Nelson Mandela RIP

The world boycott of Apartheid South Africa (after which BDS activists modelled our boycott of Israel) reached the scale it did in no small part due to the personal charisma of Nelson Mandela. He was without a doubt one of the most iconic personalities of the pre-9/11 period, of the 1990s especially, one of the figures who immediately comes to mind when we recall that more hopeful era, and one of the figures who personified that hope and inspired many young kids of that era to better themselves and believe in their own potential as individuals to bring great change to the world via dedicating one’s life to a cause. With his death, as with the deaths over the past years of such other world-famous pop culture icons as Michael Jackson, and before that Princess Diana, I fear that the people of the 21st century have lost yet another living connection to that era and its positive emotions that we today need so much to revive in a pessimistic and demoralized society. On the romantic level, we can and should remember that hope that Mandela’s name and image symbolized and find a way to give it to the world again, perhaps one day ourselves becoming new icons to the kids of the future.

On the other hand, now as sober students of politics, we also have an important lesson to revise from Mandela’s mistakes (though as National Socialists we probably know this already). Fighting apartheid under the banner of democracy, as Mandela did, was just plain STUPID. What post-apartheid South Africa needed was autocracy under one unelected leader who - as an individual beholden to no one - could be fair to all South Africans in a way that no vote-dependent politician can. Mandela himself, with his local support at the time, could easily have been that leader. With the  absolute power of a lifetime monarch, he could have made long-term plans to free South Africa from Zionist banking/financial control and built a country like Eritrea or Gaddafi’s Libya or North Korea or even National Socialist Germany. What South Africa did not need was democracy – basically an open invitation for the masses to bloc-vote by ethnic interests and thus guarantee the continuation of division and the impossibility of true unification. While Mandela did become president for a while, the restrictions of the presidency due to limited terms of office and limited actual authority made it no threat to Jewish power, which is the whole point of democratic institutions. Some mainstream media articles I read today parallel Mandela to George Washington; it is a valid parallel, but not the way they expect! Washington made the same mind-numbingly stupid mistake as Mandela did; following his victory over Britain, he refused monarchy, and consequently the newly independent US fell back under Jewish domination before long.

In summary, the high point of Mandela’s career was the ending of the apartheid regime in 1994. Following this, he  disappointingly never become the great national leader he could have become. He was an icon, but he had a chance to have been a greater icon, and he threw it away. He will be remembered as an anti-apartheid activist, but he had the chance to have been additionally remembered as an anti-Zionist head of state (who, with his charisma and image, might even have rekindled worldwide trust in positive dictatorship), and he threw it away. All because his rhetoric against apartheid was to criticize it as “undemocratic” instead of simply unjust, as ”contrary to human rights” instead of simply contrary to conscience, in other words because he used the arguments of the False Left instead of the arguments of the True Left.

South Africa today needs more desperately than ever to end democracy if it is to truly unite as Mandela dreamed it should. Its indescribably tangled, interlocking problems cannot realistically be solved except by a dictator with a clear plan and unlimited state authority to push it through regardless of the popularity of the plan. And yes, the plan must include state control over reproduction or it will fail. Mandela gave South Africa an idealistic goal, but what South Africa needs now is a precise way to attempt to reach this goal. That way is National Socialism. Aryanists and anti-Zionists in South Africa who wish to help find someone suitable to one day become this dictator (or if you wish to nominate yourself for the position), please contact us:

http://aryanism.net/about/contact/

Here are the links to BDS South Africa again:

http://www.bdssouthafrica.com/

https://www.facebook.com/bdssouthafrica

A main site page is currently in the works about how to adapt the strategy we used against Apartheid South Africa in order to defeat Israel, but it has been left idle for some time. I will get back to work on it soon.

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

125 Responses to Nelson Mandela RIP

  1. Anthony says:

    It’s quite annoying that the West now acts as if he’s the perfect exemplary of their values. It’s the same with Gandhi, who is seen as a saint of Western Liberalism but said, when asked what he thought of Western civilization, that it would be a good idea. (Actually, I think only the perceptions of Mandela and Gandhi in the Western mind are comparable. In reality, Gandhi was as racist as they come and actually supported Apartheid.) Mandela definitely didn’t see Western Liberal democracy as the apex of human development. The media have twisted the narrative into a story of democracy and human rights vs. tyranny, but Mandela supported Gaddafi, and would have seen such narratives as nonsense. Which brings me to another point – people may scoff at a National Socialist sites paying their respects to Mandela, yet the same people would think it is perfectly fine for the BBC to pay tribute to him even though they are biased towards an Apartheid state (Israel) and celebrated the death of his ally, Gaddafi.

  2. mandrake says:

    I think we’ve just had a conversation on my dissatisfaction with the tributes to Mandela. I’ll hold my ground on this one.

  3. mandrake says:

    Mandela was a Communist under the stewardship of Joe Salvo (Jew).

    I can point anyone to a photograph of ‘Madiba’ with his clenched fist alongside his then wife Winnie and Joe Salvo.

    I don’t think we should celebrate Mandela with his Jew Communist philosophy and his worship of Stalin anymore than we should Stalin himself. While I’ve never agreed with Apartheid, Mandela is a bad example to promote. He was a Black racist and we should shun racists of any colour.

  4. mandrake says:

    Here’s the photo….

    http://tinypic.com/r/2rwq450/5

  5. mandrake says:

    Also mentioning ‘Lady Di’, another Jew. Mother, the Jew, Frances Shand Kydd (Rothschild) and her (real) Jewish father, James Goldsmith. Thus she was full Jew, as is her son William. She maybe pop culture fodder but she was Jewish.

  6. AS says:

    @mandrake

    “Mandela was a Communist”

    What communist policies did he implement during his presidency? Did he forbid private businesses and private property? Did he demand the entire country to be atheist? Did he build gulags to ‘unmask’ and ‘re-educate’ dissenters through torture? Did he ever even frame the anti-apartheid campaign in anti-bourgeois terms?

    “under the stewardship of Joe Salvo (Jew).”

    Which might have something to do with why he didn’t become dictator after the end of apartheid, but instead embraced democracy. His failure to take absolute power when he had the chance is lamented in the post. The entire tone of the post is about how Mandela had the chance to do more, but did not.

    “I can point anyone to a photograph of ‘Madiba’ with his clenched fist alongside his then wife Winnie and Joe Salvo.”

    I can point anyone to a photo of Joachim von Ribbentrop shaking hands with Stalin.

    Here’s the photo:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H27337,_Moskau,_Stalin_und_Ribbentrop_im_Kreml.jpg

    “he was a Black racist”

    Quote his racist statements. Here are some of his anti-racist statements:

    “We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white.”

    “During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination.”

    “We have triumphed in the effort to implant hope in the breasts of the millions of our people. We enter into a covenant that we shall build the society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity — a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.”

    “I detest racialism because I regard it as a barbaric thing, whether it comes from a black man or a white man.”

    “We speak here of the challenge of the dichotomies of war and peace, violence and non-violence, racism and human dignity, oppression and repression and liberty and human rights, poverty and freedom from want.”

