Posts Tagged ‘nelson mandela’

We Need a Worldview, Not a Universal Outlook

Monday, October 30th, 2017

Let’s assume that Realism is a worldview opposed to any rightist or leftist views. From there we can see that nature may have its own view and that a human Realism should not be seen in isolation. Given that nature likes to experiment where the “winner” does not need to be “good,” this presents humans with a dilemma, because religion always tend to style itself as the good, which places it at odds with nature.

Religion relies on a transcendental state for its meaning. However, transcendence is not of this world; it is abstract and intuitive. While it may calm and focus humans, it does not actually do anything tangible, like create spaceships. In fact it may make matters worse by telling people that they cannot die in an attempt to soothe our loss of family members. Even the Bantu do not believe their elders actually die.

When it comes to real world practicality of the kind that creates spaceships, we must accept that humans die as part of nature’s experiments. In order to understand our fate better, we need to understand the experiments of nature. This gives us a worldview that cannot be tainted by political outlooks, which tend to color our interpretation by making themselves the base assumptions through which we filter our perceptions.

That in turn clashes with politics, which seems to be based on lying. People lie because they think others don’t know they are lying (disregarding that truth itself is not the issue). It is therefore impossible for a politician not to lie. In fact the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa wrote, “if you want honesty, you start your own party.”

I agree with that sentiment, even if it is shocking. It is only shocking because I never realized it. But I have met representatives and some of them were obviously “salesmen” while others were apparently initially honest. My limited experience with these representatives shows that they spend a lot of time influencing people, but when they get the seat, they have no idea what to do, as Steve Bannon noted recently.

These parliamentarians are suddenly viewed with enormous respect, while they have no idea what their world view is or should be. They are therefore incompetent, all of them. Sometimes knowledgeable business people that understand “the way of the world” gets the opportunity to affect change, but even then their world view is limited by screeching of the proletariat.

One can almost say that even great leaders get distracted by their children, or in other words, their constituents. This applies to Trump as well. He was recently caught in an untruth when he said that G.W. Bush never called families of fallen soldiers. Once we get over moralizing about the tendency to lie, we can see that instead he is playing a game.

In his world, like the amoral and dispassionate worldview of nature, everything is a game and the best player wins. In the game of restoring America, Trump wants to put America to work which is probably not a lie, because as a developer and businessman he and his friends like workers, because workers are consumers.

The real lie is that Americans wants to work. They actually don’t. In fact they want to talk, a lot. Where at first they had to wait for the Sunday newspaper, they can now express their own views every weekday. You can see this in the rising social media industries now abbreviated as FANG. But you can also see it in American industry.

Returning to the world view discussion, one can say that Africa also like talking a lot. That put them at the lowest ranks of the Competitiveness Index. But it also puts them in a strong position as migrants to bring Western Civilization down to those same levels. Even though Westerners can and want to talk a lot, migrants have the upper hand genetically. They reproduce faster than we do.

A worldview, as opposed to a universal outlook which favors truth and goodness over effects in reality, dictates that Americans must start to work. To convince them will take some time because they have to understand that change is really necessary. The Mandela experiment is an example of where a Western oriented country realized they had to change, setting in motion a grand political effort driven by mass media and education.

The point in South Africa was to allow “acculturation” of all its peoples towards a Western type culture (democracy at the time), but back-fired, because it should have acculturated to the African culture (tribal at the time). Nature’s order wins out: we may think we are more “good,” but really, only what works is what is good, and so instead of projecting onto it, we must accept reality as we find it.

If America wants to make a change, it should acculturate to a tribal dispensation and in my view a semi-re-enactment towards a States’ Rights model prioritizing trade between States as opposed to global trade. This acknowledges the nature of America, instead of the universal morality that we try to convince ourselves is true.

The successor to Trump will have a world view, not a universal outlook, and as a result will be willing to re-write the founding documents to choose a system that works for what America is and has been. They will do this because other tribes are taking to the global stage first, which is putting America in the camp of political lies and not hard realism, which it needs in order to survive and succeed.

Making The Transition To Monarchy

Saturday, August 12th, 2017

The Alt Right has suggested that monarchies are better than current Western democracies. In an attempt to understand this in the real world as it is today, we can look at some statistics.

The Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) ranks more than a 100 countries on a scale depicting economic productiveness. What is interesting is the following group of countries:

  • Netherlands
  • Finland
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Norway

They have been consistently ranked within the top twenty-two productive countries from 1999 to 2015. Viewed as a group, however, it can be said that there is a slight downward movement of their rankings over time, most likely due to the “two-speed world” where economic growth in emerging countries (like BRICS) are offset by stagnation in the erstwhile developed world.

