South Africa’s Genocide: It’s not crime - it’s WAR

August 17, 2006

The history of the Black African Liberation Struggle against colonial powers has always involved a guerilla strategy of attacking “soft targets” such as isolated farmsteads, bombing civilian public places and churches, politicizing the rural population by way of terrorizing them and branding non-compliants as sell-outs and traitors before brutally executing them in full view of their families and friends.

The tools to used to effect such “Struggles” have in every instance prolifically featured the use of the ubiquitous AK 47. This is a weapon of war – it is an assault rifle, the only purpose of which is to be used in warfare for the killing of human beings. It is not a gardening tool or a spanner (wrench) it is a weapon of war – period.

Direct confrontation with the security forces of the day was to be ruled out as much as possible as this invariably resulted in the annihilation of the entire “Liberation” unit. As such the “Liberation Struggle” was marvelously efficient in every aspect of its operation when it came to slaughtering and coercing unarmed civilians and a spectacular failure when encountering armed trained security forces that could fight back with devastating ferocity.In SA the “Liberation Struggle” was declared successful with the advent of 1994 and the installation of the ANC Government and was deemed to have ceased in order to commence with “Nation Building” of the Rainbow Nation.However, it is apparent that the “Liberation Struggle” continued with the removal of White Farmers in Zimbabwe resulting immediately in Zimbabwe becoming a basket case and millions of refugees flooding over the border into South Africa in search of a better life due to South Africa’s apparently better economy.As Zimbabwe collapsed, the plunder, pillage, murder, and human rights violations of Robert Mugabe were benignly regarded from South Africa by Thabo Mbeki who explained away his stance as one of “Quiet Diplomacy”

Bit of an enigma this “Quiet Diplomacy” concept unless of course one thinks about parallel developments in SA and Zimbabwe where whites are concerned and of course without even considering the history of Mbeki and Mugabe that goes back to the 60’sThis is a quiet diplomacy that has seen armed militia from Zimbabwe, armed with the traditional liberation struggle weapon – the AK 47 flood into South Africa to effect cash in transit heists and armed robberies of civilians in restaurants, banks, supermarkets and in their businesses, farms and homes. It has recently seen a full scale fire-fight between armed criminals (Guerillas?) and an SAPS unit in a suburban house !!In effect “Liberation” militia units armed with weapons of war from another country in conjunction with local militia are waging a full scale urban war against unarmed white civilians in South Africa. The ANC Government officially passes this off as crime which they say they “Are trying very hard to curb” – as evidenced by the allocation of the (white taxpayers’) money to Government officials’ excesses, luxuries, foreign trips and weapons of war by the tens of billions in comparison the allocation of virtually nothing to the police services and the judiciary to curb crime.

Foreign militia in South Africa, specifically from Mozambique and Zimbabwe are not traceable in SA, they have no paper trail, no ID documents, no fingerprints, absolute anonymity, freedom of movement and equipped for protracted guerilla warfare in the Black African tradition against unarmed white civilians who in SA are ALL traceable by finger prints if they have ID books, bar-coded SARS documentation, ID books, Vehicle Registrations, driver’s licenses, P.O. Box addresses, IP addresses – you name it.Very easy for the Government to absolve itself of being able to detain untraceable “Agents” from other countries who are involved in the slaughter of a traceable unarmed, static, dispossessed ethnic group like South African whites.

In the meantime, racial hatred against whites in SA is being overtly stoked at every opportunity by ANC mouthpieces like the press and national television. At every “youth” rally called to “celebrate” some “Liberation” event or the other black youths are actively being called on to perpetrate violent crime against whites. Whenever Mbeki or any other high profile black political or economic figure presents himself in front of a public address system, disparities are drawn between the “White have’s and Black Have not’s” to further incite black on white racial hatred while the government neatly side steps issues like it’s own multi-billion Rand corruption levels, fraud, outright theft and personal excess like multi-million Rand Presidential its, luxury homes and cars and unbelievable salaries for non-delivery of even the most basic services.
This is clearly an angle on violent crime in SA that is being overlooked and now needs to be placed under a microscope by the international community, brought to the attention of the International Human Rights Commission and the ANC Government brought up to the plate to give explanations for as well as plausible account of what they are doing about the genocide of whites in SA.

Tortured & Killed for asking a simple question...

During my research I spoke to a black man who had been trained by the KGB in Moscow, as an intelligence agent. He had fought for the ANC and was stationed in Angola at one time. His name: Mwezi Twala.

Mwezi Twala and nine other black soldiers in the ANC's armed wing, MK, one day decided to ask their superiors what was happening with regard to the vast sums of money the ANC was receiving from European sources. They figured that this money was being donated to the cause of the black people and therefore their superiors were accountable for this money. They did a bad thing.

For asking a simple question about the financial accountability of the ANC, they were tortured. Of the ten of them, six died from torture. Mwezi and three others lived. The ANC does not like Mwezi and he told me that he lives knowing that he could be attacked at any time. He says he has had attempts made on his life before and he watches his back all the time. Mwezi of course no longer believes in the ANC. He says that communism is a lie and it is in fact, all about greed.

He sees the corruption in the ANC as being nothing more than a natural result of their communist beliefs. A book was written about Mwezi Twala and it was published by Harper Collins in the USA. The ANC put pressure on major book stores in South Africa not to carry it, and so the book remains virtually unknown. It is now out of print. It is called "Mbokodo : inside MK : Mwezi Twala : a soldier's story".
ASIN: 1868420167

To see its listing on Amazon.com, Click here.

Since it is out of print, it is very likely that one can buy a copy from one of several used and out of print book dealers on the internet. Click here to try searching for it on AbeBooks or Bibiliofind if you are interested in buying it. The book is explosive and the ANC is highly embarrassed by much of what happened in its torture camps in Angola.

Another ANC Farce="Reconciliation Day" = is Afrikaner hatred day

"The ANC, like its Marxist buddies throughout the continent, could very well eventually reach the stage where attendance at their rallies will be compulsory. .. I would not be surprised if eventually we (whites and Afrikaners) all have to line up and have our ID books stamped to prove that we attended a "Reconciliation Day' ceremony." -- by Shaun Willcock, a minister of the Gospel in South Africa

December 16 is "Reconciliation Day" in South Africa. It is a public holiday.

In the "good old days", before South Africa was taken over by Nelson Mandela's racist, Communist-controlled African National Congress (ANC) and driven into the ground, when the country was still well-governed by conservative Afrikaners, December 16 was known as "The Day of the Vow".

It was a day held sacred in the hearts of Afrikaners, for way back in December 1838, as the pioneering Voortrekkers faced what looked like probable extinction at the hands of the mighty Zulu army,they took a vow that if God would grant them victory, they would forever afterwards keep the day of the victory sacred, as a day of thanksgiving for their deliverance from genocide.And sure enough, on December 16, although vastly outnumbered by Zulu warriors, those hardy Afrikaners were mightily victorious at what became known as the Battle of Blood River: a defining moment in South Africa's turbulent history. When the Zulus finally fled, some 3,000 lay dead, but not one of the several hundred Voortrekkers inside their laager had been killed. The Scriptures do not support their contention that future generations of Afrikaners were bound before God to keep the day sacred, although it is certainly very true that God did indeed give them victory that day, not because they were God's special people but because He in His sovereignty had purposed for them to be victorious, and to go on to eventually govern this mighty country.

However, when the ANC came to power, they could not stomach the fact that the Afrikaners continued to commemorate the Battle of Blood River on December 16, their sacred Day of the Vow: a commemoration of a great victory by vastly outnumbered 'white' settlers over the most powerful black nation in Africa. And so the ANC determined to do something about it.

Their solution? To declare December 16 a public holiday to be called "Reconciliation Day", thereby claiming the day for all South Africans, and also rubbing the noses of the Afrikaners in the dirt, by very subtly declaring, as it were, "You are now expected, by your new masters, to accept that your own leaders, and the Afrikaner nation in general, oppressed the black people of this country, and you are now required to quit honouring your own (ancestral) heroes and your own history and your own victories, and instead you are now going to be forced to 'reconcile' with your black neighbours whom you so wronged."

Afrikaner-bashing day: For let there be no doubt about this: the ANC's so-called "Reconciliation Day" is nothing less than another opportunity for the ANC leaders to berate the Afrikaners, and whites in general, year after year; to accuse them of not doing enough for the blacks; of not being willing to "share their wealth" and to "embrace change" in SA; and to demand that they not only ignore their own history, but actually express sorrow for it in fact; and to accept the re-writing of history which the ANC is undertaking all the time, portraying the whites as the personification of evil and the blacks as the oppressed, suffering good guys.

Bottom line: this whole concept of "reconciliation" is a lie, a farce, it isn't happening and as things stand now it can't truly happen, because the ANC is demanding reconciliation on its terms i.e.: "We blacks are all the innocent victims here; you whites are the bad guys; you must change, you must make amends for what your forefathers supposedly did, you must come to us on our terms, grovelling at our feet and humbly accepting whatever crumbs we deign to toss your way."

And another reason why "reconciliation" is a farce, is because whites are being told to "reconcile" with Communist terrorists, people who conducted an armed revolution against them, who bombed and tortured and necklaced* (see footnote) people to get their way and come to power. Whites are expected to be "reconciled" with these unrepentant thugs! Well, ever since the ANC's "Reconciliation Day" came into effect, many Afrikaners have ignored all this nonsense, and have quietly continued with their old "Day of the Vow" celebrations anyway.