    “We understand their call, that we devote what remains of our lives to the use of our country’s unique and painful experience to demonstrate, in practice, that the normal condition for human existence is democracy, justice, peace, non-racism, non-sexism, prosperity for everybody, a healthy environment and equality and solidarity among the peoples.”

    (Note in the last two quotes he contrasts racism against “human rights”, “democracy” and “equality”. THAT is my criticism of Mandela’s rhetoric, as stated in the post.)

    Moreover, it is impossible by definition for anyone to be both a communist and a racist, as a sincere communist cannot be a sincere racist and vice versa, so to simultaneously accuse Mandela of being a communist and a racist doesn’t even make sense.

    If you want to discuss Diana in detail, please do so here:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/kate-middleton-vs-a-real-princess/

    Meanwhile, here is a link:

    http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_societal_class_distinction.html

    “Queen Victoria believed her family descended from King David (of the Biblical Old Testament) and sanctioned circumcision. Prince Charles was circumcised by a mohel (a rabbi who specializes in circumcision). Princess Diana decided that Princes William and Harry would go uncircumcised. However, it is suspected that William was later circumcised in his teen years when it was announced that he went into hospital for a ‘hernia’ operation (regarded as ‘code’ for ‘circumcision’).”

    So if Diana was a ‘Jew’, she was a ‘Jew’ in the way that Jesus was a ‘Jew’ ie. self-hating (and got killed for it by real Jews):

    http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/national-journal-Was-Princess-Diana-and-Dodi-Fayed-murdered-by-a-MOSSAD-hit-team.htm

    As for William, of course he is a Jew. When has anyone said anything positive about William?

  7. Anthony says:

    AS – would you say that the royal family are Jews? This doesn’t make sense to me. To be part of a tribe, it is not enough to consider yourself part of the tribe. The other members of the tribe have to accept you. So the Royal Family may see themselves as Jews, but this does not make them Jews. I suspect the reason they consider themselves to be descended from King David is due to British Israelism. The Tanakh says Jews will conquer the world, the British were succeeding in conquering the world. It would not have been difficult for British people who believed in the Tanakh to convince themselves that they must be Jews.

  8. SolAryan says:

    While I agree with the sentiments regarding both Apartheid and Zionism of course, I tend to lean more towards Mandrake’s sentiments here, insofar as I don’t view Mandela as someone we should be memorializing. Obviously, what with the topic of his passing being the breaking news story of the day and all, I understand its discussion from an NS perspective and analysis as being useful in pointing out the many flaws of Mandela’s policies, actions, and general worldview as a whole-and an attempt to discuss and demonstrate what could/SHOULD have been done in the post-Apartheid climate of S. Africa. Nonetheless, despite his charisma, I happen to view the late Mandela as little more than a (seemingly well-meaning, though monumentally erring) ‘Uncle Tom’ who was heavily surrounded and influenced by Jewish forces (and indeed ‘set up’ in his position as the aforementioned knew he would dutifully tow the line). This was his most fatal flaw.

  9. AS says:

    @Anthony

    “would you say that the royal family are Jews?”

    Yes.

    “To be part of a tribe, it is not enough to consider yourself part of the tribe. The other members of the tribe have to accept you.”

    What makes you think they are not accepted by Jews? The mohel who circumcized Charles surely considered him (and by extension the Windsors in general) Jewish! Jewish law forbids Judaic rituals from being performed by Jews on non-Jews.

    “I suspect the reason they consider themselves to be descended from King David is due to British Israelism.”

    Yes, and many Jewish organizations promote this idea. Again this shows Jewish acceptance of the British royal family as Jews. In the same way there are Jewish organizations that promote belief that the Lost Tribes of Israel went to Japan, China, India, and so on. It benefits Zionism for rich and high-status people everywhere to think of themselves as related to Jews, and it strengthens the Jewish gene pool itself to collect bloodlines which have proven successful at social climbing.

    (Note that old-school British Israelism differs from present-day CI in that the former did not challenge the Jewish claim of Israelite descent, but merely claimed that the British too had Israelite descent.)

    @SolAryan

    The question that should matter is what kind of people we want on our side: people whose personality leads them to intuitively like Mandela, or people whose personality leads them to intuitively dislike Mandela? This is what it’s really about: using Mandela as a SIEVE to gather the kind of people we want to gather. I read through a lot of comments about Mandela from all kinds of sites yesterday, and commenters sympathetic towards Mandela consistently struck me as having better personalities than commenters hostile towards Mandela. It’s not about Mandela himself anymore; it’s about what he symbolizes in the minds of different kinds of people.

  10. Afzal says:

    I don’t understand what’s so horrible about memorializing Mandela? His contribution may have been small in the grand scheme of things, but valuable nonetheless. It is, however, true that bad company corrupts good character, but that’s the sad truth about any leader who’s lacking a strong and competent ideological background. If there were any Aryanists around to guide him out of Jehovas domain, events might have turned out very differently.

    Rest in peace.

  11. mandrake says:

    @ AS

    Okay quick reply because I’ve got much time so I’ll address what I can.

    First, so what if Mandela instigated Democracy, don’t we detest Democracy? Democracy is what allowed SA to be torn apart into the humungous shit-hole it is now. Like it or lump it, whilst I don’t agree with Apartheid for whites and blacks, SA is one of the most dangerous places in the World thanks to Democracy.

    Now, Mandela was simply put on a pedestal much like the current US President because not of his statecraft but because of his colour. Nothing else. Who made it possible for Mandela to become President, why the ANC which is a Jewish Communist organisation. The Jew uses the workers to instigate rule in Russia, they used race to instigate wonderful Democracy in SA.

    Why was Mandela jailed in the first place? Ah that was because he was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, who were responsible for bombing shopping centres, a railway station and killing civilians both black and white, much like the IRA did on mainland Britain. I can list the MK’s atrocities in SA if you want but I’m sure you can easily find them. Killing civilians is not noble or peaceful.

    As for Ribbentrop meeting Stalin, of course he did, he’s of kissed his boots to obtain the Pact of non Aggression. NS Germany *needed* to do so. Did the now free Mandela need to pose with then wife Winnie and Jew Slavo in front of the SA Communist flag? I don’t think the two are comparable in the least.

    As for Diana.. you brought her up here “With his death, as with the deaths over the past years of such other world-famous pop culture icons as Michael Jackson, and before that Princess Diana”.

    I care nothing for Diana and nothing for Michael Jackson. Both media whores, one Jewish one more than likely a paedophile. Why even mention these people? I will gladly debate ‘the people’s Princess’ anywhere, so I’ll do it on the Kate Middleton (jew) page of the blog.

    I think it’s fairly obvious, since we’re ALLOWED and ENCOURAGED to mourn St. Mandela through the electric Jew and the newspapers that he was a collaborator and puppet of the Zionist Jew Communist rulers. If he was ANY threat at all he’d of been offed like Gaddafi, like Hitler, like Hussain.

    The fact he lived to a ripe old age of 95 and the fawning over his death in the media means he was as much of a threat to the Jew as a Care-Bear.