However, there is another characteristic of these countries: they are monarchical in some form or other.

These monarchies have exerted tremendous influence on the rest of the world for a long time, where for them the economic imperative of growth or stagnation is not particularly interesting, because they are mainly interested in stability and not growth, which is like a treadmill in that when the economy comes to depend on it, it must constantly increase or the economy suffers. Monarchies are notorious for preferring stability, which also avoids the overpopulation, land overuse, and proliferation of cities that is common to growth-based economies.

They have made mistakes of course, but that doesn’t mean the alternative right is wrong with its assessment. The point is that monarchies have in some form or other been stable for a very long time. If anything, what these monarchies suffer from is paying too much attention to the will of the people, which always results in conjectural thinking.

The latest experiment implemented by the West is bringing democracy to the third world, which was rolled out after colonialism was systematically withdrawn. They do this because monarchs are now limited to enforcing democracy in their own nations because they are forced to coexist with this, and to fail to enforce it in the third world is a rejection of the notion that it is good.

Consider Nelson Mandela’s organization the African National Congress (ANC) which was classified as a terrorist organization by America at the same time it was funded by the European countries listed above. The people wanted equality; the monarchs did not want mass revolt and the horrors of the French Revolution or Bolshevik uprising in their countries, so they went along with it.

In the grips of democracy, these first world countries do not realize the productive decline they are suffering because they persist in supporting democracy, despite strong indicators that democracy in South Africa is literally failing by the numbers. Worse, they are doubling down like good SJWs by sponsoring the destruction of monarchies in Mandela-land.

The first world monarchies wants to destroy the concept of their own existence in the emerging world, while they themselves get destroyed back in the first world by the same democracy they are supporting. Where initially they sponsored terror, now they have become the terrorists aiming to destroy other monarchies. This is clearly not stable.

While we may be critical of colonialism in practical terms, our real assault on it comes from democratic notions of the equality of all people and therefore, a need to dedicate ourselves to questing for egalitarianism everywhere. This eliminates self-interest by the first world while encouraging the third world to assert its self-interest at our expense.

This shows us that monarchism and democracy cannot coexist. Democracy forms a mentally addictive pathology that then drives our countries to destroy ourselves at the same time they destroy third world monarchies in the same nations where democracy is entering its death-phase. Democracy has become our obsession, and it is working for neither first nor third world nations.

One way forward would be to do what every scenario planner has refused to do since 1992: implement a monarchy in South Africa. They fear this because traditionalism is viewed as anti-“reform,” but the Alt Right’s view is that the opposite is true. Reform has been proven to lower competitiveness down where traditional societies have been proven as stable.

Perhaps we are, like most groups of people afraid for the future, relying on what seemed to work in the past as crutches. Democracy seemed to win the world wars, and growth-based economies provide the way of life that seemed to make our people happy. As its instability threatens both third and first worlds, however, it makes sense to consider monarchy and stability instead of growth and democracy.

When Can We Call It “Terrorism”?

Friday, April 7th, 2017

The decline of Western Civilization in South Africa has reached such epic proportions that it has even attracted the attention of the fake news media. Their stock answer is always to deride South Africa as a third world country with a nice mountain. They have to say this, since contemporary South Africa is a product of Leftist, Hollywood and media intervention.

After Mandela died the newspaper attention waned, but when affirmative action Trevor Noah replaced John Stewart as a comedian on American television’s Daily Show, a few commentators woke up and started to see some strange political adventures taking place. This is not to be confused with Hollywood’s routine derogatory inclusion of South Africans in its scripts as mercenaries and criminals.

The news glosses over inconvenient facts that contradict the Leftist narrative. It routinely avoids mention of the farm murders, wherein white farmers are killed by members of an African underclass which is supported by the ruling political party, thanks to the greater numbers of African voters.

One fact that cannot be debunked is that a United Nations representative established that Boers are currently subject to level six genocide. In other words, the Zulu nation is not under threat (at all) and neither are the British, German or Portuguese descendants living in South Africa.

The Boers face an escalating wave of violence, discrimination and government-mandated marginalization. We all know where this leads: to their elimination. For some strange reason genocide is not classified as “terrorism.” Even Rwandan genocide failed to rate a blip on American media screens. So what do you do when a South African asks for help?

Even here affirmative action plays a role, because black South Africans enjoy migrant status in Kentucky’s sanctuary cities while Boer migrants are refused.  Apparently American diplomats accept anyone, unless the South African Ambassador to America complains to the Secretary of State when “certain” people apply.

