Nelson Mandela Dies

4 Comments

1. Nelson Mandela and the Jews

2. The second point is less appreciated by some.

   This article demonstrates two important points. First, in South Africa as in the United States, the Jewish role in promoting “civil rights” for blacks is essentially the same. It springs from the same motives of anti-white hatred and has the same results: the rule of Jewish oligarchs over whites through black proxies and puppets. Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama went through the same grooming process and play the same role.

   Second, in South Africa as elsewhere, Jewish Communism and Jewish capitalism — Communist expropriation and capitalist “privatization” — are essentially interchangeable in terms of their results and even their personnel. Both are simply ways that Jews appropriate the wealth and power of a nation and destroy the best of their rivals.

3. http://topconservativenews.com/2013/12/bloomberg-column-mandela-was-too-soft-on-the-white-man/

   Bloomberg Column: Mandela was too soft on the white man

   Bloomberg published a shocking column by extremist Harvard law professor

   Noah Feldman.

   It says that Mandela committed the “sin of compromise” and “sold out black South Africans.” The column mirrors the rhetoric of the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party.

   Feldman says the mass confiscation of white property, in places like Zimbabwe, was “morally justified.” Even though the author admits that the end result was disastrous for black Africans.

   Feldman’s attack piece on white South Africans was also published in the Long Island Newsday.

   From Bloomberg…

   Nelson Mandela sold out black South Africans. Now there’s a sentence you won’t have heard in the days since his death and that you won’t be hearing at his memorial tomorrow. Yet it’s incontrovertibly true that after centuries of being robbed of possibly the greatest mineral wealth the world has ever known, not to mention decades of being repressed by apartheid, black South Africans got almost no compensation for what should rightfully have been theirs when the old regime was swept away for the new South Africa.

   …

   In the aftermath of morally justified redistribution of wealth, many sub-Saharan countries had found themselves poorer, not richer. It was a gamble for the poorest South Africans to bet that forgoing their just rights might actually leave them slightly better off in the long run; but it was a gamble arguably worth taking.

   …

   Was Mandela right to sacrifice justice for the chance of a richer and more democratic South Africa? The question of his heroic status depends on the answer. Looking at the career of Yasser Arafat, who consistently made a different choice, inclines one to think that the answer is yes. A politician shouldn’t act on what is absolutely fair, but what is pragmatically most likely to succeed in the real world.

   Yet, as we mourn Mandela, it is also worth remembering that, like almost all constitutions, South Africa’s founding pact was born in the sin of compromise. Compromise is sin because people don’t get what they deserve. But that sin is necessary, because after it’s committed, people are better off than they would be without it.

   The international community rightly reveres Nelson Mandela as a man of peace. But he was not a saint — and for that we should be grateful. He brought peace through his ability to convince millions of his countrymen that they should accept much less than they were in justice owed.

   The late Khallid Muhammed, former national youth minister of the Nation of Islam and leader of the New Black Panther Party.

4. The only wealth in SA was the white male brain. The rest was just built on that foundation.