  12. Connor Schuster says:

    @Afzal-Anyone who was given that much importance on television in the U.S. or Britain was obviously non-conducive to National Socialist policies. Given that he was with the likes of King, who was also a more famous individual, instead of Malcolm X, makes me suspicious who was really pulling the strings. If the Jew was with Mandel, then therein policies were against a free Palestine, a free Iraq, a free Arab world from Jewry controlling the West through what a deformed Jewish entity might call ‘wits’ and ‘prowess’. As you know, the Jewish influence not only is here, although they use the U.S. for leverage in many cases, but in almost every country with a population over 200,000. The Jewish influence is more wide spread now than it ever was. It just so happened that Mandela was willing to go along with their plans. Well that and the pinning of sides against one another, which is clearly what the Jew is best at given his ‘wits’ and ‘intellect’. So maybe what you are trying to say is that his goals at first were noble, but when he got to a world stage he was manipulated. I agree with one thing you intend about the cognition of men; for once a good man, that very man can access his good propensities again.

    Nice to see you here. I hope you can join us in the future.

    Heil to you Afzal! Try to learn as much as you can about us as concisely as possible

  13. Connor Schuster says:

    Michael Jackson was strongly anti-Jewish control. The reason he was slandered is due to his fighting back. He never had any money save for the record company, which was Jewish to say the least. When he started earning his own cash from going out and buying things like the Beatles record, the Jews lost control of him, started to slander him, and then finished him off after he stirred up enough trouble. Diana is a whore though.

  14. AS says:

    @mandrake

    “First, so what if Mandela instigated Democracy, don’t we detest Democracy?”

    Yes we do. Find me where in the post I imply that democracy is a good thing.

    “Now, Mandela was simply put on a pedestal much like the current US President because not of his statecraft but because of his colour.”

    His activism and his refusal to renounce his views in exchange for early release from prison might also have had something to do with it.

    “the ANC”

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3407084,00.html

    “Killing civilians is not noble or peaceful.”

    Next you are going to start talking about “Israeli civilians”.

    “Did the now free Mandela need to pose with then wife Winnie and Jew Slavo in front of the SA Communist flag?”

    Given that much of the early support for his anti-apartheid movement came from the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc., why would he not express gratitude? If the NATO countries had been quicker to support him than the communist countries, the photo might have been posed with a NATO flag. It’s the fault of the NATO countries for being slow. Again, what actual communist policies did Mandela implement in South Africa during his presidency?

    “I think it’s fairly obvious, since we’re ALLOWED and ENCOURAGED to mourn St. Mandela through the electric Jew and the newspapers that he was a collaborator and puppet of the Zionist Jew Communist rulers.”

    Israel was one of the LAST countries to join in the anti-apartheid movement. It maintained relations with Apartheid South Africa until 1988.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/2010/06/201062274848326213.html

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents

    We should be thankful that the anti-apartheid movement interrupted a significant Zionist geopolitical agenda.

    As for why Mandela is praised by Jew-owned mainstream media, it’s quite simple: they are interpeting his anti-apartheid movement as a pro-DEMOCRACY movement, thereby instilling the message in public consciousness that to be anti-apartheid is necessarily to be pro-democracy. This conceals the possibility of being both anti-apartheid AND anti-democracy. They understand that people who intuitively like Mandela are basically people who believe in fair treatment of others, and it is these people whom they need to prevent from turning to autocracy. It’s the same trick as when Paul (Jew) made it seem as though Jesus’ God was Yahweh.

    The reason why this post was written was to show that there are anti-democracy people (us) who are also anti-apartheid, thereby interfering with the Zionist narrative that falsely equates democracy with fairness.

    “I care nothing for Diana and nothing for Michael Jackson.”

    In your own words, “If he was ANY threat at all he’d of been offed”. Well, these two WERE offed, so…..

    @Connor

    “Heil to you Afzal! Try to learn as much as you can about us as concisely as possible”

    Afzal has been around here longer than you have been.

  15. Connor Schuster says:

    Damn… I thought it was the other guy I e-mailed to look here.

  16. The pro-democracy thing is a worldwide epidemic. Anti-Communism in Poland in the 1980s and early 1990s was embraced by the West and “pro-democracy.” There were also Jews and crypto Jews guiding it along. The leading leftist (false) newspaper in Poland today is edited by a Jew. There is at least one monarchist party in Poland now, but they’re completely ZC, very similar to the British UKIP, albeit with at least one monarchist though still ZC internal faction. Like SA, Poland went from bad authoritarianism to clusterfuck. But got praised.

  17. Afzal says:

    “Heil to you Afzal! Try to learn as much as you can about us as concisely as possible” [...] “Damn… I thought it was the other guy I e-mailed to look here.”

    @Connor: No worries! I may have been around since before the launch of this site, but I haven’t been very active at times (which is probably why you haven’t seen me before), so I should definitely listen to your advice anyway.

  18. Aryan Aim says:

    Mandela was pro-democracy and enabled reverse apartheid by way of the democratic ideal. I don’t agree with the positive sentiment expressed in the article that he was basically a misunderstood saint. He sanctioned violence against the “former oppressor”, and sang along side “his people” in cadence along side Jew Ronnie Kasrils; tribal songs of death of the Boer (i.e. “ethno-European farmer people”). A racist guised as a “revolutionary” aka communist, a friend and close associate with Jews and other communists, why the fuck is this man touted on this site as anything more than this?

  19. AS says:

    @AA

    “Mandela was pro-democracy”

    This is what the post criticizes him for. Why are you ignoring the post itself which states over and over again that democracy was the WRONG way to fight apartheid?

    “I don’t agree with the positive sentiment expressed in the article that he was basically a misunderstood saint.”

    There is no such sentiment. The intended sentiment is that he had a chance to be much more than he was, and he blew it by supporting democracy.

    The point is, after years and years of hard work by activists over there, South Africa is now turning increasingly anti-Zionist. Did you miss this link?

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/south-africa-further-limits-ties-israel

    Here are more links. Please read them all:

    http://electronicintifada.net/content/south-african-activist-palestine-casts-light-our-own-history/10658

    http://electronicintifada.net/content/south-africans-recall-their-own-history-during-israeli-apartheid-week/11097

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/photos-inspired-us-palestine-solidarity-billboards-go-across-south-africa

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/professional-bds-south-africa-overpowers-pro-israel-lobby-says-former-aipac-man

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/historic-decision-south-africas-anc-makes-support-israel-boycott-its-official

    To a major extent it’s because they remember Mandela as an inspiring icon, and because they feel emotional equivalence between the anti-apartheid movement and the anti-Zionist movement, that present-day South African anti-Zionists are as motivated as they are in their activism, and have accomplished as much as they have. What we need now are more countries to follow suit and build momentum. The tactically worst thing anyone can do is to ruin it all now by turning popular opinion against Mandela and present-day South Africa, thereby breaking this momentum.

    If you are not personally inspired by Mandela, fine. But in dealing with those (and there are many) who ARE inspired by him, I merely suggest that we should not discourage them, instead we should supportively engage them to consider how Mandela could have done better than he did (e.g. by not embracing democracy). That is all.

  20. mandrake says:

    I agree with Aryan Aim completely here.

    I know white South Africans, I know just what has happened to friends of mine over in SA after the oppressors swapped sides.

    Racist killings and rapes against whites happen all the time in the ‘new’ SA. Many of these black racists inspired by Mandela and the ANC. Ask the average white ‘boer’ what they think of the new SA, I think you’ll hear a different story than those few whites they prop up on the news talking about how great he was. The place is a hell-hole, I can’t honestly believe that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would see Mandela as anything but a vicious black racist who has inspired nothing but despair and hate.

    I believe this is the footage AA was referring to.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC8qQE4Y2Js

  21. mandrake says:

    @Miecz

    A great comparison. I’d never of thought of that if you hadn’t pointed that out, makes sense.

  22. mandrake says:

    @AS

    Okay, so the ANC stand in solidarity with the Palestinians. That’s fair enough. So did the PIRA who killed and murdered teenagers for simply being born Protestant in Ulster, shooting dead young girls in a takeaway and that has what to do with anti-Zionism?

    As for the ANC raping and killing their way across the country in retaliatory attacks against whites who had *nothing* to do with apartheid. It’s makes me think of Devi’s ‘cruelty, the violence of cowards’.

    Attaching oneself to phoney tribalism and mocking up playing the big tough soldier on a mission like the cowards in Northern Ireland and SA makes me sick. They’re scum. Nothing more nothing less. If their left leading politics brings them into solidarity with Palestine then there’s no big deal. Nothing changes, they’re just scum who support Palestine.

    “Killing civilians is not noble or peaceful.”

    Next you are going to start talking about “Israeli civilians”. – No, I don’t believe Jews are anything like anyone else on the planet. They’re a different breed altogether, hence why the World is in such a calamitous state.

    ‘We should be thankful that the anti-apartheid movement interrupted a significant Zionist geopolitical agenda.

    As for why Mandela is praised by Jew-owned mainstream media, it’s quite simple: they are interpeting his anti-apartheid movement as a pro-DEMOCRACY movement, thereby instilling the message in public consciousness that to be anti-apartheid is necessarily to be pro-democracy.’ – I think it makes no difference. The Jews run the show, weapons manufacturers got rich from Mandela’s spending on SA armaments. He could of made SA is something great, but he simply fucked over the people and was happy wallow in his Gandhi-esque role.

    The reason we’re supposed to fall at the holy one’s blessed feet is because he was a tool, a tool for Jews. The constant sickly nauseating news garbage about him is enough to make any sane person question why the hell is this guy so popular.

    As for Jackson being offed, I don’t believe that, I think he was a paedophile anyway so I have no sympathy for him and the way he kept Bubbles the monkey just made me dislike him even more.

  23. AS says:

    @mandrake

    Nowhere does the original post suggest that there is no crime problem in South Africa, in fact crime is among the problems that I believe requires autocracy to solve. With that said, there are crime victims of all ethnicities in South Africa, yet the international news (owned by you-know-who) almost never even reports the crimes where the victims are “non-white”. Do you ever wonder what they are trying to portray with this kind of selective reporting?

    Do you honestly believe it is safer to be a “black” South African than a “white” South African? Can you honestly say that if you were going to magically wake up tomorrow as a random South African, would you – in the interest of your own security – choose to wake up as a “black” South African? If not, then I hope you can at least acknowledge that crime affects everyone in South Africa.

    You have friends who are “white” South Africans; do you have at least a similar number of friends who are South Africans of all other ethnicities also? If not, then please beware that the perspective on which you are forming your impression of South Africa is probably not balanced, and therefore be careful of jumping to conclusions.

    I would also like to point out that in 1986 people like Dick Cheney were trying to keep Mandela in prison (after the CIA and NSA helped to jail him in the first place) and voted against a proposition to free him:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/cheney.jpg

    http://www.answercoalition.org/national/news/cia-helped-jail-nelson-mandela.html

    and Mandela was on the US terror watch list (the same list which includes groups like Hezbollah) from the Reagan era until 2008:

    http://zimdev.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/mandela-on-the-terrorist-list-until-2008/

    So if you are saying Mandela was an outright bad guy, your view is essentially that of US foreign policy during the same period that saw the US invasion of Iraq. An invasion which, by the way, Mandela opposed:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2228971.stm

    Just to put things in perspective.

    “So did the PIRA who killed and murdered teenagers for simply being born Protestant in Ulster, shooting dead young girls in a takeaway and that has what to do with anti-Zionism?”

    There can even be found troops of National Socialist Germany who behaved badly if you look hard enough. The Nanking Massacre by some badly behaved Japanese troops is not flattering either:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking

    This does not change our view on WWII overall, nor should it cloud our judgement on world politics today.

    “The constant sickly nauseating news garbage about him is enough to make any sane person question why the hell is this guy so popular.”

    Go on YouTube and watch the videos of the mourning. If you don’t trust the news videos, watch the amateur cam videos. People are leaving flowers and paintings and cards and writing farewell messages and lighting candles. When they try to speak about Mandela, they start crying. They aren’t actors or stooges; these are sincere emotions we are seeing. If we want these people on our side in future, we must be capable of sharing their emotions. To them, Mandela is a symbol which helps them find the best in themselves. Even if the Mandela in their imaginations is over-idealized, that is the effect he as a symbol has on people, and it is surely a positive effect. When people think of Mandela, they feel less selfish, more idealistic, more sympathetic towards others, more inclined to do something meaningful with their lives. Isn’t this what we want from people? Why try to spoil this?

  24. Afzal says:

    “As for why Mandela is praised by Jew-owned mainstream media, it’s quite simple: they are interpeting his anti-apartheid movement as a pro-DEMOCRACY movement, thereby instilling the message in public consciousness that to be anti-apartheid is necessarily to be pro-democracy”(mandrake).

    “I merely suggest that we should not discourage them, instead we should supportively engage them to consider how Mandela could have done better than he did (e.g. by not embracing democracy). That is all”(AS).

    Since Mandela is praised by mainstream media and they’re “instilling the message in public consciousness that to be anti-apartheid is necessarily to be pro-democracy”[sic](mandrake) the tactically wise course of action is to point out the truth, that “[f]ighting apartheid under the banner of democracy, as Mandela did, was just plain STUPID”(AS) and that Mandela “could have done better than he did (e.g. by not embracing democracy)”(AS). Whether he was a saint or the devil himself isn’t tactically relevant.

  25. mandrake says:

    @AS

    I have friends who are white South Africans. They have no reason to lie. In fact there’s very very little reporting on black on white crime in the media. The BBC isn’t nicknamed the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation for nothing. I don’t know where you live, but I know what kind of nonsense is peddled in the UK. The Stephen Lawrence murder for one. Pushed down the throat continually, yet white victims of Asian and Black violence are hardly mentioned. Is this not ZC?

    I can name two high profile cases of the murders of white children by Asians that were skimmed across and then ultimately dumped in the police bin because of political correctness. The time Lawrence, is hailed as another Mandela figure, rock concerts and other rubbish. His mother has recently been made a Peer in the House of Lords… why? Because her son was killed. Why no Peerage for the family of Kris Donald, nothing but a pat on the back for the family of Charlene Downs, well done for not stoking up racial hatred, now piss off and pay your taxes, so what if your daughter was raped and thrown in a mincing machine.

    You are maybe not familiar with these cases. But they’re not so unlike the Trayvon Martin case where the evil white racist murdered the sweet Trayvon in cold blood. Yeah right. If we wish to be truly none racist we need to wake up. If not, the media will breed resentment and triablist hatred.

  26. mandrake says:

    Regarding the Japanese conduct in WW2. I had a Grandfather who fought against the Japanese in WW2. He told me firsthand how cruel they were. This is obvious when you look at Bushido. A different breed of combatant because of cultural heritage. I hardly condone their actions and I will never defend German troops who acted cruelly.

    Look at the cruelty of the US Marines during the Vietnam war. One of the first things I read as a child which I couldn’t comprehend. How could ‘people’ cut the ears off women who the GI’s had raped and then put them on their helmets as trophies?

    I still can’t. Because my blood-memory is of Hyperborea. These people are of this Earth, they’re the filth I described as mock soldiers, without honour without compassion. The same as the Japanese at Nanjing. Read ‘Zen at War’, for the Buddhist contribution to these atrocities and the re-interpretation of the Sutras during Hirohito’s reign. I’m well aware of the Rape of Nanjing, I seriously questioned my faith in the Soto Zen church in 2000 when I read that book.

  27. AS says:

    @mandrake

    This discussion is not about UK crime. Also, I never claimed your friends were lying, I claimed that your sample of friends is too narrow to be a balanced source.

    An average of 50 people are murdered in South Africa per day. That means roughly 18000 per year, or 360000 in twenty years. In the same time, the high estimate for rural “white” murder victims is roughly 3000. To find out why I say “high estimate”, go here:

    http://www.listconspiracy.blogspot.com/

    Nevertheless, let’s use the 3000 figure for now.

    3000/360000 = less than 1%

    yet these are the stories that get all the coverage in the Daily Mail etc.. “Non-white” murder victims are 99% of murder victims in South Africa, but nowhere near 99% of stories about South African murders in any international newspaper. This is ZC.

  28. Aryan Aim says:

    I have no doubt that certain sources exaggerate the “white genocide” in SA. This resource shows them to be 5% of the South African population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner – which means if the murder ratio you posit is correct, they’re being murdered less per demographic than “black” South Africans.

    However, their mostly rural whereabouts is a significant factor that’s being left out, insofar that where there are fewer people there are fewer murders, therefore one would need to gather information regarding how many rural “blacks” vs how many rural “whites” – given this ethic ratio – are murdered per demographic. I’d assume that the Afrikaans are more often the targeted victim of violence in this scenario.

    (It’s a similar scenario as “white” rural farmer settlers in the US South West who are targeted by Mexican Nationalists)

    Last I saw the SA government made it illegal for “white” farmers to have firearms to protect themselves. Upon learning this I felt my blood boil with hatred and have been invariably pro-Afrikaner since.

  29. mandrake says:

    @AS

    ‘This discussion is not about UK crime. Also, I never claimed your friends were lying, I claimed that your sample of friends is too narrow to be a balanced source.’

    Correct it’s not about UK crime, I was highlighting the lies and BS of the media in the World when it comes to reporting black and asian crime against whites in Europe. It’s swept under the carpet, only whites can be racist is seems. This is my point.

    In SA whites are targeted by black racists. It’s simply true and undeniable. Many of these racists cite Mandela as a huge influence. In fact Mandela has consistently turned his back on these attacks, his lack of leadership speaks volumes when it comes to black and white crime in SA.

  30. Connor Schuster says:

    Why are we blaming anyone but the Jew?

  31. Afzal says:

    “[T]heir mostly rural whereabouts is a significant factor that’s being left out, insofar that where there are fewer people there are fewer murders, therefore one would need to gather information regarding how many rural ‘blacks’ vs how many rural ‘whites’ – given this ethic[sic] ratio – are murdered per demographic. I’d assume that the Afrikaans are more often the targeted victim of violence in this scenario.”(Aryan Aim)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner#cite_note-Census_2011-1

    There you go, knock yourself out. I’m sure that there’s more in-depth data out there if that’s not satisfactory. Though you’d probably want to add even more variables, like education, crime, poverty, and a lot more, to get anywhere near any conclusion that’s actually probable and worthy of attention, rather than “30 more whites were killed in this small town than blacks over the course of a year, which must mean that a group of racists went on a killing spree, which obviously means that there’s a lot of black racists in SA.”

  32. AS says:

    @AA

    I am not making a point about the % of murder victims compared to their % ethnic demographic. I am making a point about the disparity between the % of “black” (or, for that matter, “coloured”) murder victims and the % of NEWS REPORTS COVERING THEIR MURDERS. They are definitely the majority of murder victims, but definitely not the majority of news coverage concerning murders in South Africa, which only ever seems interested in reporting on “white” murder victims. This indicates news bias to portray a picture that only “white” people are on the receiving end of crime. The reason for this portrayal has already been discussed: the ANC is supporting the boycott of Israel.

    Mark my words, the South African economy is going to worsen. And the real reason for this will be because, in response to South Africa’s boycott of Israel, Jew-owned finance is going to increasingly withdraw from South Africa to punish it. But the ZC narrative for the worsening economy will be: “Blacks are killing all the whites who are keeping the economy going!” And many people will believe this. And if enough people believe this, then even non-Jew-owned finance will also stay away from South Africa out of lack of confidence, and then the South African economy will completely collapse, so that what started as a Zionist rumour becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is how psychological warfare works. And then Avigdor Eskin (Jew) and his pals will put their plan into action and take over South Africa. Then they will install nuclear weapons and other WMDs in South Africa, resuming the Zionist geopolitical agenda begun in the 1970s. If we want to prevent this, we must ultimately encourage South Africa to become autarkic, but in the meantime we must encourage foreign economic confidence in South Africa just to buy it enough time to become autarkic. This means countering the negative rumours that surround it and promoting positive messages about South Africa instead. Mandela as an icon can be a big part of this positive message due to his enormous and devoted fanbase around the world.

    Jews think they have both bases covered, because if people praise Mandela but as an icon of democracy, then South Africa will not become autarkic even if given time to (because, as you already know, autarky prerequires autocracy), whereas if people bash Mandela, South Africa will not have time to become autarkic even if it tries to, for the investor confidence reasons given above. The way around this trap is to praise Mandela but as an icon of the ideal of NATIONAL UNIFICATION, for the sake of which it is acceptable to abandon democracy if it be shown that democracy is obstructive to unification. This will keep morale in South Africa high, because we are praising Mandela, but without tying down South Africa to democracy as a side-effect, because we claim that Mandela represents unification, not democracy.

    I’ve provided a ton of links that back up my diagnosis. Please take your time and study them fully. Jews are playing chess while Gentiles are playing checkers.

    On the subject of “Afrikaners”, I recommend the following links:

    http://republicantrekkervolk.blogspot.no/2008/06/afrikaner-domination-of-boers.html

    http://republicantrekkervolk.blogspot.no/2008/07/boers-did-not-create-apartheid.html

    http://republicantrekkervolk.blogspot.no/2013/06/the-afrikaner-broederbond-control.html

    Non-Boer “Afrikaners” used to be called Cape Dutch. Many of the Cape Dutch are Freemasons (third link) and hence likely to include crypto-Jews. The so-called “Afrikaner” identity is a trick to allow the Cape Dutch (and hence the crypto-Jews among them) to camouflage themselves amidst the Boers. Thus the ongoing ANC attempt to expel Freemasons/crypto-Jews from positions of control is being ZC-spun as an attack on “Afrikaners” as a whole, thereby getting ignorant Boers to fight for Zionist interests. My advice to Boers is to separate themselves from the Cape Dutch ASAP and sincerely embrace post-apartheid South Africa (hereafter simply thinking of themselves as South Africans) while emphasizing that Boers were never responsible for the apartheid era in the first place (second link), yet condemning apartheid nonetheless. But instead, many Boers are being fooled into thinking they are “Afrikaners” and therefore supporting apartheid revivalist and other segregationist groups whose real function is to protect the Cape Dutch Freemasons/crypto-Jews.

    http://nolstuijt.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/jews-rejoin-the-boers-in-new-freedom-struggle/

    Look it up yourself: the “Afrikaner-only community” Orania receives funding and technical backup direct from Israel.

    “The Founders of Orania actually went to Israel and spoke to the Israelis and learned a lot from them when they wanted to create Orania. Orania is proof of the co-operation and help that Afrikaners have had from Israelis in the past. The Israelis are masters of desert agriculture and invented drip-irrigation among many other things.” – Jan Lamprecht

    Anyway, I sincerely hope both you and mandrake can one day become greater inspirational icons than Mandela ever was. I am not being sarcastic, I really mean it. People, especially in times of tribulation, need charismatic figures to bring out the better side of their personalities. When Mandela fans talk about Mandela, their eyes light up and I almost see a circuit connect inside their brain which momentarily cuts them off from the lower emotions and lifts their spirits to a higher level. Yes, it’s temporary and maybe five minutes later they will be back to their usual crudeness, but for that brief duration that Mandela stays in their minds, they are kinder, more caring people than when Mandela was not in their minds. In future, perhaps you and mandrake yourselves can produce this effect in billions of people around the world, and maybe then they won’t need Mandela any more. But until then, please let them keep the idol they grew up idolizing.

  33. A broad analysis, including the dissolution of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, as well as the fall of Apartheid in SA, could be written about how the False Left and (in the case of SA) Traditional Western Separatism was replaced with even weaker yet just as ignoble systems of governance.

    Also, the US had it’s own brand of Apartheid, though no one really talks about it that way. The US Civil Rights movement was a flawed from the start, it should have been a American Citizens’ Unity Movement, but got bogged down in cries over liberties and rights. Jews on both sides played it all the way through.

    I’d go so far as to equate people’s love of democracy with creationism (the Yhwh Tanakh version) which is, simply put, dogmatic idiocy. But, for the longest time it was ardently defended and it’s critics send to prison or worse. The secular Holocaust religion fits in here too. All are manipulation of materials and complacency toward it.

  34. Afzal says:

    “But until then, please let them keep the idol they grew up idolizing.”(AS)

    The same sentiment that I believe that you’ve been trying to convey can be found in the FAQ as well. I’ve replaced Hitler with Mandela in the following quote (I’m not saying that Hitler and Mandela were the same in any way): “[a]nyone looking at history can posit his true motives as they wish. But which benefits our enemies more: that our mental picture of [Mandela] inspires us, or that it demoralizes us?”(“Wasn’t Hitler a Zionist agent?”, http://aryanism.net/about/faq/)

  35. mandrake says:

    I have no doubt Mandela was charismatic. Obama is too, and hell even Tony Blair had a way with lying to people day in day out and people still supported him.

    The very fact that this Mandela mourning in SA is going to include virtually every head of state in the World is testament to that. However my main gripe is again how some people like Mandela are forgiven and then embraced for their past actions while others like Gaddafi were and still demonised.

  36. Aryan Aim says:

    Thank you AS for clearing up a few key things and further articulating your point.

    In narration, I think it’s important to target democracy as the source of SA’s post-Apartheid injustices, including and especially – depending on what particular point is being argued – racially motivated discrimination and murders against the Boer.

    Thus, as a way to avert placing blame on Mandela – as to prevent alienating his noble supporters, a point – as you’ve covered – can be made that democracy was his grave mistake; that “majority decides” excludes the interests of the few, which in circumstances where racism supersedes humanism – such as in SA or Israel – invariably pertains to an ethnic minority.

  37. Aryan Aim says:

    …And in places where humanism supersedes racism, objectively, the circumstances are worse because everyone is pretend nice while still tribal underneath, and with only consumerism and hedonism as ‘tradition’ have nothing better to do than commit violence – not against a particular group of people – but against children, animals and the environment.

  38. AS says:

    @Afzal

    Exactly.

    @mandrake

    We commemorated Gaddafi too:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/remembering-gaddafi/

    We are showing people that there can exist a worldview that allows Mandela fans to also be Gaddafi fans (or, for that matter, Hitler fans). If a Mandela fan who used to assume Gaddafi was bad reads this post, he might now be willing to reconsider his opinion about Gaddafi because he sees that some Gaddafi fans are also Mandela fans. He might also be willing to imagine: what might South Africa be like if Mandela had followed Gaddafi’s system instead?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15392189

    For the record, we also commemorated Chavez, whose government was democratic:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/calling-aryanists-in-venezuela-hugo-chavez-rip/

    We even recognize US leaders like JFK and RFK. As believers in Fuehrerprinzip, we recognize folkish leadership qualities wherever we see them. When individuals with leadership qualities, and who were moving society in a broad direction we approve of, happen to be leaders of democratic governments, we don’t bash them, we merely invite people to imagine how much more they could have accomplished had they been dictators. Speaking of JFK and RFK, this goes over to Miecz’s point:

    @Miecz

    “The US Civil Rights movement was a flawed from the start, it should have been a American Citizens’ Unity Movement,”

    Listening to JFK’s and RFK’s early rhetoric on the subject, I believe they envisioned it as something much more like an American Citizens’ Unity Movement, as you call it. Following their assassinations, it become the mindless obsession over “rights” that has continued ever since. One of my favourite lines from JFK’s criticism of segregation is the magnificently simple rhetorical question:

    “Who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place?” – John F. Kennedy

    This kind of rhetoric, which encourages people to see things from the other person’s perspective instead of yammering on endlessly about “their rights” (whose neurolinguistic programming effect is actually to reinforce the dichotomy between “us” and “them”), is what is completely missing from present-day debate. Hitler, of course, was even better at empathic rhetoric than JFK, for example:

    “From time to time people say, “Yes, but couldn’t you find another way? The other day I was in a cafe and three times collectors came to me, and three times I had to dip into my pocket and give them something. Can’t it be done some other way?” The answer is that of course I understand how trying it is for you to be approached three times; but isn’t it much more trying for the girl or man who is collecting to have to approach perhaps a thousand people like you in the course of one day?” – Adolf Hitler

    When people are able to see through each other’s eyes, that’s when they become a folk. Folkish leaders encourage different groups in the nation to see through each other’s eyes, as Rosenberg described Hitler:

    “He was not at all like the representatives of other parties. Where the latter appealed to the interests of their listeners, who all belonged to a certain definite group, by promising to press their interests before all others, Hitler invariably spoke for the absent ones. In other words, before an audience of Red workers he spoke about the need for a healthy farmers’ class, or he defended the German officers. Facing officers he criticised the attitude of the intelligentsia which had ignored the workingman and left him to his fate. The time for self-criticism had come, he would say, and the way from man to man had to be found despite all obstacles.” – Alfred Rosenberg

    Appealing to the interests of their listeners is the democratic attitude. Encouraging empathy in the listeners towards others is the folkish attitude. (This is why it is absurd for anyone to compare the NSDAP to Golden Dawn which does nothing except press the interests of their listeners before all others. This is why it is even more absurd to claim GD is undemocratic – GD is the epitome of democracy!) Nothing kills empathy faster than democracy; that is why we have to kill democracy.

    And of course (and this goes on to what AA said), our long-term aim is that arguments based on empathy be extended to the entire world of the voiceless also. And ONLY arguments based on empathy CAN be extended in such a way; arguments based on “rights” never can, as we all know from the typical non-vegan whose first arguments are almost always: “I have the RIGHT to eat whatever I want! You have no RIGHT to tell me what I can eat!” The point is the moment we start talking about this abstract thing called “rights”, most people immediately think only about their own “rights”, and the discussion invariably goes nowhere.

    “All abstractions are inherently unethical – because what is ethical is determined by empathy, and thus cannot be abstracted out of that direct, immediate, and personal knowing which presences empathy in us.” – David Myatt

  39. Afzal says:

    @mandrake:

    “However my main gripe is again how some people like Mandela are forgiven and then embraced for their past actions while others like Gaddafi were and still demonised.”(mandrake)

    I believe that it’s the media’s view that you’re referring to, am I correct? Also, if I understand you correctly, you’re against commemorating Mandela based on his past actions which you believe, and are trying to prove, are evil (in a Judaic sense), which is a noble sentiment, but your arguments lack the support that they need. You may lack the rhetorical ability to convey them properly, or perhaps there’s nothing there and you’ve simply been beaten. If it’s the latter, don’t be stubborn. If it’s the former, don’t give up, try again. Your latest comment was however nothing but a rant.

    Be constructive.

  40. Afzal says:

    …Also,

    “In SA whites are targeted by black racists. It’s simply true and undeniable. [...] In fact Mandela has consistently turned his back on these attacks, his lack of leadership speaks volumes when it comes to black and white crime in SA.”(mandrake)

    Those aren’t facts. If I said that “I’m an Aryan and that’s simply true and undeniable”, would you accept it as fact? Again, you’re not constructive. You’re in fact hinting at the fact that you have no actual basis for your reasoning.

  41. Unity says:

    One thing that must be considered is that once Mandela came out of prison, he transformed himself from a radical to a politician. As such, he is still highly lauded by the SACP:

    http://www.workers.org/articles/2013/12/06/statement-south-african-communist-party-nelson-mandela/

    He may have changed his methods in favor of a more passive form of coercion, just as the jew would, in order to curry favor with western world leaders.

    In the original post he is criticized for the promotion of democracy. But the question is not asked why he would do so. Just as the jews promote democracy, he knew that such would earn him good graces from western democratic powers, while at the same time keeping the country torn apart in terms of the majority versus the minority. He was no better than a jew.

  42. mandrake says:

    @ everyone

    I can’t even begin to state how strongly I feel with regards to this post on Mandela.

    Seeing the World’s pathetic ‘leaders’ grovelling in SA at this racist Communist Jew sock puppet is nauseating to say the least. To find it here, I find is completely contrary to National Socialism and Hitlerism. No doubt I believe in non-race based National Socialism, or ‘ethical NS’ as Myatt would call it. However that is a triple pronged approach, I don’t believe in blacks hating whites or whites hating Asians. But to deny Mandela was racist is simply a lie. Maybe he truly evolved that particular thinking, but we can easily quote the statistics for the murdering of white South Africans since he came to power, even before that actually.

    We can see how much (and I won’t bore you with quotes, they’re very easily found) about how much he idolised Lenin and Stalin. Of course he would though he was put into a position of power by the Jews who really run the show in SA and all over for that matter. I will never ever sympathise with crypto-Jews and Communists, and Mandela was the ultimate Shabbo’s Goy.

    To be honest in the last year or so, I’ve found Aryanism drifting away into a different ethos, it’s more left wing, see it as ‘true left’ if you wish, I don’t. My NS is apolitical, not left and not right. It needn’t be either, it’s a true third position. Autocracy is.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this blog is pretty high-brow and the posters are very eloquent wordsmiths. AS can quote a million pages of ‘evidence’, as can others ad infinitum. That doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t make me believe what is said. I don’t believe in what I’m reading is National Socialism anymore, it might be something else, but I don’t believe it’s Hitlerian NS. The human beauty page for instance is something I can’t understand, what relevance does that have in the least? I couldn’t care less if someone is a three foot dwarf with bucked-teeth. As long as they’re Jew-aware and have a good heart that’s all that matters to me.

    As for the killing of predatory animals. How the fuck is that even given bandwidth? Maybe AS and Anthony can see something in this, but it appears to me to simply be ridiculous. Crazy talk.

    I think my time has come with regards to this particular blog. I simply cannot and will not condone some of the opinions that are held here. However I wish no-one ill will and continue to do what you do if you believe in it.

    If you could remove my blog from the list on the affiliated page that’d be much appreciated.

    20/88

  43. Decebal says:

    @mandrake,
    I agree with you that Mandela wasn’t anywhere near a National Socialist, but I have to say that the people who truly sympathize with him based on a misunderstanding are good at heart, but are simply misinformed. That’s why AS wants to contact them.

    “The human beauty page for instance is something I can’t understand, what relevance does that have in the least? I couldn’t care less if someone is a three foot dwarf with bucked-teeth. As long as they’re Jew-aware and have a good heart that’s all that matters to me.”
    It’s an external beauty standard. The internal one will always be the more important.

    “As for the killing of predatory animals. How the fuck is that even given bandwidth? Maybe AS and Anthony can see something in this, but it appears to me to simply be ridiculous. Crazy talk.”
    Most of us don’t actually condone the killing of predatory animals simply because they’re predatory animals. What we condone is trying to find a solution to the problem of the suffering of other animals. We accept that this world is imperfect, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to better it as far as we can. The solution is not as simple as killing all predatory animals, and I think everybody realizes this.

    Mandrake, I hope you stay – I’m happy to have met you – but if you find that the blog no longer appeals to you, it’s your choice. I trust you to make the right decision, and wish you the best of luck in your plans. :)

  44. Connor Schuster says:

    Killing animals is inhumane, so I prefer [and recommend] geographical isolation to lessen suffering of prey to predator animals. This should be all notwithstanding changing dietary habits of course. A predator cannot, and will not, consume a vegan diet. Again, humans can discern what is right and wrong. Animals simply cannot decide against things of their nature.

    I do now agree with Mandrake on three things:
    -The stories are petty and weak. They should deal with science, how to get people to think as us and, for example, things that Goebells relied on like hand movements and propaganda for the-as it were-lower and higher spectrums of people
    -There is a sense of false acuteness in ‘wits’, which is what the Jew relies on
    -Humans do not have beauty at all. For people to think external beauty is possible, well, they have surely manipulated themselves. I find external potencies of the human body disgusting; no one has physical beauty whatsoever, nor will they ever be without flaws. God damn the phenotype page.

  45. Afzal says:

    @mandrake:

    “AS can quote a million pages of ‘evidence’, as can others ad infinitum. That doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t make me believe what is said.”

    If you don’t believe it, prove it wrong! If you can’t, and no one here can prove you wrong either, then we’re at a standstill — and no side is less or more correct than the other, and you’re thus free to choose whatever side of the argument that you want to. In that case, neither party should resent the other if neither is superior in argument. Or perhaps you have in private already proven us wrong, but haven’t bothered to share your counter-arguments with us, then I implore you to do so, so that we may join you! If you choose to run away instead, then do so, but I doubt that that would be the “Hitlerian NS”-thing to do.

    All of us are building an ideology here, and you’re assuming a passive part to its’ development and yet have the nerve to whine about certain aspects in a “good-bye-comment”? Good riddance!

  46. AS says:

    @mandrake

    “If you could remove my blog from the list on the affiliated page that’d be much appreciated.”

    Done as requested. If you change your mind and wish to rejoin us, don’t hesitate to let us know. You are a good person, mandrake, you just have trouble recognizing other good people who don’t fit your preconceived expectations. I find you somewhat similar to NCTS in this respect.

    You have not tried to refute any points which disagree with your own. You have ignored them and simply repeated your assertions without substantiation. You continue to call Mandela BOTH a racist AND a communist even though one of my very first points was that it is impossible by definition to be both sincerely, a point on which I expected a reply from you but received none. I asked you to list policies implemented during his presidency that could be considered communist; you have not responded. I asked you to find quotes by him that defend racism; you have not responded.

    You have had nothing to say about why Gaddafi supported Mandela.

    http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=627606

    Sure, some communist countries supported him also, but that was what the Cold War was about: whoever was known to be opposed by one side would find support from the other almost by default. Mandela didn’t start out seeking support exclusively from communist countries. He sought support from whomever would support him. It is hardly his fault that communist countries supported him sooner than NATO countries, nor did he reject support from NATO countries when they later started supporting him.

    I have provided facts showing that Israel backed the apartheid regime (every single president of which was an AB Freemason) until the late 1980s and that Israel is backing anti-ANC groups today, and I have provided a narrative explaining how this all makes sense with respect to Zionist geopolitical objectives, especially with respect to strategic placement of nuclear weapons. You have ignored this.

    I have repeated over and over and over that this entire topic is less about Mandela the man and more about Mandela the icon in the minds of those who have idealized him (and I do agree that he has been over-idealized), and the positive power that this icon has. You have ignored this.

    I have explained that the only reason why the mainstream media praise him is to co-opt him as an icon of democracy, which is consistent with their narrative, and that the reason we praise him also is to show that hardcore anti-democrats such as ourselves are also capable of appreciating him, thereby challenging the notion that Mandela is synonymous with democracy. You have ignored this.

    I have provided links showing Mandela opposed the invasion of Iraq. You have ignored this and continue to call him a Jew sockpuppet.

    You have not even acknowledged that Afzal is part of this conversation at all.

    You certainly have not quoted from any of my links your comments to point out what you believe is inaccurate about them.

    Go to the BDS South Africa Facebook. Look at what is going on over there:

    https://www.facebook.com/bdssouthafrica

    This is Mandela’s legacy whether you like it or not: South Africa is now a solidly anti-Zionist country in common mentality, and propagandawise a potentially very influential one precisely because of Mandela’s worldwide charisma. And you want to ruin this? Why?

    “The human beauty page for instance is something I can’t understand, what relevance does that have in the least?”

    I suppose it’s useless to bring up how much propaganda and research in National Socialist Germany emphasized aesthetics, not least that of the human body. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t say that appreciation of the beauty of the human form is not part of the National Socialist worldview, which is, after all, centrally based on race.

    “I couldn’t care less if someone is a three foot dwarf with bucked-teeth. As long as they’re Jew-aware and have a good heart that’s all that matters to me.”

    So why didn’t Goebbels choose a three-foot dwarf with bucked-teeth to hold the swastika flag for his posters? Why didn’t Riefenstahl choose a three-foot dwarf with bucked-teeth for her films? Why didn’t Breker make statues of three-foot dwarfs with bucked-teeth?

    In some other comment you said you also didn’t understand why we talk about LOTR. Again, it’s aesthetics. I think it was Anthony who explained that it’s no different than Hitler liking Wagner’s operas. I was surprised that this required explanation at all, and I am even more surprised today that the Human Beauty page requires explanation. Next you might as well say that architecture shouldn’t be part of National Socialism either (yet of course it was). National Socialism is one of the most aesthetically-minded political movements ever.

    Ironically, the communists (whom you claim to hate so much) are the ones who oppose emphasis on human beauty and on heroic mythology, because they want to reduce the importance of the individual in favour of the collective. National Socialists are the opposite: we exalt the individual, hence we love mythology and human beauty insofar as they can be channels for expressing individual personalities that in turn reflect Aryan archetypes.

    Even more ironically, False Leftists (PC liberals) are the aesthetic relativists who say: “Everyone is beautiful!” (presumably including the three-foot dwarf with bucked-teeth that you mentioned earlier), in contrast to which we promote a well-defined aesthetic absolutism. So if you disagree with aesthetic absolutism altogether, does that mean you agree with aesthetic relativism?

    “I wish no-one ill will”

    Thank you, and I wish you well also. I say without hesitation that the world would be a better place if it had more people like you in it. But the world would also be a better place if it had more of the kind of people who become Mandela fans. It takes all sorts, and it takes each sort to appreciate other sorts and how they fit into the grand scheme of things.

  47. Constantine Schuster (aka Connor) says:

    This site has 214 spectators. Although I am sure many of you know it to some extent. These are traces to Annapolis in Baltimore for some reason.

  48. Anthony says:

    How do you know that, Connor?

  49. Connor Schuster says:

    I have checked your processing codes ever since coming to the site. It can be found in a page source doc expediter.

  50. Connor Schuster says:

    The location is Annapolis and Baltimore in Maryland

Leave a Reply

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>