Clearly American Politicians are complicit in the Boer genocide as classified by the UN, which is acceptable because it is not terror. This is explained by arguing that, for genocide to be terror, there has to be a political intent. Since Mandela already ruled in South Africa, there can be no political intent for killing farmers.

But farmers, women, children and workers are indeed being brutally and tortuously killed. The trick is that it is not all at once.  Therefor some commentators call it a gradual genocide, which the UN seems to agree with. In fact Gregory Stanton agrees that the Bushmen are also being genocided at the same time. This has led to even more UN agencies getting involved such as (UNPO) “Unrepresented People”  in the World.

All of the UN involvement in response to requests for help has come to naught, meaning that “official” channels and the media those channels control, literally ignore the reported facts, despite acknowledging it.

Despite experts identifying gradual genocide, it is still required of the victim to prove that he is being terrorized, before asking for help. The proof experts refer to is the politically authorized dissolution of the regional security service structure in the entire country.

In other words, the police must become implements of the political policy of the regime, and not just law enforcement. Obviously this presents a huge logical hole because laws can be changed to prosecute or ignore the victimization of a target group.

After Mandela became President, thousands of terrorists previously trained elsewhere in Africa such as Tanzania, “returned” to South Africa in glorious fashion, to be designated as “veterans” while some of the experienced terrorists were employed in staff military and police positions. Since they were all trained in terrorist acts such as surveillance and weapons, those that did not receive jobs felt disillusioned and promptly started with advanced criminal acts such as hi-jacking money-in-transit vehicles very effectively.  Once bank security became more effective, they changed to the next low hanging fruit, such as remote farmers with safes containing money and weapons.

Heists and farm murders have been noticed by senior police officials, but they gloss over it as statistically insignificant when compared to blacks being killed. Unbeknownst to them, this is exactly where the political intent rears its ugly face. They are willing to ignore the greater percentages of whites being victimized to focus on the more numerous black citizens, whose victimization is not designed to eliminated them as a population.

A recent study by a civil activist group showed that when elected black officials go on television expressing hatred for whites or denouncing farmers in song or in verbal abuse, that farmer deaths increase afterwards.

This gives them a dual pronged strategy: in private ignore the crimes against whites, who being a smaller group face a greater threat from fewer crimes, and the political strategy behind them; in public, encourage these crimes with political rhetoric and the implication that these crimes will go unpunished.

In social media, hatred for whites is recorded virtually every day. This demonstrates that within the tribal black communities writing in their own languages, hatred for whites, specifically for the farmer is not only “allowed”, but also a popular topic, where it is tribally entrenched to kill whites, rape their women and take their goods/money. This is a cultural wave of ethnic violence.

This is a human rights violation being committed from one group unto another group. What makes it worse is that it is the majority discriminating against the minority. However, the more responsible officials will on this point say that it’s “only a few extremist individuals” who are not even an identifiable group.  One could answer that if it is only a few, why don’t they ever get caught?

White experts such as Gareth Newham of the Institute of Security Studies try to help the South African Government by proposing a “specialized police unit” and specialized courts to address the common triad of carjacking, house robbery and business robbery. What these experts are saying is that police efforts are being hampered by political interference.

This proves that there is intentional political causation of ethnic violence hidden within crime in South Africa, and while it is evident in all categories, the undeniable genocidal effect against white farmers is documented (not to forget the Bushmen tribe, who as an ethnic minority are also targeted). This is terror perpetrated on farmers and protected by the state.

That policy extends into the United States of America, where politicians also protect the criminals. They hide behind the thin distinction that genocide has to be officially ordered by a militarized, politicized police form, but forget that true ethnic violence is spontaneous and requires only a wink and a nod from those officials in a disorganized fashion.

The world has failed recognize the gradual genocide of farmers as terrorism and genocide. Despite the massive investment by Western politicians in fighting “terror” and “racism,” neither of these terms apply when white people are the victims. This invalidates the terms, and makes us wonder whether like terror, these terms are simply a political weapon designed to conceal ethnic crimes.

Nelson Mandela, Communist

Friday, December 6th, 2013


The six giant corporations that produce most of your media seem to be in agreement that Nelson Mandela is a pacifist hero of freedom and equality. You are taught that there is no higher goal than freedom, equality and pacifism in school and through books, movies, music and art.

This cultural consensus presents itself as universal, meaning shared by all people. If that is so, however, why does the media have to constantly pump this message toward you to the point of excluding others? This includes historical facts that are inconvenient.

Nelson Mandela was a Communist guerrilla. This fact should not require explaining away. It should also not be hidden. One way to hide it is to selectively fail to mention it while enthusiastically repeating other ideas. This act of omission combined with what is basically an advertising campaign amounts to concealment and in practical terms, the same thing as lying.

