The Crimes of Nelson Mandela

On December 10, 2013, in Commentary, by natalt

by Samantha Aiston

Mandela-terrorist-Church-Street-bomb-Pretoria-Hesigned-Off

Years later, questioned by his friend Truguet about what he had done in Saint-Domingue, an enraged Bonaparte declared that, had he been in Martinique during the Revolution, he would have supported the English rather than accept an end to slavery. I am for the whites because I am white; I have no other reason, and that one is good,” he said. How is it possible that liberty was given to Africans, to men who had no civilization, who did not even know what the colony was, what France was? It is perfectly clear that those who wanted the freedom of the blacks wanted the slavery of the whites.”

Laurent Dubois, A Colony of Citizens: Revolution & Slave Emancipation in the French Caribbean, 1787-1804 (2006)

After the fall of Tobruk to Rommel and the Axis in 1942] the Rommel diary records an edict that was typical of him: “While the overflowing POW cage on the airfield is being set up, South African officers demand to be segregated from the blacks. This request is turned down by the C in C [Rommel]. He points out that the blacks are South African soldiers too. They wear the same uniform and they have fought side by side with the whites. They are to be housed in the same POW cage.”

David Irving, The Trail of the Fox (1977)

In the eyes of Western progressives, terrorists, guerrillas and insurgents often end up becoming ‘freedom fighters’ and ‘heroes’. In the late 1940s, the Jewish terrorists who committed acts of violence against the British and the Palestinians were regarded as heroes and freedom fighters, fighting for Jewish homeland; so were the Viet Minh / Viet Cong guerrillas in South Vietnam in the 1960s; so were the Palestinian terrorists of the 1970s and 1980s. If we are to go further back, there is John Brown, 19th century Calvinist religious fanatic and activist for the abolition of slavery in the US, who formed a mixed-race terror gang which committed acts of violence – including a Django Unchained style murder by decapitation of a Southern plantation owner’s family – and then attempted to take over an arms depot in order to bring about an anti-Southern revolution. Brown was put on trial, delivered some rousing speeches condemning his jailers in the courtroom (using the courtroom dock as a pulpit to condemn the political system, like Hitler at the Beer Hall Putsch trial of 1924). After his hanging he became a hero of the Yankee North and is mentioned in a verse of the famous Unionist marching song, ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’.

Terrorism and insurgency is OK so long as the cause is considered to be just. The outcomes must be good – in other words, the end justifies the means (a dictum which the neoliberal Hayek views as a beginning of morality, a dictum, when taken seriously, leads the individual to commit immoral acts). The victor writes the history. Perhaps, if Islam wins its demographic battle in Europe, future Islamic scholars will declare the Lee Rigby murderers, or the London bus bombers, or Mohammed Merah to be heroes. (Will a failed would-be Islamist terrorist, arrested in the UK or France or Germany before he could carry out a bombing, and set free after a 20-year stint a European jail, have a film made about him called Ali: The Long Walk to Freedom?). Certainly, the Taliban will be given a good write-up by themselves once they win the war in Afghanistan. But we in the West don’t agree with the Taliban or other Islamists. We in the West regard the Merahs and the Lee Rigby murderers as the bad guys because we, being liberal, democratic and tolerant, regard their cause – Islamism – as a bad thing. We regard Mandela as a secular saint because of what we see as a good outcome – black rule, and the disempowerment of whites, in South Africa.

This is the dividing line between us – the racialists, nationalists, Far Rightists – and the liberal consensus which is dominant in the West. They regard the outcomes produced by Mandela as being good, we regard them as evil. A few years ago, I was driving past a bar strip in a suburb in Melbourne with a woman from South Africa who had arrived at these shores recently, like thousands of other South African whites who have come here after fleeing the ANC regime). She remarked, innocently, at how there were Australian women walking around in pairs, dressed to go out to one of the bars there – it was an amazing thing to her because ‘One would never see that in South Africa’. I think that, with a little imagination, we know why we wouldn’t see women walking around by themselves on a main street in South Africa – even the most liberal, Mandela-loving white Westerner knows (although he would never admit it). (The irony is that my South African friend was a liberal who had participated, as a university student in South Africa, in anti-Apartheid demonstrations in the 1980s, and was completely unable – through an act of self-deception which liberal Afrikaners are prone – to see any causal connection between anti-Apartheidism and what befell South Africa after 1994). South Africa descended into barbarism after 1994 because of the dismantling of Apartheid; what happened was the negation of civilisation. This was brought by Mandela. Not only did he commit evil acts, he brought about evil outcomes. If there is an afterlife, he will be punished in it for his crimes (the white Afrikaners are suffering from the consequences of his actions in this life).