And this makes the ANC powers-that-be spitting mad. Every year, various top-ranking government ministers use the opportunity of "Reconciliation Day" to criticise and vilify the whites. As in Zimbabwe and every other African country after its "independence" from white rule, whites in SA have become the convenient scapegoats behind which the ANC seeks to hide its own ineptitude and incompetence, its utter inability to properly govern this country, and its own deep-seated racist prejudices.

This year, whites were treated to the vitriol of Essop Pahad, the Minister running the (very autocratic) Presidency. He said that white South Africans who fail to attend national reconciliation celebrations or national holidays, represent an entrenchment of racist attitudes and prejudices. "Whenever we (i.e. the ANC) mark our national days," he said, "you will find that perhaps well in excess of 90% of people who attend these events are Africans. We have to address the question as to why significant sections of our population do not find it interesting, convenient or necessary enough to attend these functions... as part of the process of creating a non-racial South Africa" (The Witness, December 16, 2005).

It is easy enough to answer his speech (and we will overlook for now his reference to black South Africans as "Africans", the implication being that white South Africans are not Africans): The reason why over 90% of those who attend the celebrations of SA's national days are black, is because probably at least 90% of the ANC is black, and because it is an organisation committed to 'black advancement', and because it is blatantly anti-white in its attitudes and its policies.
Why on earth would whites attend such (hate-speech) rallies, when they well know that the ANC uses those occasions to berate them, criticise them, belittle them, blame everything on them? Whites no longer feel that they have any place in SA, any future. They are pushed aside, attacked, hated, condemned, their history, culture, language, etc., are all crushed and derided, their wives and children raped, their husbands and grandfathers tortured and murdered. Plus, of course, large numbers of 'whites' are conservative and anti-Communist, and hold the ANC and its Communist masters in contempt. In a word, they have nothing to celebrate!

The second reason why most white South Africans would not attend political rallies, etc., held on national days, even if they liked the ANC (and most will never like the ANC), is because there is a huge cultural difference between blacks and whites in this regard. The heavily-politicised blacks actually appear to enjoy flocking to huge open-air rallies, and sitting for hours in the baking sun listening to lengthy speeches by their political leaders. (This can be seen all over Africa).

The (ethnic-Europeans and Afrikaners,) on the other hand, have no tradition, no history of doing such a thing, not even when there was a white-run government. For them, a national holiday is a day for sitting quietly at home with their families, or going to the beach or a dam, to swim, fish, or just relax in the sun. But the pressure is on.

The ANC, like its Marxist buddies throughout the continent, could very well eventually reach the stage where attendance at their rallies will be compulsory.

All over Africa, the masses have to sit through endless speeches by their political leaders, and woe betide them if they do not show up! It may come here too. I would not be surprised if eventually we all have to line up and have our ID books stamped, or something, to prove that we attended. In his own speech on "Reconciliation Day", President Thabo Mbeki, addressing a crowd gathered at "Freedom Park" in Pretoria to mark the national day, said: "We need to confront what may be an uncomfortable question, whether as South Africans, black and white, we are under the same flag and under the same anthem marching separately - even pretending at times that the other does not exist" (Weekend Witness, December 17, 2005). " end quote

Pseudo-Christian ANC-anthem "The new flag we can live with - at least it is fairly non-political. The new anthem - for Christians at least - is a different matter, as it is the revolutionary anthem of the ANC and of various other errorist organisations that came to power in Southern Africa through the barrel of a gun. That, plus its pseudo-Christian lyrics, make it unacceptable to Christians in SA. The ANC's new form of apartheid: But yes indeed, we are marching separately. What, though, is the reason for this? It is the ANC government's own racist attitude towards all white South Africans, doing all in its power to reduce them to second-class citizens in the land of their birth, and thus enforcing a new form of apartheid, where black South Africans enjoy all the privileges of citizenship to overcome the stereotypes that were entrenched over many years by racist policies of the past, or [whether] we still quietly pander to those stereotypes."

Of course he was referring to whites. Mbeki's demonisation of all whites: It is always the whites who are expected to change, the whites who are the bad guys, the whites who are the racists. And by constantly harping on about these things, Mbeki and the ANC do a great job of hiding the fact that they, themselves, are the real racists.

The ANC's own deeply racist policies are driving white South Africans out of the country, and reducing those who remain to insignificance. It is the ANC's own prejudices and lies which cause blacks to stereotype all whites as racists. Mbeki went on that South Africans 'must break down the racial walls that divide them', and then said that wealth distribution represents one such wall, and the rich became rich through the sweat and toil of others, many of whom remain poor. Mbeki in the past has defined "the rich" as white and "the poor" as black.

In other words, then, what he was saying was that the wealthy white South Africans must redistribute their wealth to the poor black South Africans. This is classic Marxist economics, of course. "Wealth redistribution" means, in ANC doublespeak, taking what whites have earned and giving it to blacks. It has already begun, of course, with the farm expropriations. ANC elite obscenely wealthy: Note too how he conveniently overlooks the fact that today in SA, vast numbers of blacks have become obscenely wealthy - including himself. The pressure is on.
For over eleven years, since the ANC took power, whites have been increasingly and deliberately marginalised. The ANC has made it very clear that they are not welcome here, unless they ' toe the ANC line'. ANC wants whites to 'behave like dogs beneath their feet"...
The ANC, in line with Marxist organisations everywhere, believes that the entire country must be turned into one vast slave labour camp, where the entire population, zombie-like, follows every dictate of the leaders, believes every statement they make, accepts their version of history, never questions their utterances, and (in the case of the whites) like a dog that is kicked by its owner, comes grovelling back with the attitude of, "We are not worthy of your benign rule. We deserve to be ground underfoot, for we are such curs, and we have behaved so badly, and all we ask is to be allowed to sit whimpering at your feet, where we belong." This is their goal, and they are going all out to achieve it.

For whites in South Africa, it's been an incredibly rocky ride, and it's going to get even rockier. Make no mistake about it.

10-Jan-2006 08:30

* For non-South African readers: the "necklace" was a method of execution used by the ANC 'liberation army guerillas" whereby black 'sellouts to apartheid" were cruelly torched to death with petrol-filled tyre placed around their necks. Some 400 people were burnt alive by this ANC-horror execution. "The ANC, like its Marxist buddies throughout the continent, could very well eventually reach the stage where attendance at their rallies will be compulsory. .. I would not be surprised if eventually we (whites and Afrikaners) all have to line up and have our ID books stamped to prove that we attended a "Reconciliation Day' ceremony." -- by Shaun Willcock, a minister of the Gospel in South Africa

PETER HITCHENS ON NELSON MANDELA.

Written by Rupert Hickory (21 May 2004)

On Monday 10 May 2004, the ex-Trotskyite now Conservative journalist, Peter Hitchens, broadcast on Channel Four “’Mandela: Beneath the Halo.’’ His major attack at times seemed to be largely against Mandela’s fellow prisoner on Robben Island, Thabo Mbeki, especially on AIDS. But even at those times Hitchens haply thought he would get more attention by attacking him indirectly via Nelson Mandela. He is, after all, a more well known target.
Is Mandela a saint? Hitchens says he does not deserve the halo that the left has put on him. He is a good man, but not a saint. However, Hitchens is keen to make clear that he is not out to deny that Mandela is a special character. This is no ordinary man, he says. Mandela's long gaol sentence, and how he bore it, shows that he is special, but on coming out of gaol he once again became an ordinary politician. Hitchens laments that he neglected AIDS and he has neglected other problems also. The African National Congress (ANC) was long associated with the late USSR and that prolonged apartheid, says Hitchens. It was only after the fall of the USSR that the real and effective opposition got underway and he says it was Mrs Thatcher that played a major role in it. Nelson Mandela knows that fact and he always visits her whenever he is in London. She gave great support to President De Klerke who in turn did a great deal to aid Mandela's rise to power.

Hitchens is not going to deflate Mandela completely and he half goes along with the idea that he is a great man, but it seems clear that the man has next to no merit. He bore his time on Robben Island with many others and almost anyone would be happy to face prison when they have just been let off an expected death sentence, as Mandela did. Some would sooner have death than loss of liberty, as famously Patrick Henry boasted, but most men would haply sooner face gaol. So, contra Hitchens, there seems to be nothing exceptional in that. As a terrorist, Mandela can hardly complain much about his punishment. There would seem to be little substance in Mandela but Hitchens did not want to go that far. He was at pains to make that clear.

The nationalist government left a big debt of a £100 million, says Hitchens. Mandela got rid of it by arms sales. Mandela was then shown as saying there was nothing wrong with arms sales. But Hitchens tends to think there is and he said that usually the left has held that there is. Hitchens then pointed out that they were sold to troubled spots like Rwanda, where a million people were killed, to the Congo where three million were killed, to Indonesia and to Algeria where there was also plenty of conflict.

The ANC also bought lots of arms when they did not need them, said Hitchens, for they had no enemies. There were rumours of corruption. Tony Yengeni was arrested but soon released pending an appeal. All those deals were set in motion by Nelson Mandela. Many criticise the ANC for this but few extend the criticism to Mandela himself. Patricia De Lillie MP worked hard to expose the scandal and she got death treats in response. Hitchens put it to her that it is odd to criticise the ANC and not Mandela as they are more or less one and the same, and she laughed in agreement.