If you find your media is lying to you, it then makes sense to ask why. The answer appears to be that media is a product and inherently untrustworthy, and it is selling to an audience that it perceives is liberal. It may do this because most of the people who work in media, as people who like to draw attention to themselves, are solipsists.

In other words, the megaphone that you trust for truth may most commonly broadcast the products of a mental health problem (solipsism) and mislead you. This means the news is manipulated not for a better world, but for the personal pretense and conceits necessary to justify the insanity of individuals.

But we can clear this up. Was Nelson Mandela a Communist? Let’s look at Mr. Nelson Mandela’s record here:

The former South African president, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, has always denied being a member of the South African branch of the movement, which mounted an armed campaign of guerrilla resistance along with the ANC.

But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mr Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC’s campaign of armed resistance to white rule.

His book also provides fresh detail on how the ANC’s military wing had bomb-making lessons from the IRA, and intelligence training from the East German Stasi, which it used to carry out brutal interrogations of suspected “spies” at secret prison camps. – “Nelson Mandela ‘proven’ to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial,” by Colin Freeman and Jane Flanagan, The Guardian, December 8, 2012.

The following reveals the origins of the people who became the ANC through “pressure from above.” Political groups tend to form where they can find support, funding and weapons:

From its formation in 1921 as the first Marxist-Leninist party on the continent, the Communist Party struggled with the need to reconcile race and class, nationalism and socialism in its doctrine. Formed by whites but for over 30 years the only nonracial political party in South Africa, it initially appealed to the white working class. Skilled artisans and intellectuals had brought socialist thinking from Britain around the turn of the century. In 1909 a Labour Party was formed but split over the World War. Those who opposed participation and were enthusiastic about the Russian Revolution joined with several small Marxist groups to form the Communist Party of South Africa.

The party’s notorious but anti-capitalist slogan during the white mineworkers’ uprising of 1922 was “Workers of the World, Fight and Unite for a White South Africa,” (emphasis added). The strike was brutally crushed. Recognizing the hostility of white workers to it, the party turned to the African working class, conducting night schools and organizing trade unions. In 1928 almost all of its 1,750 members were Africans. Only about 150 were whites, but they continued to predominate.

Within a few years the party was shattered, hit by government repression but even more by the consequences of obedience to the Moscow-based Comintern. Despite remonstrances about the need for appealing also to the white working class, the Comintern in 1928 ordered as correct the slogan: “an independent native South African republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic with full, equal rights for all races.” The factionalism and expulsions that followed this declaration virtually decimated the party. With the rise of Hitler and Moscow’s new emphasis on organizing all-class united fronts, the party slowly revived. – “South African Liberation: The Communist Factor,” by Thomas G. Karis, Foreign Affairs, Winter 1986/87.

The ANC represented an attempt by Communist forces in South Africa to switch from a whites-oriented Communist revolution to a multicultural Communist revolution, although as time went on they had the wisdom to hides its Communist roots so that egalitarian Western “useful idiots” would support it.

Even Mandela’s defenders admit his flirtation with Communism was more than at the surface:

We know that between June and December 1961, Mandela remained in hiding in a series of safe houses arranged by SACP members, passing much of the time reading a series of classic authorities on insurgent warfare. This seems the most likely time for him to have joined the party. He already had a rough grasp of the essentials of Marxist ideas, acquired again through reading and discussions with Moses Kotane at the beginning of the 1950s. As he noted much later in his 1994 autobiography, during the 1950s, the certainties offered by “the scientific underpinnings of dialectical materialism” were for him powerfully compulsive. – “Mandela’s communism: why the details matter,” by Tom Lodge, Open Democracy, September 9, 2011.

And despite generally leaning toward leftism, Wikipedia acknowledges what it considers harmless facts:

Umkhonto we Sizwe (abbreviated as MK, translated as “Spear of the Nation”) was the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), co-founded by Nelson Mandela, which fought against the South African government.[1] MK launched its first guerrilla attacks against government installations on 16 December 1961. It was subsequently classified as a terrorist organisation by the South African government and the United States, and banned.[2]

For a time it was headquartered in Rivonia, a suburb of Johannesburg. On 11 July 1963, 19 ANC and MK leaders, including Arthur Goldreich and Walter Sisulu, were arrested at Liliesleaf Farm, Rivonia (26°2′36″S 28°3′15″E). The farm was privately owned by Arthur Goldreich and bought with South African Communist Party and ANC funds. – “Umkhonto we Sizwe,” Wikipedia, Anonymous, retrieved December 6, 2013.