Mandela is one of a long line of black ‘heroes’ who have led their race and their particular tribal groups against white rulers; the Western progressives, liberals, communists and do-gooders (both Jewish and Christian) who assisted Mandela in his endeavours, and ultimately oversaw the struggle to fruition, are descended from a long line of forebears as well. South Africa before 1994 was, like the American South and Rhodesia, a peculiar type of nation-state I call an ‘Apartheid State’. The model owes its origins to the plantation slave states of the Caribbean – Haiti / Saint-Domingue, Cuba, Jamaica, Barbados and others – which imported slaves from Africa. African slavery was widespread outside this region, of course – large quantities of slaves ended up in Mexico and Brazil – but the Caribbean states were different insofar as they set up a colour bar. Strict laws segregating the minority white population from the blacks were put in place, and crucially, mulatto offspring were not recognised as whites, nor as heirs to the property of the miscegenation white parents (unlike in Brazil or Mexico, where miscegenation and acceptance of mulattos in white society were widespread). This is what gave these states their peculiar racialist flavour. We see there the birth of a nation – the white nation – and the formation of a white racial consciousness. Of the introduction of African slaves to the Caribbean and the American South, Hunter Wallace writes, in a post entitled ‘Caribbean Project: The Proto-South’ [insert link: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2012/08/24/caribbean-project-the-proto-south/]:

WNs [white nationalists] will see it as a terrible thing: the introduction and exploitation of blacks in the Americas.

It actually represents the very beginning of a type of society that had never existed before in European history: the development of fixed ideas about race, white supremacy, whiteness as a type of racial nobility, the idea that whites are natural masters fit to command non-Whites who are natural slaves, and especially White racial consciousness.

WNs are so accustomed to thinking in terms of racial differences and racial solidarity and the desire to expel all non-Whites that they fail to realize that this is a creole [that is, white slaver] way of looking at the world that has a history which begins in the plantation societies of the Early Modern Caribbean.

There is a road from the Spanish conquest of Hispaniola to the unprecedented slave society that was created in English Barbados to colonial South Carolina and Virginia and from there across all of Dixie and through the cultural influence of the South to the rest of the United States.

The founding of these states met with a reaction from progressives, liberals and humanitarians in Europe almost straight away. It is here that we see the beginning of what I call white Afrophilia or Negrophilia. It starts with the Jacobins in revolutionary France who incited the slave uprisings in the French Caribbean, and then moves on to the Protestant Evangelical abolitionists (William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect) who pushed England to ban slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833; then John Brown, Thaddeus Stevens, William Lloyd Garrison and other Yankee abolitionist maniacs in the US who helped ignite the American Civil War; then the communist and liberal anti-segregationists (mostly from the north-eastern part of the US) in the Deep South in the 1950s and 1960s; then the anti-Apartheid and anti-Rhodesia communists, liberals and humanists of the 1970s and 1980s.

From the below quotation, we see that the modern-day cult of the black rebel as saint, the Martin Luther King / Mandela cult, is nothing new; neither are exhortations, made by white liberals, of violence against whites:

Writers in France prophesied the imminent emergence of a black revolutionary leader. In his 1771 fable of time travel, Louis Sebastien Mercier imagined waking up after a 672-year nap and finding himself in a changed and perfected world. In one plaza he saw on a pedestal “a negro his head bare, his arm outstretched, with pride in his eyes and a noble and imposing demeanor.” Under the statue were the words “To the Avenger of the New World!” Mercier learned that “this surprising and immortal man” had delivered the world “from the most atrocious, longest, and most insulting tyranny of all.” He had “broken the chains of his compatriots” and transformed those “oppressed by the most odious slavery” into heroes. In an “instant” they had “spilled the blood of their tyrants.” “French, Spanish, English, Dutch, Portuguese all fell prey to iron, poison, and flame. The soil of America avidly drank the blood that it had been awaiting for so long, and the bones of their ancestors, murdered by cowards, seemed to stand up and shake with joy.” The “Avenger” became a god in the New World and was celebrated in the Old. “He came like a storm spreading across a city of criminals that is about to be destroyed by lightning.” He was an “exterminating angel,” granted power by justice and by God.