Hitchens says there is great inequality in today’s South Africa. Hitchens seemed to be relapsing into his Trotskyite past even more with this point than with his earlier one. There is a very large underclass in South Africa, he says. Many now say that the ANC is Thatcherite and in that respect way worse than was the National Party. But that is an odd thing for the now Conservative Hitchens to say. Many whites left after the ANC came to power but those who stayed on held that Nelson Mandela saved the nation from civil war. Hitchens says that Thatcherism tends to neglect the poor. The ANC cleared up the old shanty towns but new ones shot up to replace them. Households are allowed 1300 gallons of free water each month but over that they have to pay for it, and Hitchens feels few can really afford it. One woman openly said that she preferred things before the ANC came to power. She thought that the National Party were better. Ex-ANC members like Trevor Wgwane, now in the Anti-privatisation Forum says that Mandela panders to the capitalist class. Hitchens accepts all this as if it was useful stuff but it is clearly unrealistic dogma. There is no chance of a class struggle in the Marxist sense and Marx’s main example of it in wage bargaining was ironically a self-refuting counter example. All bargaining, including that over wage rates, will be a pocket of zero sum within an overall positive sum game. Anywhere they settle will be within the area where their interests are mutual and thus common. Throughout this lot I was beginning to wonder whether the ANC was a party worth supporting after all. If they are privatising then presumably they are freeing up things for most of the population to make a go of things. They can hardly do much better than that. It is the open market that allows people to make a go of things.

Hitchens then tells us that there is a murder or attempted murder every twelve minutes in today’s South Africa. A lot of this is the crimes carried out on the whites by blacks in Johannesburg but it is even worse elsewhere. This violent crime is rising rather than falling. That clearly scotches liberty, for to be free we need the streets to be safe to use at will.
Nelson Mandela’s worst legacy, says Hitchens, is his appointed successor, Thabo Mbeki. He is far more concerned with race than Mandela ever was. Mbeki delivered hardly disguised treats against the judiciary who have attempted to uphold the rule of law, that he seems to be opposed to. Mbeki says the judges ought to pay more attention to the people, by which he seems to mean the ANC. Chief Buthelezi has complained that he is out to set up a one party state and that by encouraging the act of crossing the floor of the parliament he is getting all to join the ANC. Helen Suzman says there was far more free speech in the days of the National Party than there is today. Hitchens says that Mbeki seems to be in favour of totalitarianism. He seems to be near the mark here as Mbeki does seem to be fairly intolerant and keen to exercise more control, but how does this fit in with his privatisation programme? Mbeki would seem to have an inconsistent outlook.

We are then shown Nelson Mandela with Fidel Castro. He is celebrating Castro’s rule but, Hitchens tells us, the gaols he rules over are way worse than Robben Island ever was. Hitchens seems to recall that he is now a Conservative once more as he criticises Castro as a despot. Then Mandela is shown shouting “long live Castro!’’ as Hitchens moves on to announce that Mandela also likes Gaddafi, whom Hitchens also criticises as a despot. Mandela is then shown walking arm in arm with Mugabe. This leads Hitchens into the ANC policy on land reform. It pledges land reform but 86% of the farms are still held by whites. Many in the ANC admire what is going on in Zimbabwe, and Mugabe is generally held in high esteem in South Africa. There have been many attacks on white farmers. An even more favourite class of victims are the Indian farmers, who are thought to be a soft target and if anything they are attacked to a greater extent. Many of the Indians have been forced out of their homes and they have lost everything. Hitchens says that it is clear that the rule of law in South Africa today is in danger. Here the state is shown to be indifferent to thuggishness and to be slowly going over to what we see from Mugabe in Zimbabwe, to their north.

Mandela ignored AIDS whilst he was in power but since he has focussed on it to a greater extent.

By contrast Thabo Mbeki doubts that there is a link between AIDS and HIV and he often expresses the idea that the whole thing is greatly exaggerated. The mythology around Mandela has made the AIDS problem worse as it has helped excuse Mbeki’s stance on it. However, how much is AIDS the business of the state? Surely it is a health issue that is mainly a matter of individual responsibility.

The worship of Mandela also obfuscates many real problems that South Africa faces today. Hitchens concludes that it would be more realistic to treat Mandela more as a real person with real problems that he tends to ignore rather than to face up to. Hitchens wants people to forget the halo.

Rupert Hickory

Atrocities of the Marxist ANC'Truth' commission reveals Mandela's bloody path to power

SOUTH AFRICA'S WAR

CRIMESAtrocities of the Marxist ANC'Truth' commission reveals Mandela's bloody path to power

Posted: July 3, 20001:00 a.m. Eastern
By Anthony LoBaido© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily international correspondent Anthony C. LoBaido has lived and traveled extensively throughout southern Africa over the past decade. His stories have covered the private apartheid special forces army Executive Outcomes, the war in Angola, and farm massacres of whites in Zimbabwe. In this first of a three-part series, LoBaido documents the crimes committed by the Marxist African National Congress, or ANC, during its war against the apartheid regime in South Africa. In Part II, tomorrow, LoBaido chronicles the misdeeds of the right wing.
By Anthony Lobaido © 2000, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.

South Africa's "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" -- ostensibly set up to cleanse that nation's psyche of its tortured past -- is finding that the Marxist revolution fought there between 1948 and 1994 witnessed a departure from the normal rules of war by both the communist African National Congress and the Christian, pro-West Afrikaner government.
The TRC's official goal is to investigate crimes committed by both the Marxist ANC and the right-wing government during the apartheid era. Crimes committed by other groups, including the Inkatha Freedom Party, or by AZAPO, the Azanian People's Organization, are also being investigated. If those charged with crimes promise to tell all they know to the commission, they can be granted amnesty.

Under ongoing hearings before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the sordid and often macabre blood sport that characterized this war has been leaking out in dribs and drabs to a global audience. Most of those appearing before the TRC can apply for amnesty and escape prosecution if they admit their guilt.

Many have chosen this route and testified against either the Afrikaner apartheid leadership or the African National Congress. Others, like Winnie Mandela, ex-wife of Nelson Mandela, and former South African President P.W. Botha, have maintained their innocence to the very end.
The African National Congress at first denounced a parliamentary bill granting amnesty for those who request it from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The feeling among the ANC was that it would provide a blanket amnesty for the torture and killings conducted by the right. However, as more and more of the ANC's misdeeds are exposed, some have concluded that the Marxist organization is also in need of blanket amnesty.

The misdeeds of the Soviet-sponsored African National Congress have been well chronicled. It operated under and parallel to the South African Communist Party, established in the early 1920s as the first Communist Party outside the Soviet Union. In fact, the party was set up under the slogan, "Whites of South Africa unite to keep South Africa white."

Throughout the Cold War, the Russians provided training and advisors to the ANC. Russia sent troops and billions of dollars in arms to fight a war in Angola against the Afrikaners. This was a part of the Brezhnev Doctrine to "seize the strategic mineral treasure chest of Southern Africa and deny these materials to the Western military industrial complex." These minerals include titanium, used to build fighter jets, and zirconium oxide, a rare commodity used to sheathe nuclear reactor fuel.

The crimes committed by the ANC in the name of liberation are legion. First, there was the practice of "necklacing," in which a gasoline-filled tire is placed around the neck of a victim and set ablaze -- an action carried out by Winnie Mandela and her minions. Another horror was the "Church Street Massacre," in which Nelson Mandela approved of a bomb set to explode at rush hour to maximize casualties of Afrikaner women, children and babies.

The same Mandela who told the black youth of South Africa to "burn down" their schools has produced a lawless, unemployable generation. Mandela recently traveled to Libya and presented Qaddafi with South Africa's highest military medal.

More bizarre yet is the saga of Executive Outcomes, a private army of Afrikaner special forces who fight on behalf of the ANC and Western multinational corporations around the world.
ANC death camps in Angola Through the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the gulags of northern Angola -- where the ANC mutilated and tortured cadres who would not go along with the terrorist campaign -- have also been brought to light. The ANC has admitted that torture and "staggering brutality" were committed at their Angolan re-education camps in the 1980s and "could have caused prisoner deaths." In an internal report, the ANC documented 17 eyewitness accounts of detainees who survived the camps.

"The ANC routinely violated its own code of conduct with physical and psychological torture," said the report. One detainee has written a book about the camps, which he referred to as "a scene from [the film] 'Spartacus.'"

The report -- which was authored by two ANC officials and an independent advocate -- did not single out any ANC members responsible directly for torture, although it is believed the late ANC activist Chris Hani was involved. Nelson Mandela has refused to apologize for what he said were "inexcusable" violations of human rights during the ANC's terror campaign against the white-led regime. Mandela did, however, admit that torture occurred at ANC prisons and camps. But the report now documents that this abuse was widespread and far-reaching. Torture and murder occurred not only in Angola, but also in ANC re-education camps in Uganda and Tanzania.

This report was a major embarrassment to the ANC, which had been lionized in the West for its war to end apartheid and install a supposedly democratic government in South Africa. Detainees recounted in the report that they were tortured for disagreeing with Marxist orthodoxy, refusing to carry out bombings of civilians, being accused of spying, questioning ANC policy, or trying to leave the organization altogether.

Even the late Joe Slovo, a Lithuanian-born KGB colonel and the main leader of the South African Communist Party through the 1980s and early 1990s, said before his death that "it is possible that people died" in the re-education camps.

