of what is written on this page – this is not a “virtue” you can ascribe to Mandela.

  • Edward smith

    well what do you expect from a bunch of animals? Am I right my fellow haters? The blacks in south Africa having civil rights is as loony as saying the Palestinians deserve civil rights and their own land. They’re a bunch of animals and savages like the blacks of south Africa am I right?

    • sbuffalonative

      Well, there were the necklacings:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

      And the bombings:

    • Drakken

      Please by all means, visit the rainbow of leftist utopia, I’ll get the bourbon, and I can’t wait to see what happens to you next.

  • DavidLHagen

    See also: David Aikman, Great Souls: Six who changed a century http://www.greatsouls.info/nmandela.php

  • victoryman

    What is being described here is a personal re-creation of a basically evil person to heroic goodness by the left and it’s handmaiden, the state run media.

    • BS77

      “Those who are truly brainwashed never know it.”
      not sure whose quote this is……………

  • De Doc

    History always uncovers the delusions of utopian thinkers. Utopias are very easy to hope for and dream and write about, but impossible to be realized, because these ideas are not grounded in reality. Now we add South Africa to the long list of failed states that could never become even a hint of what its most iconic leader, Mandela, wished it would have been.

  • lameck mahachi

    Yes, now I can see that the black man is heavily despised especially by a very large majority in this forum. The obvious fact that black South Africans were totally marginalized for centuries and centuries leading to men like the late Nelson Mandela who is also despise even in death for standing firm against that marginalization, is of little consequence at all. Some of these hypocritical critics are not even ashamed of pointing out the diseases, squalor and poverty ravaging almost the entirety of the black South Africans without the slightest mention of what caused that pathetic state of affairs. In the United States of America the same negative criticism is also directed against Obama simply because he is black. I am not given to racism but by the same token I cannot keep quiet while almost all contributors to this magazines including the author of this article, Daniel Greenfield, does not spare a moment of thought to find out what caused all this charade. Instead they just jump to conclusions and point accusatory fingers at communism, Fidel Castor, Robert Mugabe, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King etc whom they see as thorns to their side without a slightest mention of the colonization of other people’s land which was by far the most significant contributory factor to the misery of Africans in their continent of Africa.

    • JVR

      You make a point often seen when blacks (in South Africa, but also in the USA), complain about their situation, and the *implication* is that whites have this duty to elevate blacks, to create opportunities for blacks, almost as if God placed whites on earth so that they will help blacks.

      This is all BS. White SAcans do not owe blacks SAcans (who killed whites in scores in the 1800s) a thing. When white SAcans (Boers) did not have schools, they built such, starting under thorn trees, graduating to one-room schools, etc. Black SAcans could have done exactly the same, and it was not the duty of Boers, or anyone else, to do that for them.

      This complaint about marginalization is really about something which blacks fail to do for themselves, and then they (like you), blame others for failing to do this. No-one owes you a thing, or has a God-given duty to do things for you. Pull your finger out, work hard, don’t commit crime, go to church, raise your children well, criticize blacks who are lazy, violent and dishonest (as much as you criticize whites for the same), and the rest will fall into place.

      People who write at here, I believe, are totally fed-up with the continual whining that they are responsible, or have a duty, to help others, beyond their immediate extended family and culture.

      • robert clark

        when the white settlers arrived in south Africa there was not SINGLE structure built of stone or any other building material apart from grass. the origins of the Zimbabwe ruins are still not known if however they were built by Africans then why stop at one structure

        • JVR

          The Zimbabwe ruins were almost certainly built by Africans, and just as mysteriously abandoned. There are also evidence of older settlements in the Northern parts of South Africa, with some evidence of metalworking (including with gold) — fascinating archaeological stuff). This is neither here nor there. Boers in SA did what people do the world over — they created a society in a wilderness, only to be followed wherever they went by the British who demanded their loyalty to the English Crown on pain of death.

          South Africa is an artificial state that were put together by the British on the ashes of the Boer war in 1910 — at that time the Zulu and the Xhosa, were unfairly stripped of self-determination (while the Sothos, Swazis and Tswanas received their own states — Lesotho, Swaziland, and Botswana). In 1994 this injustice was reversed, first the Xhosas (Mandela and the Xhosa Nostra) ruled, and now the Zulus rule (Zuma and this men), while Boers are stripped of self-determination
          (and getting the blame for Xhosas and Zulus not having developed themselves).

          Had the British not unified South Africa in 1910 these peoples would not have been forced to share a country.

          • robert clark

            I stand corrected about the Zimbabwe ruins you are correct. But keep in mind if the british did not kill 26,000 white women and children in concentration camps what the white population of South Africa would be now 113 years later

    • sbuffalonative

      The white man creates civilizations. The black man destroys them.

      Look at Haiti, Zimbabwe, or any former white colony. Whites built them and when the white man left the black man with pre-built nations, blacks destroyed them.

  • MLCross

    Excellent article. If you talk about these points with Democrats (assuming they don’t simply scream, “racist!” at you), you find that, they’ll acknowledge all of these issues and criticisms of Mandela BUT, you see, all of that is irrelevant because, when he was released from prison, he could have started a war and he didn’t. He preached peace and reconciliation. Two things about that: What else could he have done given that he no longer had access to the weapons he would need from the former Soviet Union? Secondly, is that where the goal posts are now? – you get to be considered a great man of peace and a visionary because you decide NOT to commit genocide? You agree not to start a civil war? “OK, I guess if I get to be President and in charge of everything, I won’t kill a bunch of people.” Seriously?

    • sbuffalonative

      The alleged appeals of peace and reconciliation were little more than a means to black rule.

      Mr. Mandela knew blacks couldn’t run South Africa without the guidance of whites. He needed whites to teach blacks how to run a nation. After the white man gives up his knowledge, the white man was push aside. This was the plan all along.

      South Africa is well on its way to becoming the next Zimbabwe.

  • ennis

    You wanna know what really sickens me about this whole thing? Is the left yet again using this as an opportunity to get up on their high horses, trying to throw that period back into the face of conservatives, saying how they “backed apartheid” and were on the wrong side of history whilst they on the other hand like to act as if everybody who opposed apartheid were such bastions of virtue, these same people who were selective about their “concern” for human rights, who during the same period railed against the contras in Nicaragua and at the same time justified the actions of the ANC like necklacing and blowing up grannies inside cafes.

  • Flowerknife_us

    Racism of a different Color. Like they never saw it coming?

  • talkstoomuchtoo

    Wow!!! an article full of lies from a lunatic rag.
    Notice how this snake does not cite the source for her quotes.
    Why?
    Because it’s from a source that 1) may be completely fraudulent 2) if true was written decades before his leadership

    Look at the facts- while in power he nationalized NOTHING- you racist morons.
    That’s what communists do– nationalize. He did nothing of the sort.

    Even Newt Gingrich has just published an article about Mandela’s supposed communism- where he basically said, you too would have been a communist had you been oppressed South Africans were.

    But you people aren’t even conservatives- you’re just stupid.