The Abbé Raynal’s famous history of European colonialism, which went through many printings in the 1770s and 1780s, contained a passage that drew on Mercier’s vision. After critiquing the institution of slavery, the work warned readers that the slaves did not need their masters’ “generosity or advice” to break the “sacrilegious yoke of their oppressors.” Already, it noted, “two colonies of fugitive negroes have been established” in Jamaica and Suriname and had won recognition of their freedom. These signs were the lightning that announced the storm. “All that the negroes lack is a leader courageous enough to carry them to vengeance and carnage,” the work warned. “Where is he, this great man, that nature owes to its vexed, oppressed, tormented children? Where is he? He will appear, do not doubt it. He will show himself and will raise the sacred banner of liberty. This venerable leader will gather around him his comrades in misfortune. More impetuous than torrents, they will leave everywhere ineffaceable traces of their just anger.” The “American fields,” the text continued, riffing off Mercier, would get drunk on the blood they had been awaiting “for so long,” while the bones buried over the course of three centuries would “shake with joy.” Monuments to this “hero who reestablished the rights of the human species” would be erected in the New World and the Old. But the Europeans might reap what they had sown: “the Code Noir will disappear, and the Code Blanc will be terrible, if the victors consult only the law of revenge!”

Laurent Dubois, Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution (2005).

The Code Noir, or ‘Black Code’, was a decree by Louis XIV in 1685 which regulated slavery in the French colonies (and, incidentally, banned Jews from residing there): see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir. Arguably, it was the Jim Crow or Apartheid law of its day.

It is significant that the Abbé Raynal in the passage quoted above calls for the overturning of the Code Noir and its replacement with a Code Blanc (White Code) which, presumably, would be a race-reversed law entailing the slavery of whites. The liberal white (and black) opponents of white supremacy want, in fact, black supremacy; they don’t want equality between blacks and whites, but rather the mastery of white by blacks; they call, not for an end to segregation, but re-segregation in favour of black people. (The Montgomery, Alabama bus line – on which the Afro-American communist Rosa Parks performed her infamous stunt in 1955 – is now one of the most dangerous in the South. No white American dare use it. Many once-segregated areas are no-go zones for whites, in both the American South and South Africa. They are ‘For Blacks Only’). That was the intention of the Abbé Raynals, John Browns and Joe Slovos all along. Which is why Southerners after the Civil War referred to the abolition of slavery in the South as ‘Negro Rule’ and wrote books like The Prostrate South: South Carolina Under Negro Government (James S. Pike, 1874); which is why Paul Kersey, the author of the blog Stuff Black People Don’t Like, coined the phrase ‘Black Run America’.

We see, in Haiti after 1791, in the US in the 1970s, in Rhodesia after 1980, in South Africa after 1994, and in many ‘black-run’ cities and nation-states which shrugged off white rule, a process I call ‘Detroitification’. It goes like this: whites build a city or a nation-state; whites work hard and make it one of the most prosperous and wealthy in the world, with the best standard of living; blacks arrive, as slaves or economic immigrants (or are already there in large numbers, as in the case of southern Africa); blacks agitate for the end slavery, segregation, for ‘civil rights’ or whatever; blacks get what they demand, largely thanks to the efforts of white liberals who live far away; blacks elect a black leader to office with a crushing electoral majority and ensure that no white leader will be elected to office ever again. White progressive ideologues are jubilant. Then the fun begins. Crime sky rockets. Whites are driven out, de facto ethnically cleansed, by a campaign of murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping (which is what occurred in Detroit in the late 1970s). The government becomes corrupt. Racial socialism (of the non-National Socialist variety) ensues, politicians start a patronage system of funnelling money to black cronies, redistributing white tax monies and land to black people (through ‘black empowerment’ programs (these are not racist, because blacks are doing them). The city or nation-state falls into economic ruin. Once prosperous, clean and safe, it is now a wasteland – the equivalent of Mordor in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. It becomes dependent on foreign aid, from the outside (white) world (Haiti has more NGOs than any other place on Earth).

The corollary of all this is that white liberals go into denial. If you read books published by the Soviet Union, you notice that the official chronicle of Soviet history ends in 1924 – the year of Lenin’s death. There is no mention of the domestic events that came after – Stalin’s collectivisation program, the purges of the late 1930s, Beria’s overthrow and execution, the Khrushchev thaw, Khrushchev’s overthrow (in fact, no Khrushchev and no Stalin). It’s the same with South Africa: the official establishment media narrative only goes up to 1994 – what South Africa is like today is never mentioned. The same goes for the South after the 1960s: how did that Alabama bus line do after it was desegregated?