Left-leaning CNN affirms the same facts and points out Mandela’s lengthy history with the Communists:

Mandela’s close association with Marxists goes back at least to the 1940s, when he was enrolled in law school.

He began a life-long friendship with Joe Slovo, “an ardent communist,” the anti-apartheid icon wrote in his autobiography “Long Walk to Freedom.”

Mandela described Slovo as of the people, “without whom I would have accomplished very little.”

A watershed moment tightly bonded Mandela to Slovo and other communist allies.

Police gunned down 69 unarmed protesters in the town of Sharpville in March 1960. Then the government banned the communist party and the African National Congress, which fought for the freedom of black South Africans.

With Slovo and other Marxists, he co-founded the militia movement Umkhonto we Sizwe. It’s meaning: “Spear of the Nation.”

On December 16, 1961, the group carried out its first attacks on government installations and handed out leaflets announcing its existence. – “Nelson Mandela death: Examining the backlash,” by Ben Brumfield, CNN, December 6, 2013.

It is ridiculous to claim Nelson Mandela as either a pacifist or a non-Communist when he was caught, along with his fellow ANC members, in possession of a large number of Soviet Bloc arms and ammunition that was too large to have been purchased on the open market, and thus most likely came from the Soviet government.

A good summary of the history of the period:

In South Africa, it was the Soviet bloc—the same communist governments that were brutally repressing their own people—that helped the ANC fight apartheid. In the 1980s, they were joined by an American and European anti-apartheid movement willing to overlook the ANC’s communist ties because they refused to see South Africa’s freedom struggle through a Cold War lens. At a time when men like Reagan and Cheney were insisting that the most important thing about Mandela was where he stood in the standoff between Washington and Moscow, millions of citizens across the West insisted that the ANC could be Soviet-backed, communist-influenced, and still lead a movement for freedom. – “Don’t Sanitize Nelson Mandela: He’s Honored Now, But Was Hated Then,” by Peter Beinart, The Daily Beast, December 5, 2013.

Even more, Western liberals began covering up this fact early on:

We know this from any number of sources, but let’s hear it from Hilda Bernstein, who lived long enough to acquire a shrewd understanding of herself and the Communist movement of which she was a lifelong part. “Joe and Rusty were hardline Stalinists,” she said in 2004, speaking of her late husband Rusty, a Central Committee member, and Joe Slovo, the most influential Communist of his era. “Anything the Soviets did was right,” said Mrs. Bernstein. “They were very, very pro-Soviet.”

This much could be easily gleaned by reading the SACP journal, African Communist, or just sniffing the air outside the London headquarters of the African National Congress; during the struggle years (1960–1990) the SACP reeked of Soviet orthodoxy, and the ANC reeked of the SACP. As a journalist, you had to be very careful what you said about this. The civilized line was the one ceaselessly propounded in The New York Times—Nelson Mandela was basically a black liberal, and his movement was striving for universal democratic values. Anyone who disagreed was an anti-Communist crank, as Keller labels me. – “Mandela & Communism: An Exchange,” by Bill Keller, New York Review of Books, March 21, 2013.

But don’t take our word for it. Read his. Nelson Mandela’s, that is. Here’s an excerpt from his book, How to Be a Good Communist:

The goal of Communism is a classless society based on the principle: from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. The aim is to change the present world into a Communist world where there will be no exploiters and no exploited, no oppressor and oppressed, no rich and no poor. Communists fight for a world where there will be no unemployment, no poverty and starvation, disease and ignorance. In such a world there will be no capitalists, no imperialists, no fascists. There will be neither colonies nor wars.

In our own country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its policies. The aim of the S.A.C.P. is to defeat the Nationalist government and to free the people of South Africa from the evils of racial discrimination and exploitation and to build a classless or socialist society in which the land, the mines, the mills, our . . . . . . . (unreadable)

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

Workers will earn decent wages; transport will be cheap and education free. There will be no pass laws, no influx control, no Police raids for passes and poll tax, and Africans, Europeans, Coloureds and Indians will live in racial peace and perfect equality.

The victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., in the Peoples Republic of China, in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Rumania, where the living conditions of the people were in many respects similar and even worse than ours, proves that we too can achieve this important goal. – “How to Be a Good Communist,” by Nelson Mandela.

Further reading Mandela’s words, here’s his admission to being part of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the terrorist organization that attacked civilian areas like shopping centers and banks:

I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.

I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962. – “Read the most important speech Nelson Mandela ever gave,” by Max Fisher, Washington Post, December 5, 2013.


Here’s the paragon of racial tolerance singing “Kill the Boer,” a reference to the Dutch-descended ethnic group in South Africa:

Recommended Reading