WorldNetDaily has now had the chance to examine the report, which reads in part:

"The worst conditions were at the Quatro camp in Angola, where guards and medical assistants were universally hostile. The inmates, whether convicted of any offense or not, were denigrated, humiliated and abused, often with staggering brutality. Prisoners were forced to crawl through piles of red ants, thrown down into trenches and then made to crawl out while guards poured dirt into the hole. Others were denied food, water and medical treatment. One prisoner had boiling water poured on his head. His head was then regularly struck against a tree to prevent healing. Prisoners were beaten to force confessions. Some prisoners were executed by firing squads for taking part in mutinies, beaten to death for infractions of military discipline or died of malaria and other illnesses in detention. From the late 1970s until 1991, suspected spies were imprisoned for up to eight years without any hearing, tortured to extract confessions, and beaten with sticks and wires."

Ironically, the ANC accused the white-led South African police of conducting torture of black cadres in a similar manner.

The report continues: "We were left with an overall impression that for the better part of the '80s, there existed a situation of extraordinary abuse of power and lack of accountability at the prisons. Order in the exile camps began to break down after the 1976 black student uprising in Soweto, which brought a flood of new and younger volunteers into the guerrilla training centers. Many of the new recruits were poorly educated, impatient to fight, given to drinking and drugs. Some were secret agents sent by the South African police. Thus the ANC gave its security department, called "Mbokodo" [the Xhosa word for "grinding stone"] unchecked power to investigate, judge and punish recruits."

The panel that compiled the report also learned the names of accused torturers, some of whom still hold posts in the ANC's security apparatus. The actual names were withheld from the published report, but are known to the ANC hierarchy. Two ANC leaders were directly named, however: Joe Modise, the former head of the ANC's military wing, and Jacob Zuma, the former ANC secretary general. Neither was accused of torture.

However, Modise was cited as being part of a tribunal that in 1981 improperly arrested Dumisani Khosa, a producer for the ANC's underground radio station. Khosa was arrested for "complaining about nepotism and sexual harassment" within the ANC. The report states that Khosa was "beaten until he urinated blood, then shipped to the Quatro camp in Angola where he was held for more than three years."

Others implicated in the report are ANC representatives in Zambia and Uganda, as well as one of Mandela's former bodyguards.

Rape capital of the world Media coverage of the new South Africa has been muted at best, rarely focusing on ANC-sponsored anarchy. Indeed, South Africa, once a rich and prosperous pro-West, first-world nation, has decayed into anarchy over the past six years.
There is a rape every 26 seconds -- only one in 35 of which is reported. In 1998, the official South African rate was 104.1 rapes per 100,000 people; in the U.S., it was 34.4 per 100,000. The "rape generation" of black males aged 20 to 29 have around a 40-percent HIV infection rate, according to some estimates. Many young blacks erroneously believe that if they rape a virgin, they will be cured of AIDS.

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno has now dispatched FBI officials to help 20 South African courts to train prosecutors and investigators to try sex crimes. Yet there is little evidence that this help from the U.S. Justice Department has made a positive impact. The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa even banned a television ad against rape because the ad "was deemed to be anti-male."

Miranda Friedman, a leader of Women Against Child Abuse, said, "We sent 250,000 signatures to the ANC government for stiffening rape sentences, but they still haven't been implemented."
"The rape issue is three-fold," said Narina Van der Merve, an Afrikaner police spokeswoman, in an exclusive interview with WorldNetDaily. "First, Mandela telling the youth to burn down their schools and not learn Afrikaans. Second, Mandela emptying all the jails of rapists and murderers -- this is a classic tool of terror on the populace by communists the world over. Third, the ANC-mandated affirmative action programs." "Most of the affirmative action-appointed police can't read or write," said Van der Merve. "So they can't even write up a rape report. It's a bloody joke. We have concluded that one in three women in South Africa will be raped in their lifetime. But I promise you, there is going to be a war in this country. The whites and decent blacks -- Zulus, Coloreds and Indians -- they are all fed up with the ANC and their Marxist lies. We are already in a war, only it's the black communists who are killing and raping. But they have woken up the tiger inside the Afrikaner, and there is going to be a big payback for them."

The case of Amy Biehl

While the crimes of the right wing under apartheid have been for the most part state-orchestrated or carried out by the extreme right wing, the crimes and murders of the left can appear haphazard and disorganized. Unless, of course, they are "framed together in a pattern of Leninist 'anarcho-tyranny' to cow the populace into submission," adds Van der Merve.

There is no greater example of this phenomenon than the murder of a white American college student named Amy Biehl of Newport Beach, Calif. She came to South Africa in the early 1990s to work with blacks and help them prepare for the 1994 elections. She was a Fulbright scholar who lived in a black township and generally interacted with the ANC Marxist cadres in a peaceful manner.

In August of 1993, Biehl was attacked by a group of black youths chanting communist slogans like, "One settler [Afrikaner or Boer farmer], one bullet!" Biehl was stabbed innumerable times and had her head bashed open with bricks.

At the Truth and Reconciliation Hearings, Biehl's attackers testified about the event. Three of the four youths who testified finally admitted that they were part of the mob that set upon her. A fourth youth, Vusumzi Ntamo, admitted hurling stones at Biehl's head as she lay dying in a township outside Cape Town.

The youths tried to evade their 18-year jail terms by claiming that the killing was political and not criminal. Ntamo acknowledged that he was too ignorant to understand any political theory.
Biehl's father, Peter, and mother, Linda, appeared at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission trial and actually shook hands with the murderers of their daughter. Mr. Biehl read a poem to the youths before embracing them. Mongezi Manqina -- who admitted he applied the fatal stab wound to Biehl's chest -- wiped away a single tear from his eyes as Mr. Biehl read the poem.
Says Van der Merve, who attended the TRC Hearings on Amy Biehl, "I don't want to be rude or insensitive, as I would have done anything to prevent this killing. But the Biehl family just doesn't get it. They are what Lenin would call the 'useful idiots' of a Marxist revolution. Their own daughter, the girl they raised from a baby to adulthood, was horribly murdered by these animals, and they just shake the hands of the killers. This is the mentality of the liberals."
Pauline Naidu, a South African of Indian descent, told WorldNetDaily, "I was attacked by some blacks in Durban at the cash machine. They beat me up horribly. It used to be 'your money or your life.' Now it's 'your money and your life.' It's just madness. Still, I wasn't raped or shot -- so I am thankful."

The master plan

Many whites have fled South Africa during the last six years of ANC rule -- almost one-third, according to some statistics. Nelson Mandela has pleaded with whites to stay in the country, and even begged for those who left to live in Canada, Israel and New Zealand to return to help rebuild the nation.

In recent weeks, current South African President Thabo Mbeki (who admits he grew up memorizing the works of Karl Marx) has announced that South Africa has formed an alliance with communist China. For decades, South Africa had helped Taiwan, but last year, Mandela switched official recognition from Taiwan to China. Mbeki has applauded the seizures of white-owned farms in neighboring Zimbabwe, even as ANC black revolutionary cadres step up their terror campaign against white farmers in South Africa. His communist flank secure, Mbeki recently announced in a speech to parliament that he is effectively handing over control of South Africa's economy to international financier George Soros and a group of 12 Western transnational corporations.

TOMORROW -- Assassinations by the right wing: Afrikaner offenses against anti-apartheid activists come to light

Anthony C. LoBaido is a longtime contributor to WorldNetDaily.com who lives in St. Louis. Visit his blog at purejournalism.blogspot.com.

Behind 'The Third Boer War'

I found this article very interesting

Posted: April 18, 20011:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: This column is the story behind Anthony LoBaido's recently published epic novel, "The Third Boer War."

The story of how I came to write "The Third Boer War is stranger than the fictional plot of the novel itself. It was a 10-year odyssey that challenged my will and faith at a level I had never before experienced.

Between June and December of 1991 I traveled to South Africa to complete the foreign journalism internship for my master's degree at Baylor University in Texas -- where I had earned a full scholarship for an International Journalism degree. South Africa was the epitome of my youth. While working in South Africa, then still pro-West, Christian and anti-Communist and anti-globalist, I became the first and only journalist in the world to gain entrance into the elite, mercenary-run training camps of South Africa's Afrikaner Resistance Movement. These investigations produced ground-breaking journalism.

My articles were featured in the South African Sunday Star, Durban Times, Belgium Way Press (translated into French) and Soldier of Fortune magazine. Former South African President F.W. De Klerk even used photographs appearing with my articles in his campaign to dismantle Apartheid in the March 1992 referendum. Nelson Mandela went on national television holding a copy of one of my stories, railing against the anti-communist Afrikaners. Of course the liberal Newsday -- my hometown Long Island newspaper which I delivered in rain, snow or sunshine for years as a young boy -- rejected all of these stories outright.

Can you imagine that?

Using my Afrikaans language (the Dutch/German hybrid spoken by the Boer/Afrikaners) ability as a gateway, I was able to get inside the Afrikaner mentality in a way that few other foreign/Western journalists had ever been able to. I was given a unique insight into the complexities of South Africa's contemporary geopolitical situation. Most prominent of these was the 30-year "Border War" the Afrikaners fought in Angola against the Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany and other Soviet allies who tried to invade their nation.

Of course most Americans have been totally brainwashed about the Afrikaners and South Africa. In general, the public has been told that the Afrikaners are Nazis who hate blacks. Movies like "Lethal Weapon 2" have sadly only fueled this propaganda lie of the leftist, Marxist Hollywood elite.

The reality is of course, 180 degree in the opposite direction. The Afrikaners carved the richest and most prosperous nation out of the wilderness of Africa. They fought and bled and died for Great Britain and America in World War I and II. (Despite the fact that the British killed 26,000 Afrikaner women and children in the world's first concentration camps during the Boer War 1899-1902). Afrikaner pilots fought for South Korea -- along with the Rhodesians -- during the Korean War. Yet South Korea voted for anti-South Africa and anti-Rhodesia sanctions at the United Nations after all they did for Seoul at their darkest hour.

The Afrikaners even helped Israel to build their own nuclear weapons. Could there be anything more anti-Nazi than arming Jews in Israel with their own atomic arsenal against their Soviet-backed Islamic jihad adversaries?

Of course not.

The Afrikaners in general were and are the greatest people I have ever encountered -- and I have lived, worked and traveled to the four corners of the Earth. They are tough and rugged and Christian. Their ruggedness exceeds that even of the Israelis and South Koreans. The Afrikaners were against abortion, which was illegal in their nation from the 1600's until the ANC took over in 1994. Television was kept out of South Africa until the mid 1970s. Pornographic magazines were also illegal until the late 1980s. Shops in South Africa closed on Saturday afternoon to prepare for the Sunday Sabbath.

All in all, despite the many egregious flaws of Apartheid, South Africa was a maverick, Christian, anti-communist, pro-West nation and the brightest outpost of Christian, European civilization in all of Africa. The Afrikaners were also the key member of an anti-communist alliance during the Cold War featuring El Salvador, Chile, Taiwan and Israel. When America would not help the Contras any longer, it was the Afrikaners who sent arms -- and the means and will to take out Marxists like Bishop Romero in El Salvador. When the American Congress lied about helping South Africa stop the Soviets and Cubans in Angola, it was left, as always to the Afrikaners, to handle the communists on their own. And then did -- as always.

Yes, the human-rights abuses under Apartheid committed by the government hit squads -- led by lunatics like Eugene de Kock and Dr. Wauter Basson -- are the epitome of evil. But they represent one tenth of one percent of the Afrikaner nation. These crimes and, in fact, the entire war in South Africa were committed in the suppression of a Marxist terrorist war, launched by the Soviet-trained African National Congress. The truth be known, some of these crimes were so horrible that I would have probably joined the ANC myself had I known about them in the early 1990s.

On the other side of the coin, the ANC's crimes are legion. These included putting tires filled with petrol around the necks of their enemies and lighting them on fire. Terrorist bombings of Afrikaner women and children - like the infamous Church Street attack -- represent the very worst of this asymmetrical campaign. The ANC also tortured and murdered its own black communist cadres -- especially in the Angola terrorist training camps. Nelson Mandela even ordered and then covered up the slaughter of unarmed Zulus at the Shell House massacre after he was released from prison.

The Mandela myth

Not many people realize that Nelson and Winny Mandela have a great deal of blood on their hands. Despite the lies spread to the gullible American public on Oprah and Larry King, even Mandela admits in his autobiography that he should have been summarily executed for his crimes. He spent little time at Robbin Island, and actually lived under house arrest in a comfortable estate complete with every amenity imaginable.

Speaking of the Mandela myth, only last week, Harry Wu, perhaps the world's leading human-rights dissident told me, "When I think of [Nelson] Mandela, I feel very sad. When he became president of South Africa, he abandoned Taiwan and recognized China instead. Taiwan and [anti-communist, Apartheid] South Africa had been close allies. Mandela has extensive human rights knowledge. He may not be a communist, but the new leader of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki is definitely a communist. Recently he went to Cuba to meet with Castro, and he was trained in Moscow."

Nelson Mandela, upon his ascent to power, legalized abortion and advanced the homosexual agenda. He even put homosexual rights in South Africa's new constitution -- the first time this was done in the history of civilization. The country has been overrun with illegal immigrants, pornography, AIDS and crime. Mandela, in true Marxist fashion, even emptied the jails of all the rapists and murderers. This is known as "anarcho-tyranny," and has led to a general state of anarchy in "The New South Africa," just has it has in Venezuela and the New Indonesia under their de facto Marxist governments.

Furthermore, Mandela told his cadres to "burn down their schools," meaning the whites', and not to learn Afrikaans, which he called the "language of the oppressor." Of course Mandela did give his inaugural address when he became president in Afrikaans. In that way he reminds one of Cambodia's Pol Pot, who spoke French fluently, yet sent anyone else who spoke French to the Killing Fields. Mandela's illiterate and unemployable minions, who now run the nation, have led South Africa down the slippery slope of anarchy.

Mandela traveled to Libya, where he awarded Muammar Gadhafi South Africa's highest medal of military honor. Both Mandela and Gadhafi have committed numerous terrorist acts. Mandela ordered the famous Church Street bombing, which went off at rush hour to maximize casualties of Afrikaner women, children and babies.

Considering Nelson and Winny Mandela's blood-stained track record -- their support of abortion, pornography, Marxism, communism, the homosexual agenda, world government, necklacing, free sex, murder, terrorism, sanctions and propaganda -- they stand as a prototype of the Antichrist who is to come. Not only are they not condemned for these actions, they are actually praised for them. When Nelson Mandela traveled to Libya and gave Gadhafi South Africa's highest medal of honor barely anyone in the West raised an eyebrow. Remnant believers and those not fooled by these lies will immediately call to mind 2 Thessalonians, Chapter 2, which speaks of the "Great delusion of the end times."

And that is really the point of "The Third Boer War."

The world is out of control and we must look at our own lives and our own sins and repent. We must be preparing for judgment, as Americans, a part of Western Civilization and, human beings on planet Earth. We must realize that most basic lesson of all -- there is good and evil in every race, culture, creed, nation and political party.

A strange dark light of evil has swept over the world, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Sometimes that evil can appear as beautiful as Donna Dixon, the star of "Spies Like Us." And this dark is so powerful that it takes the very call of the Lord to pull us out of this terrestrial world -- which Satan has seemingly taken hold over at a frighteningly accelerating pace, leaving one breathless.

I wrote "The Third Boer War" between 1992 and 1994. It took 2,000 hours of research and writing to do so. That is 40 hours per week for 50 weeks. I spent my life savings writing that book. I dropped out of my Ph.D. program at Texas A&M to do so. I lived like an animal with Vietnamese immigrants at one point. I sold my plasma and even took experimental pharmaceuticals in clinical tests for money to buy food. I ruined my back while hunched over the computer all those hours, but I don't regret one minute of it.

Return to South Africa In February of 1995, I once again traveled to South Africa to try and sell The Third Boer War. I immediately found a promising lead from Chris Van Rensberg Publishers. When I called them and spoke about my idea for the novel, they were positively ecstatic. They told me, "We will rush right up to Sunnyside [a suburb of Pretoria] and get the book from you. Don't even show it to any other publisher."

And true to their word, they did come up almost immediately to my apartment and take the novel for consideration. We even signed a preliminary agreement. They were indeed going to publish it, but then were afraid that the ANC would cancel their government publishing contracts, so they backed off the project.

Later, the head of J.P. Van der Walt and Sons, the oldest publisher in South Africa personally read the novel and loved it. He wanted to publish it in Afrikaans but only if I could first find an English language publisher to publish it in the UK or USA. I tried countless hundreds of publishers in the U.S. and Europe, but only Macmillan was interested in seeing more chapters.
It seems that a novel that was Christian, anti-communist, pro-European, anti-abortion, spoke of the end times, the Antichrist, angels, the UFO delusion and the Mandela myth was against the entire agenda of the liberal transnational elite who have taken almost complete hold of Western Civilization and hence, the world. Since political power cannot be fully achieved until cultural power is fully seized, "The Third Boer War" was shut out.

Yes, my novel had been blocked -- first by ANC pressure and then the economic collapse of South Africa. But other wheels were in motion as well.

When I had returned to South Africa in 1995, I was also able to write about Executive Outcomes, a private, mercenary army run by ex-Special Forces members of the SADF. Executive Outcomes fights around Africa and the world on behalf of multinational corporations in search of lucrative mineral rights. Even "60 Minutes" ran a segment on Executive Outcomes, only it came years after my own story, and failed to speak of any of EO's connections to the DeBeer's diamond cartel and upper echelons of the Marxist ANC and British government.
During this time I was also asked to speak on Radio Donkerhoek, the last "free" radio station in all of South Africa. This station was run by Commander Willem Ratte, one of the Special Forces leaders of the SADF's war in Angola against the Soviets. Eeben Barlow, the head of Executive Outcomes, told me personally that Ratte was "the most professional soldier in the history of the SADF."

Ratte is a national hero who was imprisoned by the ANC on false charges. He is the one man the ANC truly fears. After I spoke on Radio Donkerhoek with Ratte -- about the ANC and globalist agenda -- two days later, Nelson Mandela sent in the army, complete with helicopters, to shut down the radio station. Such is the ANC's fear of the truth.

Of course silly me, I had no idea that so many people were paying attention to me. I should have known better. Back in 1991, George Bush Sr. had sent 300 CIA agents to Pretoria to assist De Klerk in betraying the nation to the ANC terrorists. Bush even has a display at his Texas A&M library promoting his "foreign policy achievement" of this betrayal. Ironically, in the summer of 1993, I was hired by Texas A&M and President Bush to produce a documentary on his life to raise the many millions to build that library. That video was featured on CNN on Aug. 8, 1993.
One Afrikaner intelligence agent told me that the ANC had several agents assigned to watching me during my 1995 trip. Back in 1991, a top man at the American embassy, Barry Walkey had even called my little cottage at Rand Afrikaans University to check up on me. British intelligence had called The Sunday Star to raise a fuss about my popular articles.

Of course, the British had long sought to bring back South Africa into the Commonwealth. MI-6 Intelligence understood all too well that once the South African people understood that the Afrikaners were Christians who saw anti communist blacks as brothers, and also hated Nazism, they would no longer be afraid to stand up for what was right.

Membership in the Afrikaner Resistance Movement increased by 50,000 after my articles were run. This multicultural alliance led eventually to the "Freedom Front" which but for a last-minute CIA-inspired split would no doubt have saved South Africa from its current Marxist and globalist anarchy.

During this time, the famous Peter Hawthorne of Time magazine contacted his New York office on my behalf and asked that I be given the chance to write a story on the Afrikaner rightists. Of course, the blue-eyed boys in New York refused.

To me it was just one giant game of wiffle ball in the back yard, a pseudo fantasy in which I had become the character in my own novel. Yet it was all chillingly real and deadly serious.
In the end, "The Third Boer War" challenges the reader to ask many difficult questions. Most prominent of these is the nature of white supremacy and its 21st century agenda. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro -- a big fan of Afrikaner military supremacy -- has recently stated that the Western-led, one-world global economy has its roots in the Nazi Holocaust. Castro has even requested to hold Nuremberg style trials for the white, transnational corporate elite of the Western World.

A quick perusal of the Nazi agenda in the 1930s and 1940s would include homosexual rights (Hitler used the Brown Shirts, then killed them off in the "Night of the Long Knives"), eugenics, abortion, euthanasia, a corporate-government business alliance and the persecution of Jews and Christians. One cannot forget the alliance with Marxism (Hilter's pact with Stalin, however brief, mirrors Clinton lunatic and delusional "strategic partnership" with the butchers of Communist China). How sad it must be for liberals in America to see how close their agenda is to Adolf Hitler. Just who are the real Nazis today? Is it the Afrikaners, who gave the Jews the atomic bomb? Or the liberals who run the halls of power in America, Europe, Canada and Australia?
My days in South Africa were the greatest I have ever known. When South Africa died, a part of me died along with it. Yet the Afrikaners did teach me who the real enemy was: China, Russia, Shiite Islam, Marxism, the United Nations, Socialist International, Madison Avenue, Hollywood, the Marxist-leaning U.S. State Department and the Federal Reserve Bank. For that, I will always be grateful to them.

The joy I had standing in the light of the brave Afrikaner Christians, and their Zulu and Indian allies is something I shall never forget. Indeed, since that time, I have devoted my life to helping persecuted non-white Christians like the Karen of Burma, Hmong of Laos, Montagnards of Vietnam, South Lebanon, UNITA in Angola, South Sudan and, of course, the Kurds.

Many readers ask me, "Will there be a Third Boer War?" Certainly that is possible. The murder of white farmers in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia and South Africa is a bad omen. As are the killings of whites recently in Wichita and the Seattle Fat Tuesday riots. Whites have had it too easy and too good for far too long -- and certainly Western civilization today stands at its greatest crisis since the days prior to the invasion of Genghis Kahn and the creation of the Magna Carta which turned back the divine right of kings.

There is a prophecy well known to the Afrikaners that says they will once again rule South Africa. The prophet was a man named Nicolaas Siener (Afrikaans for "Seer") van Rensburg. To even mention this prophecy terrifies the ANC, which has proven to be a total failure at "running" this once great nation.

In the book, "Voice of a Prophet" by Adriaan Snyman, Seer van Rensburg's prophecies about the Afrikaners were brought to light. Some 100 years ago van Rensburg, had more than 700 visions about the future of South Africa and the rest of the world. He was a modern Nostradamus who became a legend during his lifetime. Between 1899 and his death in 1926 he correctly predicted the outcome of the Boer War, the Great Flu epidemic of 1918, the UK's loss of all her colonies, Independence for Ireland, the atomic disaster at Chernobyl on April 26 1986, the death of Princess Diana of Wales, plagues in Great Britain, civil war in Bosnia, the assassination of Apartheid's grand designer, Dr. H.F. Verwoerd, the former Prime Minister of South Africa, the release of Nelson Mandela by ex-President F.W. De Klerk, and high tech warfare waged from the skies and beyond. Finally, van Rensburg predicted a great racial war in South Africa.
Perhaps the anarchy of the 1990s is a punishment on the Afrikaners for having fallen away from the Lord. After all the Afrikaners -- who endured the Great Trek away from the British and the eventually won victory over the Zulus at Blood River -- stopped their trek at the gold and diamond mines of the Transvaal. Had they continued north, into the heart of Africa, the fate of that glorious continent might have been spared today's Apocalyptic headlines.

Certainly European civilization is killing itself with mass immigration and abortion -- and has never recovered from World Wars I or II when Europe went to war with itself. As Ratte once told me, "Could you imagine South Africa with 30 million whites?" To this I would add, "Could you imagine South Africa today with 50 million whites, blacks, Indians and Asians who love nothing more than God, and hate nothing more than sin and evil?"

However, the Afrikaners have shown the West that we don't have to settle for home-schooling and hiding in our little alienated world while evil antichrists take our birthright and destroy the minds of our children. It is our God-given right to fight for our civilization, culture, land and future. A future that is free of control from the evil elites which now vex our very souls. To paraphrase Churchill, "They will either be at our throat or [dead] at our feet."
Indeed, if we would only stand up and fight them, as our forefathers would have done and did in the American Revolutionary War. It would be better to die with honor than to live in shame. The victory is already ours -- all we need do is claim it.

Certainly the Hmong, Karen, Montagnards, Sudanese, Angolans, South Lebanese, Kurds and others would stand along side us as we battle the new white supremacy and the Nazi agenda. Then there are the blacks, Mexicans, American Indians, Arabs, Orthodox Jews and others who would surely fight with us against the great evils of our time.

We know that if racism every dies it will die one friendship at a time. And in this spirit we know that a new day will one day dawn over Africa. A better day, free of godless Western corporations, AIDS, ivory poachers and mercenaries.

For Anthony LoBaido, despite my many difficulties in publishing this book, I will always have my memories of adventure in South Africa. I will never forget the colorful characters I met, men like Willem Ratte, Eeben Barlow or the firey Eugene Terreblanche. I'll certainly find comfort in the memory of listening to South Africa's radio stations sign off in the wee hours with a reading from the Psalms and a request to God to bless the nation. A Christian South Africa where white people lived free of discrimination -- not the occult, New Age, perversion-preferred, Hollywood-cleavage, abortion-mongering, politically correct basket case into which the America I once knew and still love has decayed.

I'll always remember Aletta, the blonde Afrikaner beauty who once asked me to marry her. And every April Fool's Day I'll think of Carina, another beautiful Afrikaner who stole and broke my heart in a way that eclipsed the pain of my novel being blocked. Nor will I ever forget Davison, Louise, Monty, Corne and Henika and all the rest of the Boer/Afrikaners who brought my adventures to life
.
They're all waiting for you in "The Third Boer War."

Freedom, Not Foreign Aid, For Africa

Freedom, Not Foreign Aid, For Africa by Walter Williams (July 12, 2005)

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is pressuring the rich nations of the world to give more foreign aid to Africa -- to the tune of $25 billion a year by 2010. The U.S. already gave $3.2 billion last year. In the wake of this pressure, we might ask ourselves whether it's foreign aid that Africa needs most for economic development.

A standard myth is there's a "vicious cycle of poverty" that makes economic development virtually impossible for the world's poor nations. This myth holds that poor countries are poor because income is so low that savings cannot be generated to provide the kind of capital accumulation necessary for economic growth. Thus, it is alleged, the only way out of perpetual poverty is foreign aid.

Cartoon by Cox and Forkum

Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.

A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.
Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?

The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.

Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.

Check out the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom." Heading its list of countries with the freest economic systems are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Estonia, Ireland and New Zealand. Bringing up the rear as the countries with little or no economic liberty are: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burundi and the Congo.
It's not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees.

Some economic development "experts" attribute Africa's troubles to its history of colonialism. That's nonsense, because some of the world's richest countries are former colonies, such as the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. In fact, many of Africa's sub-Saharan countries are poorer now than when they were colonies, and their people suffer greater human rights degradations, such as the mass genocide the continent has witnessed.

One unappreciated tragedy that attests to the wasted talents of its peoples is that Africans tend to do well all around the world except in Africa. This is seen by the large number of prosperous, professional and skilled African families throughout Europe and the United States. Back home, these same people would be hamstrung by their corrupt governments.

The worst thing that can be done is to give more foreign aid to African nations. Foreign aid goes from government to government. Foreign aid allows Africa's corrupt regimes to buy military equipment, pay off cronies and continue to oppress their people. It also provides resources for its leaders to set up "retirement" accounts in Swiss banks.

What Africa needs, foreign aid cannot deliver, and that's elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.

Africa: A Tragic Continent

Africa: A Tragic Continent by Walter Williams (August 12, 2003)

Anyone who believes President Bush's Africa initiative, including sending U.S. troops to Liberia, will amount to more than a hill of beans is whistling Dixie. Maybe it's overly pessimistic, but most of Africa is a continent without much hope for its people. Let's look at it.

According to a July 30 Wall Street Journal article, "If Economists Are So Smart, Why Is Africa So Poor?" written by Hoover Institution senior fellows Douglas North, Stephen Haber and Barry Weingast, "two-thirds of African countries have either stagnated or shrunk in real per capita terms since the onset of independence in the early 1960s. ... Most African nations today are poorer than they were in 1980 -- sometimes by very wide margins."

Poverty is not a cause but a result of Africa's problems. According to the Netherlands-based Genocide Watch, since 1960, around the time of independence, about 9 million black Africans have been slaughtered through genocide, politicide and mass murder. The Democratic Republic of the Congo leads the way with 2,095,000, closely followed by the Sudan with 2 million, Nigeria and Mozambique with a million each, Ethiopia 855,000, Rwanda 823,000, Uganda 555,000 and hundreds of thousands more in other countries.

There are a couple of especially sad observations one can make about this aspect of the ongoing tragedy. The first is that if an equivalent number of rhinos, giraffes and lions had been similarly slaughtered, the world would be in an uproar. We'd see demonstrations at the U.N. and African embassies. The second is there was indeed one African country that was the focal point of mass demonstrations, moral outcry and economic reprisals. It was South Africa.

But was South Africa the worst in terms of black lives lost? It turns out that about 5,000 South African blacks lost their lives. Do you see anything wrong with that picture: world silence in the wake of millions upon millions of black lives lost on the rest of the continent but world outrage in the case of South African apartheid and 5,000 lives lost? Might it be that white Africans are held to higher standards of civility; thus their mistreatment of blacks is unacceptable, while blacks and Arabs are held to a lower standard of civility and their mistreatment of blacks is less offensive?

President Bush has pledged to send more foreign aid to some African nations. Foreign aid has historically gone to governments. Instead of helping the poor, foreign aid has enabled African tyrants to buy cronies and military equipment to stay in power, not to mention establishing multibillion dollar "retirement" accounts in Swiss banks, should their regime be toppled.

What African countries need, the West cannot give. In a word, what Africans need is personal liberty. That means a political system where there are guarantees of private property rights and rule of law. It's almost a no-brainer. The "2003 Index of Economic Freedom," published by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, lists Botswana, South Africa and Namibia as "mostly free." World Bank 2002 country per capita GDP rankings put Botswana 89th ($2,980), South Africa 94th ($2,600) and Namibia 111th ($1,700). Is there any mystery why they're well ahead of their northern neighbors, such as Mozambique 195th ($210), Liberia 201st ($150) or Ethiopia 206th ($100)?

The lack of liberty means something else: A nation loses its best and most mobile people first. According to the 2000 census, there were 881,300 African-born U.S. residents. They're doing well in our country, and many are professionals sorely needed back home. While in attendance at a Washington, D.C., Nigerian affair, some years ago, I listened while the Nigerian ambassador admonished the mostly Nigerian audience to come back home. At the table where I was sitting, my Nigerian hosts broke out in near uncontrollable laughter.

G8 and Live 8: Charitable Chowderheads

G8 and Live 8: Charitable Chowderheads by Edward Cline (July 14, 2005)

When the subject of other people’s money and what to do with it comes up in public, it is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between the utterances of celebrities and politicians. By other people’s money, I mean takings in taxes, past, present and future, and what these two diverse yet philosophically symbiotic groups wish to do with it, which is give it away, sans strings, terms, or enforceable conditions.

Last Saturday we were treated to a media orgy that drooled over the noisy, sanctimonious, globe-girding Live 8 rock extravaganza whose chanting message was: End Poverty in Africa NOW! Never mind HOW!

There is a quaint epithet that one can apply to such celebrities and politicians: Chowderheads. A mess of fish and biscuits perfectly describes the moral and intellectual hodge-podge of their brains. It is a stew of ignorance and arrogance that causes them to assume that you won’t mind how politicians spend your money or how rock artists propose to spend it -- nay, demand it be spent on their pet charities and causes. Well, whether or not you mind how the money is spent is a moot point; you don’t have a choice.

You’re the taxpayer, the taken-from, the involuntary donor, the extorted benefactor.
A close, blind analysis of their utterances without accompanying credits would reveal that there is no fundamental difference between the altruist pronouncements of President George W. Bush, Paul McCartney, Madonna, Will Smith, Nelson Mandela, and Prime Minister Tony Blair. They all want to be "virtuous"; they all want to "help." Never mind their millions; they want you to sacrifice.

The test would be to identify who said what, because ingrained, knee-jerk altruism is a leveling phenomenon. It not only allows celebrities and politicians to be sloppy in choosing the objects of their charity, but affects their language and permits them to speak in non sequiturs couched in grammatical solecisms. The only politician who seems to have command of his words is Tony Blair, but that only makes him a more articulate chowderhead.

He is also clueless on the subject of "global warming." One would swear that he has not read a word of the many counter-arguments that the global warming issue is bogus, or that he refuses to allow facts to correct his assumptions about "climate change" -- but that is another issue.
The subject here is Africa. Specifically, its endemic, persistent poverty, and what G8 and Live 8 wish to do about eradicating it.

Now, you would think that after observing for the last half century how Western aid to government-impoverished African nations does not help the inhabitants of those nations -- indeed, how it perpetuates their poverty -- a loudmouth such as Live 8 impresario Bob Geldof, aging and still clueless Paul McCartney, plus Tony Blair, President Bush and the other eminences grise might have come to this conclusion: That only about one half of one percent of the billions poured already into those countries has ever reached the intended beneficiaries, and that the rest went into the coffers of bankrupt dictatorships, besides what found its way into the Swiss bank accounts of the dictators. Another observation they might have made was the contrast between the semi-free economies of the West and what they can produce, and the stagnant, looted economies of Africa and what they can’t produce.

But making causo-connections is not the forte of what the London Daily Telegraph’s Mark Steyn dubbed the "aristorockracy," or the strong suit of the legislating quasi-oligarchy of career politicians, particularly those in the U.S. No, Bob Geldof and his Company of Crooners Against Callousness and Wailers for World Peace want the G8 leaders meeting in Scotland to forgive all African debt, and then just give $25 billion in aid to the debtors. Some lip service was given to "trade concessions." What those might mean in the anti-capitalist rhetoric of Bob Geldof or to the battling anti-G8 demonstrators in Edinburgh, defies analysis. The joke is on Geldof and the subsidized hooligans. The men meeting at Gleneagles are not capitalists, and are not even remotely pro-capitalist. Observe their agenda.

Further, one would like to ask Bob Geldof what he thinks happened to the $60-$70 million he raised in 1985 during his Live Aid concert, and why he doesn’t regard the political and economic nature of the recipient regimes of aid as relevant to the final disposition of $60 million or $50 billion.

Suppose Geldof’s fantasies could be granted, and somehow $25 or $50 billion was immediately allocated to Africa, and, miraculously, none of it was siphoned off by ruling thugs and their bureaucratic minions ala the U.N.’s "food-for-oil" scam. Some stomachs might be filled for a week or a month and some shacks erected and a few selfless Albert Schweitzer wannabes might set up clinics in the shantytowns.

Then what? Well, Geldof and Company do not think that far ahead. Projecting the consequences of impoverishing some Western countries in order to temporarily relieve poverty and hunger elsewhere does is beyond their intellectual aptitude. Free trade? The rule of law? Individual rights? What have they to do with anything? Perhaps the brighter of these champions of limitless charity in legislative chambers or on concert stages might sense that these ideas imply capitalism. But freedom is not what they're advocating; it is enslavement of the free and the living to the needs of the non-free and the half-dead.

And Geldof and Company have the further chowderheadish cheek to complain that while the U.S. has been the biggest donor of aid to Africa, the percentage of its GNP going to that aid is "paltry." It should be bigger. That is, the U.S. should give until it hurts. Geldof’s focus on this particular issue might cause one to suspect that he is not so much concerned about eradicating poverty in Africa as bringing the U.S. down to the level of, say, Nigeria, with its concomitant standard of living.

Perhaps if he saw Americans wallowing in poverty, standing in endless lines for bags of rice and bowls of mush, just like people do in Africa, he would deign to respect this country. Egalitarianism is isn’t a pretty or noble goal, and neither is the soul of anyone who advocates it. "Charity" and "humanitarianism" are sometimes disguises for envy and malice.

Unfortunately, President Bush, ignorant of the nature of his enemies, granted Bob Geldof about an hour of his time in Scotland to vent his sanctimony again and present his non-sequiturs in person. It is this kind of concession to bombastic altruism that dooms civilizations.

In Philadelphia, actor Will Smith opened that arena of hysteria by proclaiming that Live 8 was a "declaration of interdependence." Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg got a 5-minute standing ovation for mouthing platitudes about ending poverty in Africa now, neglecting to mention, however, the poverty-by-policy imposed by his brutal buddy up north, Robert Mugabe, in Zimbabwe, or the war which that killer has declared on all the people he impoverished and continues to starve. Mandela thus proved he is as much a chowderhead as Bob Geldof. Yet the theme of the South African venue of Live 8 was "Africa Standing Tall Against Poverty." Yes, it may stand tall against poverty, but it doesn’t see a thing. Neither do Bob Geldof and President Bush and Tony Blair. LBJ’s "War on Poverty" was a costly failure, too, but that was then, this is now. Don’t bother us with history; we have nothing to learn from it.

Meanwhile, a recent, pre-G8 summit meeting of the African Union in Libya produced some curiously suspect statements. The leitmotif of those statements is: We Want, You Owe. One AU bureaucrat claimed, "We’re tired of the image of Africa as a beggar. Development aid is the way for the West to give back to Africa what it took from us."

Excuse me? What was it the West "took"? And what was destroyed by looting African governments but the incalculable wealth and millions of lives made possible by what the West invested in that continent? A more honest statement would have been a confession, not a finger-pointing: "Well, when the West granted us independence, we proceeded to destroy what it left behind. We had revolutions, civil wars, military coupes, ethnic cleansings, tribal and religious butchery, genocide, nationalizations, and race wars against residual colonials. You kept sending us ‘aid’ that allowed us to do these things. Now we are beggars. We squandered our inheritance, despoiled a legacy, and now we are destitute. Once we were developed. Now we are undeveloped. Sorry. If you bleeding-heart chowderheads really care about us, please don’t send us more aid. It’ll only fund more of the same."

That kind of improbable realism and honesty would cause Bob Geldof’s head to spin on its axis, and the pseudo-Solons of Congress and Parliament pause to utter a collective "Huh?" But the secret message beneath all the AU’s actual complaints about the futility of direct, no-strings aid from the West is merely a plea: Please help us stay in power, we promise not to graft and pillage as much as we used to. We want the chance to trade.

Trade what? On whose and what terms? To whose benefit?

But everyone watching the morning news last Thursday in America saw that Tony Blair was given a reality check by those who do not, as he said, "respect human life." The reality check is that we are still at war with Islamofascism, and that the alleged plight of polar bears in the Arctic and the misery of a continent that will not let go of collectivism and tribalism are luxury concerns of nations not fighting for their existence as free countries.

The terrorist bombings in London that morning were a boast that the last things on the minds of Islamic killers are the prospect of "global warming" and the well-being of Africans, 345 million of them Muslims. They want obedience. They want submission. Period. We may wonder how many Muslims were killed or injured in the London Underground; we may also be sure that the bombers will not wonder at all. Their brothers died for Allah, just as many did in the World Trade Center in September 2001.

It’s a message that one should hope is absorbed by President Bush and Tony Blair and the rest of the chowderheads at the "Give-8" summit in the spacious environs of Gleneagles. Perhaps one or both of them will discard their altruist pretensions, recognizing how destructive or counter-productive they are, and discover the morality of self-interest and self-preservation, and speak with the voice of reason. Then, perhaps, the next time they speak about "saving the world," we won't mistake them for Bob Geldof or Madonna or Pink Floyd. We won't mistake them for chowderheads.

We’ll see them as rational men, and they will have earned our respect.

The Tradgedy Called Africa

The Tradgedy Called Africa by Walter Williams (June 4, 1997)

In terms of natural resources, Africa is the world's richest continent. It has 50 percent of the world's gold, most of the world's diamonds and chromium, 90 percent of the cobalt, 40 percent of the world's potential hydroelectric power, 65 percent of the manganese, millions of acres of untilled farmland as well as other natural resources.

Despite its wealth of resources, Africa is home to the world's most impoverished and abused people. Of the 41 black African nations, only three (Senegal, Botswana and Mauritius) allow their people the right to vote and choose their own leaders. Only two (Botswana and Senegal) permit freedom of expression and criticism of government policies. In countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Mozambique, Sudan, Chad and others, ethnic genocide has taken the lives of untold millions of innocent civilians. Slavery is still practiced in the Sudan, and Mauritania.

African leaders are quick to blame the legacy of colonialism for their troubles. I'll never make an argument for colonialism but the fact of business is that the average African, was better off under colonialism than they have been under independence. For example, when Zaire became in independent in 1960, it had 31,000 miles of main roads; today, less than 3,500 remain usable. Before independence, every African country was self-sufficient in food production; today most depend on imports and others stand at the brink of famine. At the time of independence, the average growth rate among African countries was three percent. By 1980, it had fallen to one percent and by 1990, a negative 2.8 percent. By contrast, African countries with a greater measure of freedom and stability, Botswana, Mauritius, Cameroon and Senegal, have growth rates of 8, 4.4, 4.5 and 1 percent, respectively.

People who think more foreign aid is the solution should know that the money either winds up in the hands of the elite and deposited in Swiss bank accounts or it's used to pay bribes to keep corrupt governments in power. Some African chiefs of states are among the world's richest men, such as Zaire's recently deposed Mobutu. If foreign aid doesn't fall into the hands of kleptocrats, it's used in ways that'd make a lunatic blush such as status symbols, factories and other projects of little or no use.

The legacy of colonialism, used so often by Africans, is a sham excuse that can't hold water. After all some of the world's richest countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong were colonies. What's true about those ex-colonies that's untrue about Africa? The answer is a no-brainer. There's a greater measure of personal liberty, more secure private property rights, more limited and honest government and rule of law.

These features are critical ingredients for peace and prosperity in any country, but even more so for African countries, some of which have over 200 antagonistic ethnic groups. Switzerland was a country with a history of bitter ethnic divisions whose citizens now live in peace. That achievement was made possible by developing a system of limited central government authority with most decisions made at more local government units (cantons). Just as important in conflict reduction was the development of respect for private property, rule of law, and stability in their laws.

Oppressive regimes have always exported their most talented and ambitious people to freer and richer countries. Africans who migrate to the United States do well. As an American, I love that but it's especially devastating for Africa.

Nelson Mandela Shows His True Anti-Freedom (Red) Colors

Interesting Article-I may not agree on everything he says-TheIRAQ war is illegal

Nelson Mandela Shows His True Anti-Freedom (Red) Colors
by Alexander Marriott (February 28, 2003)


Former South African President Nelson Mandela claims the United States wants a holocaust and that President Bush covets Iraqi oil. But what does Mandela want, and has he used any evidence to justify his claims?

The standard line is that he was in jail for 20+ years for fighting against the unjust apartheid policies of the South African government and in doing so, is a hero, and therefore his proclamations cannot be questioned. But Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spent eight years in a Russian gulag because he criticized Stalin in a private letter, an experience he used to write an incredible book, The Gulag Archipelago, which won him the Noble Prize for literature. No one asks him what he thinks of getting rid of dictators, or if he thinks the United States wants a holocaust. Armando Valladares spent 22 years is one of Castro's gulags, which he wrote a book about, Against All Hope, yet he isn't consulted about international affairs. Why is it that Nelson Mandela is covered about his particular views on issues, which he may know nothing about, such as Iraq? Not to say I'm an expert on the matter, but I've never coddled up with dictators like Fidel Castro and Moammar Gadhafi, people who are on par with Saddam.

Mandela, in his speech to an International Women's Forum, said that the reason the US wants war with Iraq is "because Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil in the world. What Bush wants is to get hold of that oil." First of all, as CNN pointed out, Iraq produces 5 percent of the world's oil and second of all, we have a large force in Kuwait right now, if we wanted oil so badly we could just push the Kuwaiti Royal family out of the way and take theirs. Or we could support the capitalists in Venezuela and get rid of the communist ruffian who is redistributing their property, which would make them amiable towards us and sell more oil. Not to mention Western countries have a legal claim on all the oil in the Middle East as the Arab countries stole it all from Britain and France to begin with. Finally the US still has Alaska.

Mandela then said, "If there is a country in the world that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America."

But of course he didn't elaborate further, perhaps trying to show just how unspeakable these "atrocities" are. His supporters then said afterwards he was referring to things like globalization and the fact that the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II.

What!!!??? Japan started a war with the United States; the United States clearly beat them in a conventional war and then demanded their unconditional surrender to end the war. When they refused we were faced with invading the Japanese home islands which could have caused hundreds of thousands of American casualties, not to mention hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese deaths. Or, using atomic weapons, which would cause terrible and swift destruction to show the obstinate rulers of Japan our willingness to destroy their country entirely to end the war, unless they surrendered unconditionally. But even after the first bomb was dropped they still refused to surrender. The Japanese government caused the deaths of their people and soldiers by causelessly attacking a free country and then not giving up when they were clearly going to lose, and then again when they saw that we could easily wipe them off of the planet and were quite willing to do so.

But back to Mandela, he went on to insinuate that the United States and Great Britain were ignoring the United Nations because the Secretary General of that organization is black. Apparently Mandela doesn't know how the UN works, the Secretary Generalship of the UN doesn't matter, all he can do, whether he is black or white or an albino pygmy, is give advice to the UN and go around trying to solve world disputes. As far as the UN doing anything, it requires a vote by the Security Council which contains a brutal communist dictatorship, a semi-socialist country, Russia, along with the United States and Great Britain, as well as a rotating group of temporary members. We're ignoring them because we already have a UN resolution, not to mention numerous others from the past decade; more of them are not going to solve anything. For even if they did pass a resolution to authorize force who do you think would do all the fighting? (Answer: the same people who will do all the fighting without a new resolution, the United States.)

Despite Mandela's blatant misstatement of simple facts (i.e. the amount of oil Iraq produces) and his irrational and unsupported assertions of an American desire for holocaust and our penchant for atrocities, Mandela isn't written off as the loon he is, but is taken seriously.

Some on the Left are even baffled by his comments, but for Mandela, these comments are par for the course in terms of his ideology and actions as president of South Africa. He's always been a socialist, his recent comments merely reaffirm this point, but his wholesale destruction as leader of South Africa have been out there for near a decade now, not to mention the African National Congress' (Mandela's political party) clearly socialist policies and statements for all to read. Apartheid was horrid and unjust, but so was Mandela's socialism, and his atrocious comments on Thursday merely show us why South Africa is the mess that it is today.

source