Liberals, since the late 18th century, have made a business to break up slave and Apartheid states. Will new ones crop up? Possibly, after the mass influx of Africans into Europe, Europe will discover a new-found appreciation for Afrikaner and Jim Crow policies: they may turn into Apartheid / segregationist states. This is unlikely, however, because such states are the last bastions of what Julius Evola calls Tradition – caste-based, hierarchical and inegalitarian societies. The tide has turned, in Europe and the West, against Tradition. It began to turn after the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

The odd thing is that the race-based, white supremacist and white separatist nation state is thoroughly incompatible with the Australian or European nationalist model. The German National Socialists were completely unsympathetic to the American South and to South African racialism, despite being racialist themselves. Both Afro-American Marxist W.E.B. Du Bois and the Afro-American athlete Jesse Owens claim that they were treated well, much better than in the US, on visits to National Socialist Germany (for a recent story on Owens in Germany in 1936 and how, contrary to myth, Hitler was nice to him and did shake his hand, see this recent story in the Daily Mail [insert link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205572/Hitler-shook-hands-black-1936-Olympic-hero-Jesse-Owens.html]). Germany in the 1930s was an ethnically-homogenous society without black people and had been so for thousands of years; in the case of the Deep South (and the cities of the North-East) and South Africa, blacks were practically indigenous to the nation and had been there as long as the whites had been.

As for Australia in the days of the White Australia policy, the race problem was not white supremacy over a semi-indigenous caste of Africans, but keeping immigrants out – particularly immigrants from China.

But wait: weren’t National Socialist Germany, and White Australia, white? Doesn’t race, and one’s whiteness, define everything? Only under certain conditions. There can only be a white race in relation to other, non-white races, and by itself, the category of whiteness is useless for defining anything concretely. White people are certainly different in their appearance to non-white people, and in certain aspects of their biology, but these facts, by themselves, are not sufficient enough to institute a caste-like society regulated by Jim Crow and the Code Noir. We need a justification as to why white people are so different and merit a special treatment; otherwise, race becomes something trivial and biological. There is then no point on harping on about the differences between whites and non-whites any more than there is about the differences between green-eyed and blue-eyed people.

The racialists in the US – the white nationalists, pro-whites, white advocates, white separatists – are forever complaining, with justification, of how bad white Americans have it in cities like Detroit and Stockton, the implication being that the whites’ problems are caused by non-whites. But which of the non-whites there are so egregious? Muslim immigrants, Mestizo immigrants, Asian-Americans? If we are to look at a list of ‘ten worst cities in the US’ [insert link here: http://www.escapehere.com/destination/10-worst-cities-to-visit-in-the-united-states/2/] – Detroit, St Louis, Reno, Cleveland, Chicago, Camden, Memphis, New Haven, Stockton, Oakland, we will notice a common denominator: all of the cities, bar Reno, have a large African-American population. (Predictably, the liberal journalist who wrote this travelogue was attacked in the comments section of the article – for ‘racism’). This gives an insight into what the whole American white nationalist / pro-white project is about. In Australia, we have plenty of Chinese and Indian immigrants to Sydney and Melbourne who are ‘white enough to pass’. That is, they act like white people and fit into the cogs of the capitalist machine smoothly. Whereas, according to racialist theorists of the slave and Apartheid states, black people – especially the black people from the Western half of Sub-Saharan Africa (who seem to make up the majority of blacks in the Caribbean, the US and South Africa) – won’t, and can’t, fit in. Which is why, according to these racialists, Jamaica, Haiti, South Africa, Detroit, Oakland are such places of desolation, poverty, misery and lawlessness (Haiti is one of the rape capitals of the world and only made rape illegal in 2005). I can be killed in those places simply because of the colour of my skin: it doesn’t matter whether or not I’m Australian, Portugese, Irish, Norwegian or Italian – my ‘race is my nation’ in those ‘black-run’ places and the ‘colour of my uniform is the colour of my skin’.

To put it another way, without the African, the white race would not exist – as a cultural, political and racial unity. The colour bar, first instituted in the Caribbean slave states, and then in the Deep South and in southern Africa, created the white race. Race is biology and behaviour; in order to define a white race, we need another race which is dramatically non-white in behaviour as well as its biology. According to the white separatists, the black African serves this purpose.

What will happen to the whites of South Africa? Mandela never went the full Mugabe after 1994, mainly because the eyes of the world were upon him. As Gregory Hood writes for American Renaissance [insert link here: http://www.amren.com/features/2013/12/mandela-white-genocide-with-a-whimper/],

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… 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.

Perhaps this will change now that the old villain is dead. Whatever the result, we on the Far Right in the West are at war – against the progressives, the Joe Slovos, Abbé Reynals, Bonos and Bob Dylans, the liberal and ‘conservative’ journalists who write paeans to Martin Luther King and Mandela, the Culture-Bolsheviks who run our educational institutions and our political parties. It is not a race war, of white against black, but a war of white against white – like the Spanish Civil War. On the one side, the progressives, who want the destruction of the Western and European civilisation, whether it be in Johannesburg, Stockholm or Detroit; on the other, the fighters for Western civilisation – the fighters who wage battles for, among other things, the right of women to walk, unaccompanied, down the streets of Western cities without fear of molestation by either whites or non-whites.

 text-decoration: underline

 

One Response to The Crimes of Nelson Mandela

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *