Mandela was never a hero, he was a villain! Communist countries have created countless fake heroes and hypocrites; the Western world has likewise created many fake heroes, and Mandela is one of the biggest fake heroes of all!
[July 18, 1918 is Mandela’s birth day, Xi Jinping went to South Africa in 2013 to splurge 90 billion RMB, while eulogizing Mandela who turned South Africa into hell. So let’s find out what kind of man Mandela really is? This communist, who incited racial hatred and carried out terrorist activities, has been hailed as a world-class hero by the Western left, especially the white left, and even the right is afraid to say anything, even in the same breath. Ridiculous!]
After Mandela’s death, there was a rare global media spectacle: the East and the West praised each other with the same voice, more than any other contemporary leader. Why do democracies and autocracies alike find common ground in Mandela? The official media of Communist Cuba and China glorify Mandela as “anti-Western” and even “anti-American” for his struggle against white racism. Western media, on the other hand, glorify Mandela as a symbol of forgiveness and wisdom for his efforts to end white racism and promote “black-white reconciliation”. That is why he is hailed as a “great man of his generation,” a “hero,” and even a “moral model.
Is Mandela really that great? If we respect the facts, we will see that his legacy, including the economy, social security, black-white reconciliation, and political corruption, is mostly negative. Not only was he not a moral role model, but in many cases he sided with the world’s notorious dictators, was their hardcore friend, and became an ally of evil.
Mandela’s political career can be divided into two main parts: the 27 years he spent in prison under the white racist regime and the 23 years between his release in 1990, his election to the presidency of South Africa four years later (after serving one term out of office) and his death.
During his 27 years in prison and his previous political activities, Mandela demonstrated his resistance to white racism. This resistance was brave, determined, and righteous, and should be largely recognized. For racism, whether white, black, or anyone, is the worst of human beings; to divide, discriminate, and persecute on the grounds of race, color, and ethnicity is the thinking of Nazi Auschwitz. So this resistance of Mandela’s was an act of justice. And his imprisonment for 27 years, the length of his sentence and his indomitable nature, gave the image of a tragic hero, which was sympathized with and admired by the world.
But Mandela’s resistance was the resistance of the oppressed, a natural rebound from pressure. He had courage, but only at this level. I have read Mandela’s autobiography Long Walk to Freedom, which he wrote after his release from prison, and it is mostly a narrative of his experiences, with little profound thought. But even if it is not profound and great, Mandela’s spirit of resistance to racial discrimination and oppression is worthy of recognition, although there are negative values in that “resistance”, such as the resistance of Marxists, the resistance of communist thinking, the resistance of alternative racism that blacks want to kill whites, etc. (I will elaborate on this issue later. (I will elaborate on this later).
The main legacy of the 23 years between Mandela’s release from prison and his death is negative, and it is reflected in four areas –
Mandela’s first legacy: the economic mess.
South Africa’s economy, under the 19 years of Mandela and his successors (both successive presidents were Mandela’s cohorts and subordinates), is in a mess. This can be compared both vertically and horizontally.
Before Mandela’s presidency, South Africa had two major reputations in the world: one was the notorious white racist rule, and the other was the rapid economic growth that made it the only developed country in the whole of Africa, known as the “economic giant of Africa”.
South Africa’s economy continued to grow at a high rate during the 40 years from 1932 to 1972, doubling in an average of 7.3 years! South Africa’s economic growth was mainly due to foreign investment, with foreign trade surpluses year after year, with an average annual growth of 15.2% in the 17 years from 1965 to 1982. A study pointed out that South Africa was ahead of most developed countries in the world in the construction of highways, and its mileage was once third in the world after the United States and Germany.
However, it was only in the late 1980s that the South African economy slowed and declined due to global (mainly European and American) economic sanctions against the white racist regime (foreign trade accounted for a large part of the South African economy), with a growth rate of only 1.5% in the lowest year.
After Mandela was elected president, the world sanctions against South Africa were lifted and foreign aid flocked in again, but the South African economy did not improve at all. When Mandela took office, he promised to change the gap between rich and poor, to ignite the engine of economic take-off and to build a strong South Africa, but he and his two successors (both chairmen of the African National Congress, South Africa’s largest black political party) have been at the helm of the presidency for nearly 20 years, and South Africa’s economy continues to be very poor.
First, South Africa has one of the highest unemployment rates in the world, officially 25.2 percent (the latest figure released this month by Goldman Sachs is over 24 percent), but among young people, the unemployment rate is nearly 80 percent.
How big a number is that? The unemployment rate in Greece, which has dragged the EU and distressed the world, is 27%, and South Africa can be compared to Greece in terms of “crisis level”.
Not only the high unemployment rate, but also the gap between rich and poor in South Africa is more serious than before, and is now listed as one of the “world’s largest wealth gap countries”. Discontent among South African miners is growing, and a nine-month strike in 2012 caused losses of nearly $600 million. According to economists, South Africa has “outstanding problems of low growth, high unemployment and disparity between rich and poor”.
In today’s era of economic globalization, the world’s leading countries are committed to economic development and have achieved remarkable results. Needless to say, China has been growing for three decades and has become the second largest economy in the world. India has experienced an average economic growth rate of 7% over the past decade (this year it is expected to exceed 6%). Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, and other countries have also experienced remarkable economic development.
However, from 1994, when Mandela was in power until now, South Africa’s economic growth rate has been as high as 5.6% (2006) and as low as negative (2009), with an average of only 3% over 19 years.
During this period, many African countries have taken off, with Ghana and Nigeria both growing at more than 7%. This year, Mozambique will grow at 8.4% and Zambia will exceed 7%. But South Africa’s economic growth rate was only 0.9% in the first quarter of 2013, 3% in the second quarter and 0.7% in the third quarter statistics just published. The South African government is only striving for 2.7%. It seems that even this target is difficult to reach. In 2009, the lowest year, the South African economy had a negative growth rate (-1.8%).
What’s wrong with the South African economy? The “Mandelas” do not understand the market economy, and the black “African National Congress” (also translated as “ANC”) is a single party that is both corrupt and incompetent.
Mandela’s autobiography shows the black leader’s utter ignorance of the market economy. He had probably never read anything that promoted the market economy. Mandela once proudly told a visiting senior Chinese Communist Party official (Zeng Qinghong) that he had read a lot of Marx and Mao in prison. Under his pillow was “On the Cultivation of Communists” by Liu Shaoqi, the number two man in the Chinese Communist Party; he even wanted to meet Mao Zedong in Beijing that year to ask for advice on how to achieve Maoist communism in Africa. When he visited China, he said publicly that he insisted on reading Mao’s Selected Works (in English) in his cell. The spiritual pillar of life in prison actually came from the communist revolution in China!
The society that Mandela wanted to build was clearly stated in his court statement back then. He wanted to pursue a Marxist society: “The main means of production, land, belongs to the whole tribe, without any private ownership, without classes, without rich and poor and without people exploiting people.
So when Mandela got the presidential power, he immediately started to promote socialism. The Mandela government built a lot of housing for the poor and increased welfare, and as many as 15 million people (nearly one-third of the population) out of South Africa’s 50 million people received various government benefits. The huge welfare spending stretched the already strapped South African economy to the limit. In addition, the Mandelas reinforced the government’s monopoly on the economy, including nationalizing all agricultural land (by paying taxes and fees), which was already overly nationalized under white rule. Former U.S. President Reagan long ago noted that “government is not the solution to the problem; government itself is the problem.” The Mandelas’ push for big government and socialism in South Africa naturally had disastrous consequences.
I use the term “Mandelas” because his two successors were even worse. The first successor, Mbeki, was also a Marxist who had read political theory at the Lenin Institute in Moscow. Faced with economic difficulties, the Lenin Academy graduate, like Lenin when he had to implement a slightly more relaxed “new economic policy” in the face of the plight of the nascent Soviet Union, wanted to implement “socialism with South African characteristics”, cut welfare, attract foreign investment, and Activate the market. But soon another of Mandela’s disciples, Zuma, began to seize power, forcing Mbeki out of office and becoming president himself (to this day). At the time, the Mandela Foundation issued a statement endorsing Zuma’s power grab in disguise.
Zuma is a local indigenous man who never received a formal education, grew up fighting in the streets, and later followed Mandela, the commander-in-chief of the “Black Revolutionary Army”. It was in prison that Zuma, an adult, learned to read and write from Mandela’s men. The brash Zuma was even more left-leaning, denouncing welfare cuts as a sell-out to blacks and wanting to return to the traditional leftist communist line. Zuma’s policies were even supported by the South African Communist Party, which held a significant number of seats in parliament.
The socialist ideas of black elites like Mandela have to do with the cultural history of Africa. In my article “International Aid “Harmed” Africa”, I talked about the fact that Africa was mainly a French and British colony, and many African elites knew French, and as a result, they were Frenchized and tainted with the romantic feelings of the French pursuit of absolute equality, full of socialist fantasies. Their history of colonization by the “Western powers” reinforced the rebellious mentality of the “oppressed” to eliminate “class differences” and all differences. Therefore, after the end of colonial rule in Africa, the majority of African leaders were obsessed with socialism or communism. The Mandelas were typical of them.
An observer who has lived in both the Czech Republic and South Africa has commented that in the former Eastern European countries, socialism was widely seen as a great disaster. In South Africa, on the other hand, many people treat socialism as a respectable policy choice. In the Czech Republic, it is almost impossible to find a self-proclaimed communist. And in South Africa, the government is full of communists. In Central Europe and the Baltic states, people tend to think that the wealth of the Western world came as a result of the efficient productivity of the capitalist state; South Africans are more inclined to think that it was the evil of colonial exploitation.
Therefore, the struggle against white racism of the Mandelas in South Africa, from the beginning to the end of their power, had a clear socialist utopian color – anti-capitalist, anti-Western, and resistant to market economy. The results were, of course, disastrous.
Mandela’s second legacy: the deterioration of social security, the highest AIDS and rape rates in the world.
In addition to high unemployment and low economic growth, South Africa has three alarming records: the highest AIDS and rape rates in the world, and the second highest homicide rate in the world (after Colombia in the drug war).
In early 2012, the British magazine The Economist reported on the deterioration of security in South Africa under the headline “South Africa’s crime rate remains high”: “South Africa is one of the worst countries in the world for violent crime. Every day, about 50 intentional homicides, 100 rapes, 700 burglaries and 500 other violent attacks are officially recorded. According to a survey by the South African Medical Research Council, more than a quarter of South African men between the ages of 18 and 49 have committed at least one rape.”
Fifty homicides a day and one rape for every four adult males is a record that is rare in human history! This scenario was not seen during white rule in South Africa. According to data released by the South African police, between 1994 (when Mandela was president) and 2001, armed robberies and carjackings in South Africa rose by 30.3 percent, home invasions by 32.85 percent, rapes by 24.6 percent, other hooligan crimes by 70.4 percent, and robberies without the use of weapons by 169 percent. These are some staggeringly high rates!
To compare the Mandela era with the white rule is certainly not to affirm the racist rule of the whites, let alone to return South Africa to the apartheid era of the past, but to remind people that in celebrating Mandela’s “great and glorious rightness”, this is a fact that must be faced and a question that must be answered.
There are many reasons why the crime rate in South Africa has increased since Mandela took power, among which the deteriorating economy is the main factor. Any country with a high unemployment rate is bound to have a high crime rate. Another reason is the extreme disappointment with Mandela’s government, the general feeling of loss in the society, frustration and pessimism, self-loathing pervade the whole South Africa. Black people are not positive and optimistic about building their own homes just because they have “turned over a new leaf and become masters”.
William Gumede, a leading South African political analyst, told the New York Times last year, “In 1994 (when Mandela was elected president), South Africa had enormous problems, but there was a lot of hope. Today, there is a sense of despair. People who once believed that unions and the African National Congress, for example, could change things, have lost faith. They also no longer believe that the new democratic system, including the parliament and the courts, can protect and help them. That’s why they resort to violence, bypassing the law and taking matters into their own hands.”
Another reason South Africa has one of the highest homicide rates in the world is that Mandela announced the abolition of the death penalty immediately after he was elected president. The homicide rate in South Africa was already high, but Mandela was all about “political correctness” and went further and faster than the Western left, using his presidential power and personal fame to immediately implement the abolition of the death penalty.
The above-mentioned Economist report says, “What has been striking about South Africa since the abolition of the death penalty in 1994 is not just the high crime rate, but also the indiscriminate and violent nature of criminal activity. Criminal gangs may shoot to kill simply to snatch a cell phone. It’s not just whites, who make up 9 percent of the population, who complain about it; it’s almost everyone.”
Chinese journalists who went to South Africa a few years ago to cover the World Cup soccer tournament have also heard about this kind of fearful situation. Li Jing, a reporter for the Chengdu Business Daily, recalled not long ago, “It’s been almost three years since then, but I still have palpitations. We were called ‘lifeless domestic journalists’ by the Chinese in South Africa.” That means, you dare to come to South Africa like this. The headline of the report sent back by the reporter of Southern Metropolis Daily at that time was: “South Africa, the country with the highest crime rate, never travel alone”. But even if you don’t walk alone, five Chinese journalists were robbed in broad daylight.
In the face of the growing murderous crime in South Africa, nine major black tribal leaders (who have considerable influence in the country) issued a joint statement calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty and for the South African government to hold a referendum on the issue.
The tribal leaders couldn’t stand it anymore because of the successive cases of gang rape of babies in South Africa (there is a saying among blacks that rape of babies prevents AIDS), the three victims were 5 months, 8 months and 9 months old babies. Gang rape of infants is appalling and not even animals do it!
The call by the Nine Tribes chief resonated strongly with the public, and a poll by the South African newspaper The Citizen showed that 98.1 percent of South Africans were in favor of reinstating the death penalty as an effective way to curb South Africa’s high crime rate. But the South African government does not dare to do so, nor does it hold a referendum. Because the abolition of the death penalty, their great leader Mandela decided, they can not, more dare not deny Mandela; Mandela has become the black “God master card”, no one dare to move.
The three black presidents of South Africa since Mandela were all chairmen of the black political party, the African National Congress. Who wants to be president in South Africa, you have to sit on the first chair of the largest black party, and to be the party leader, not to hold high the flag of Mandela, without Mandela’s endorsement, it is simply not possible. So even with the appeal of nine tribal chiefs and the support of ninety-eight percent of the country’s population, it still can’t resist a Mandela! So the only way for South Africa to reinstate the death penalty is after Mandela is dead.
In addition to rampant murder and rape, there’s something even scarier – South Africa has the highest rate of AIDS infection in the world (not one)! More than 6 million adults (12% of the population) in South Africa are infected with AIDS, and one in two of these “sex workers” are living with HIV.
According to 2005 statistics, up to 31% of pregnant women, 20% of adults, and 23% of military personnel in South Africa are infected with AIDS. Officials report that AIDS has become the leading cause of death in South Africa, accounting for more than one-fifth of all deaths. The average life expectancy of South Africans is only 52.6 years (2011 statistics), nearly 20 years lower than during the era of white rule!
Life expectancy is increasing in the context of a developing global economy with improved living standards and medical conditions. According to the latest UN report, the average life expectancy of the global population has increased from 64 years in 1990 to 70 years (as of 2011), with both China and India increasing by seven years each. But instead of rising, South Africa is falling!
In my recent article “Iraq and Afghanistan Enlighten China,” I mentioned that when the Taleban ruled, the average life expectancy of Afghans was only 40 years. After the U.S. led forces eradicated the Taleban regime, and after only 12 years of democracy and economic development, the average life expectancy of Afghans has exceeded 60 years, an increase of 20 years! And under Mandela’s 19 consecutive years in power, the average life expectancy of South Africans was nearly 20 years lower than it was under white rule, far worse than that of Afghans today!
Why are there so many AIDS patients in South Africa? Of course, one rape every 26 seconds is one of the ways to spread AIDS. Another analysis pointed out that black women, due to cultural customs, education level and the status of men and women, have no say in whether their sexual partners use condoms or not, plus some tribes in South Africa allow three or even five wives, a man infected with HIV, the victims will not be one person, but three or five or more (the current South African President Zuma has four wives. (Zuma was once accused of raping his friend’s daughter, who was already infected with AIDS, and eventually argued that it was consensual).
A blog written by Professor Chen Zhiwu of the Yale School of Management, a Chinese economist, after a trip to South Africa in March this year, again illustrates the AIDS crisis in South Africa: “The AIDS problem is very serious here, with almost one in four adults carrying the AIDS virus. The impact of AIDS on South Africa is so great that the population is declining at a rate of three per thousand per year due to AIDS deaths. The death of AIDS is so serious that it is difficult to replenish teachers in primary and secondary schools. Not only is it difficult for schools to replace teachers who have died of AIDS, but it is also difficult for teachers who are still alive to concentrate on teaching, because they do not know how long they will live. People’s savings rate is not high, they live today and don’t know what will happen tomorrow, so why save so much money?”
Chinese journalists who went to South Africa were scared to death, they said, after shaking hands with the blacks, they rushed back to the hotel and desperately washed their hands with soap, although they also knew that AIDS is transmitted by blood, but they were still scared and had palpitations.
In March, South Africa’s health minister released an even more shocking statistic that at least 28 percent of South African schoolgirls had AIDS, nearly a third!
The Mandelas’ government bears considerable responsibility for South Africa’s rampant AIDS epidemic. South Africa’s female health minister, M’Shimane, has publicly preached that with AIDS, a little garlic and beet will do the trick. The nation’s top medical executive was not joking, she was serious. Because “South African health unit experts who openly disagree with the minister’s bizarre statements will be punished”. And the South African Department of Health even has a policy of encouraging patients who don’t want to take ARVs (AIDS treatment drugs) to eat more garlic and beet, for example (saying it increases the body’s resistance). Mussiman’s words and actions became the laughing stock of the world, and was named “Dr. Garlic”.
In the face of criticism, the health minister said that AIDS was rampant in South Africa because there was no money to buy drugs, and that the money was spent on submarines to prepare for the U.S. attack (quoted by the Guardian). Doesn’t that make people laugh even more? A U.S. military attack on South Africa? To rob AIDS patients? The truth is that the U.S. government has been providing aid to South Africa in the fight against AIDS, giving $15 billion to the country’s AIDS fund during the Bush administration (The terrorist attacks on the U.S. on 9/11 destroyed the World Trade Center in New York. The U.S. federal government gave $4 billion in relief to New York City, while the South African men’s condoms were paid for by Americans at such a huge cost).
Not only does South Africa have a “medically illiterate” health minister, but the president of South Africa is no better. Mandela’s successor, President Mbeki, denied the existence of AIDS, saying publicly, “I don’t know a single person who has AIDS. The current president of South Africa, Zuma, is even more desperate, saying, “AIDS is nothing to be afraid of, just take a hot bath and you’ll be fine. A female writer of Chinese descent living in South Africa criticized, “This is not only a big joke, but also an encouragement to the already irresponsible male power in Africa.”
With such irresponsible, ignorant and arrogant health ministers and presidents, can AIDS in South Africa not be rampant?
But because South Africa is 80% black and Mandela’s “African National Congress” foments nationalism, black political parties have been in power for 19 years (with no prospect of a white president in the future). No matter how badly a black government does, black people just vote for black skin. So long live the Mandelas’ government. There is no doubt that without political party rotation and one party dominance, there is bound to be corruption.
He Wenping, an expert on South Africa from the Institute of Asian and African Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, recently commented: “In the past, when whites were in power in South Africa, corruption existed, but it was not prominent and did not have any major side effects on social and economic development. In 1999, Transparency International blacklisted 85 countries plagued by corruption, and South Africa ranked 32nd. In recent years, the South African judiciary has registered 220,000 cases of corruption and simply cannot afford to deal with them.”
At a September 2012 conference at the University of Cape Town, Paul Huffman, director of the South African Institute for Accountability, estimated that the South African government has lost 30 billion rand (South African currency, equivalent to $3 billion) annually to corruption since Mandela took power in 1994, and has accumulated 675 billion rand ($675 billion).
The New York Times reported last year that the “African National Congress” came to power with the promise of “a better life for all.” Today, there is a growing perception that the ANC’s main concern is self-interest. The newspaper quoted the South African government as spending $27 million (about 170 million yuan) to renovate President Zuma’s private country home, claiming that it was done for security reasons.
Mandela, who spent 27 years in prison without any income and then only five years as president, owned two companies in his trust (Harmony Investment Holdings Ltd. and Grand Investment Holdings Ltd.) and left a fortune of more than 10 million pounds ($16.3 million), the report said. At the time of his death, he was still being sued by his two daughters and fought in court for his property. Mandela’s grandson, Manla, is even more notorious for using his grandfather’s name to move around for profit. “Members of the Mandela family are currently active in more than 110 businesses, and Mandela has set up some 27 funds over the years for future generations of children.” Where did Mandela get all this money from?
But in South Africa, all of this will go unnoticed because from top to bottom, it’s the blacks who are in charge. The U.S. Newsweek has reported that in the fall of 2009, the South African police announced staffing restructuring goals to increase the percentage of black employees from 70.7 percent to 79 percent and shrink the percentage of white employees from 15.6 percent to 9.6 percent. To achieve the same ratio as the black and white population of South Africa. But “the dramatic reduction in the proportion of whites in the police has not improved the lack of authority in the South African Police Service. 2/3 of the South African people believe that some of the most corrupt officers are in the police.”
The New York Times story concluded, “Worker unrest, a general sense of social disillusionment, a bleak economic outlook, and the inertia of the political establishment are, on balance, perhaps the most serious crises facing South Africa’s emerging democracy.”
A country where one-third of schoolgirls have AIDS, one-third of pregnant women have AIDS, where there is a rape every 26 seconds, where one in four adult men have committed rape, where there are even ongoing atrocities of gang rape of infants and children, where the murder rate is among the highest in the world, where life expectancy has plummeted, where unemployment is high, where the economy is stagnant, where corruption is rife, where there has never been a country like this before in human history!
Is this the “great legacy” and “moral inspiration” that Mandela, known as the “moral saint”, and his successors have left to South Africa?
Mandela’s third legacy, the “black and white reconciliation”, is just a symptom.
Even with the aforementioned negative legacies of economic stagnation, poor social security and the AIDS epidemic, which seriously affected the quality of life of the people, many uninformed people still believe that Mandela has contributed to and achieved a remarkable “black-white reconciliation” in South Africa. But is this really the case?
In his presidential inaugural address, Mandela vowed, “We covenant to build a rainbow nation in which all South Africans, black and white, will be free from fear and assured of the inalienable rights and dignity of every human being.” Mandela also invited three white jailers who had guarded him to be his “guests” at the ceremony, a move widely hailed as Mandela’s virtue of tolerance and commitment to reconciliation in spite of his past.
But Mandela’s vow and invitation to the white guards was just a gesture and a media show. Not only was there a distance between what he said and what he did, but he even turned the original white racism upside down and imposed black racist rule.
First, in economic legislation, the Mandelas introduced the Black Economic Empowerment Act (BEEA). This law, in itself, was racist. The reason is that economic empowerment, or raising the standard of living, should be for everyone, not just for people of a certain race by color. If the U.S. government passes a “White Economic Empowerment Act”, it is tantamount to openly promoting “white supremacy” and will be cursed by the world. There are 56 ethnic groups in China, but would Beijing dare to enact a “Han Chinese Economic Revitalization Act” that promotes Han Chineseism and discriminates against other ethnic groups?
South Africa has an absolute majority of blacks (only 9% of whites), and Mandela’s people have the “majority” at their back, so they dare to do something. Zheng Haiyao, a Chinese writer living in South Africa, published a collection of essays under the pseudonym Katie, South of South Africa (Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House, 2009), in which she said that the Black Economic Revitalization Act “at the beginning, mainly in terms of shareholding, all mining companies in South Africa, companies related to national projects, must have black shareholding, and by 2014, black shareholding must reach 26%. 26%, this is a hard and fast rule, South Africa’s main economic pillar is the mining industry. This policy has made a very small number of well-connected blacks rich.”
This separate preferential economic legislation for blacks not only dictates how many shares blacks have in a company, but also requires companies formerly owned by whites to give up 26% of their shares to blacks, and if they don’t sell, it’s illegal! Thus achieving black control of the entire national economy.
We cannot imagine if the U.S. government mandated that any company must have more than twenty-five percent white shares, or that a company owned by Chinese must give up a quarter of its shares to whites, which not only destroys the market economy, but is clear and unequivocal racial discrimination and a denial of individual rights. Mandela’s practice is to directly deprive people of their private property; the practice of requiring whites to give up part of their shares to blacks is the same as Mao Zedong’s robber logic of “fighting the landlords and dividing the land”. And the division by race and color is actually worse than the division by class, because the so-called “class” of people can be changed by the change of property, but not by color and race.
But even so, the Mandelas felt that this was not enough, and later enacted the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, which expanded the scope of preferential treatment for blacks and discrimination against whites even more.
Katie (Zheng Haiyao) works for a mining company in South Africa, so she has direct knowledge of the country’s economic situation. In her book, she says that this bill to expand black preference “is on top of the equity, the government will also look at how many of your company’s employees, procurement, suppliers, how many are black. The higher the black component, the higher the score. South African companies can be classified into eight levels based on their black factor, and can get certificates from government-approved assessment agencies. If three companies provide the same services, such as lawyers and accountants, it depends on how many levels of black certification they have, and definitely use the one with the higher rating. If you want to hire someone with equal qualifications, you will definitely choose the black person first, followed by the colored person, and finally the white person’s turn.”
This classification of people into three, six, nine, and different treatment according to their skin color is totally racist thinking and the Mandelas are practicing black racist rule in South Africa in open fire! It is even more inexcusable for people who were once victims of racism to turn around and commit even more arrogant racism today!
The victims of this preferential black bill are not only white people, but also the local Chinese and other colored people. After eight years of struggle, the South African court finally ruled that Chinese and Indians in South Africa are “black”. In the future, if Chinese people dare to call “niggers”, it is the same as calling themselves in South Africa. This legal ruling is tantamount to making it clear that South Africa is to practice racial discrimination against “whites”, that is, to reverse the original practice of white discrimination against blacks. But what the whites did back then was “apartheid”, that is, the separation of black and white. Although blacks were not given equal status, there were no laws that explicitly discriminated against them economically.
In 2011, the Guangdong-based Southern People’s Weekly published a feature article from South Africa titled “Black and white South Africa, the wall of the heart is still there”, with the subtitle: The current government’s policy of supporting blacks has turned “black and white” upside down in South Africa and intensified the conflict between black and white.
This article shows that Mandela’s people are “treating others as they would like to be treated”, using the original white racist ideas against blacks to deal with (discriminate against) whites. Therefore, it is a myth that Mandela had the wisdom and courage to promote and achieve black-white reconciliation in South Africa. And this myth is clear to Mandela himself and to those who live in South Africa.
In addition to the economic aspect, when the Mandelas came to power, they purged the white population in the political sphere. They replaced dark-skinned employees in key government departments, especially in the middle and senior levels. A few years ago, a Chinese living in South Africa, who knows the situation, wrote on the Internet.
“In the past 15 years of black rule, the number of whites in government has been drastically reduced, the number of white voices in parliament has become smaller and smaller, and the number of whites in the army and police has been decreasing every year. Whites have left those positions not willingly, but because they can no longer tolerate the exclusion and discrimination of the black regime. Now, when it comes to discrimination, it is no longer the blacks but the whites who suffer from discrimination. It is now more difficult than ever for white South Africans to get equal policies and treatment with blacks under the black regime, and there have been many reports of whites suffering hardships from government departments, with tens of thousands of white South Africans choosing to emigrate.”
In June 2010, China’s Longshang Dongfang Weekly published a feature story, “White South Africans at the World Cup,” in which it was written that Lin Liangfeng, a reporter for Sports Weekly, “encountered a white receptionist while covering the event in South Africa. He was the only white person in a large group of black people, and he had no power. It was obvious that he didn’t want to talk to us. Later, I found an opportunity to ask him why it was the blacks who had the power to make decisions in South Africa, while the whites were mostly deputies or subordinates. He didn’t answer.” The report quoted the observation of a foreigner who has lived in South Africa for many years, “Whites in ministries are usually not promoted to the position of director. If there is no suitable black person, even if the position is vacant, it will not be given to a white person.”
“Those blacks don’t even know how to start a computer to get a government job, while we whites are all being kicked out! As more and more blacks enter the government, there will be even less people to help us whites!” So said Ann Loucks, a 60-year-old female villager.
Some readers may question my quotation from an official Chinese Communist media reporter. But it is well known that the Chinese government’s propaganda has historically been pro-black against white apartheid and racial discrimination. What does it say about Chinese journalists who have written the above despite decades of such tonal propaganda? It means that what they see is true, otherwise they have no need to deliberately speak against the tone of their own government.
A Reuters reporter interviewed Lukas Gouws, a 29-year-old white South African, who said: “I have never oppressed black people since I was a child, and I am also a poor white man, but I can’t help it. After the blacks took power, he also lost his position as a civil servant and now sells fruits for a living. And those black South Africans robbed him twice a day, and the black police didn’t care.
But Covus was still lucky that many white farmers were killed by blacks after the Mandelas came to power. According to figures released by the South African Farmers Association, more than 3,000 white farmers were murdered from 1994 to 2010.
If there had been 3,000, not to mention 300, black people killed during the white rule, it would have been reported to Mars by the Western leftist media and become the news of the century. And when whites are murdered, those on the left keep quiet for the sake of political correctness. Even the shooting of black people by the black government is not even willing to report more. For example, last year the Zuma government suppressed a strike by mining workers and the police shot and killed 34 workers (almost all of them black). If this happened in the era of white rule, the white government police killed black people, will be condemned by the Western media with one voice. But this time, it was just a piece of news.
The Western media has two ways of dealing with the black issue: first, they are scared to death and are too careful to say “no”; second, they are desperately trying to sing the high tune of “political correctness” to show their own nobility. -Seize any opportunity to rebuke and denounce any disrespect to black people by white people. If a white person curses a black person, he should be beaten 10,000 times, while a black person curses a white person, it is the right thing to do! So the black community has become a “shrine” where criticism is not allowed. The truth is, any society that cannot be criticized must be the most unhealthy; just like any person who cannot be said, criticized or scolded must be the weakest.
When the 2010 World Cup was held in South Africa, the satellite city of Krugersdorp (with ancient caves, known as evidence of ancient human life) in the suburbs of Johannesburg was known to the world in another way: the series of “White South African Slums” by the famous photographer Finbarr O’Reilly of Reuters let the outside world know the miserable life of some white South Africans after the abolition of apartheid.
The aforementioned report in the Southern People Weekly said that in this 255-person white slum, hatred is written on almost every adult’s face except for children playing. Apart from hate, “Not Fair” is on the lips of almost every villager. We whites handed over power to blacks in 1994 with the hope of creating a true ‘rainbow nation’ where all South Africans would have equal access to education and work,” says Irene, who has a 10-year-old child. But when the blacks came to power, they did not give us whites the same opportunity and implemented a new racial policy that discriminates against whites. Only when they give all South African citizens equal access to education and work can hatred between blacks and whites be truly eliminated and a ‘rainbow nation’ be truly established!” .
This is just one of the many white slums in South Africa,” the report said. There are many more like it in other parts of Johannesburg and around the capital Pretoria. Of the 4.47 million white people, about 10 percent live below the poverty line.”
He Wenping, an expert on South Africa at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out in a recent interview with Hong Kong’s Phoenix Network: “After blacks came to power politically in 1994, some black officials were not satisfied, even though the government had provided them with much more favorable living conditions (such as preferential housing, buses, and higher salaries) than during the white government. They believed that what the whites could enjoy economically, they should also enjoy, otherwise it could not be called ‘equality’. Therefore, they will use the power in their hands to make money by any means. Today, a small but powerful black upper class has slowly formed in South African society, living in the suburbs where the rich gather, wearing fancy clothes, driving luxurious BMW cars, sending their children to study abroad, etc.”
In the face of Mandela’s cronyism, white South Africans have voted with their feet, and the percentage of whites in the South African population has dropped to 9 percent (from nearly 20 percent). Middle-class (or above) whites, especially professional elites such as doctors, engineers, professors, accountants, skilled workers, etc., have fled South Africa. Newsweek reported that a quarter of South Africa’s 25,000 certified public accountants are now living abroad. The British BBC reported in “Do white people have a future in South Africa? the BBC reported, “The number of white farmers living in South Africa, once 60,000, has halved in 20 years.”
The result is a bizarre job market in South Africa: unemployment is as high as 25 percent, and there is a severe shortage of professionals. The South African government report assesses that the shortage of formal management and technical staff is between 350,000 and 500,000, and that 60 percent of urban managers lack the knowledge they need, whether in finance or engineering.
But faced with such a situation, South Africa’s Mandelas are still preaching black supremacy and casually attacking whites (culture, etc.). For example, the current president Zuma said in a speech late last year that black South Africans who own dogs, walk them, and take them to the vet are emulating Western culture, and that those who love dogs more than people “lack humanity”. The remarks, of course, caused discontent among dog lovers, who criticized Zuma for not loving animals and having racist ideas. However, Zuma is still a mouthful, he called on black people not to use Western shampoo, saying “you can just use the bath and straighten your hair and you will never become white!”
As president of a country, Zuma has continued to make “racist” statements. But this is still child’s play, because the black rallies organized by Zuma’s people are much more frightening, with thousands of black people singing the “African National Congress” party song, “We swear to kill the white man” and “chop them down with an axe. We pledge to kill the white man” and “cut them down with an axe”. The sinister spectacle of Mandela’s supporters armed with traditional weapons such as sticks, spears and machetes not only scared off many international investors, but also scared off the local whites.
The “African National Congress” had many of these party songs, which were used to inspire hatred of whites (and to rise up against racial domination). But after Mandela came to power, he did not ban these songs that incited hatred and massacres. On this basis alone, Mandela’s claim to have “promoted and achieved black-white reconciliation” is false.
And what is even more shocking and intolerable is that Mandela personally swung his fist with the black communist comrades who sang the “kill the white man” song. One can see this clip on youtube (http://youtu.be/RY1qmtbiBcI). And it was not sung in private, there were journalists present. Mandela, when asked by a journalist how he felt, said that he thought of “democracy, love, peace in South Africa”.
Today, any leader in the West, not to mention daring to sing “kill the black man” in public, or to say “nigger” (nigger), will not be re-elected, and will be condemned and punished by public opinion. Not long ago, a famous white female cook in the United States, because she admitted that she said “nigger” more than 30 years ago, she was dismissed from her contract by a TV station, the major companies that sold her products (including Wal-Mart, Home depot, JC Penny) withdrew their products, and her upcoming book, which was ranked first on Amazon, was also canceled by the publisher. Her forthcoming book, which was number one on Amazon, was cancelled by the publisher, etc. Public opinion condemned her, and she went on TV to cry and apologize. And Mandela, who openly preached “racial discrimination” and even worked with people who sang “kill the white man”, can be hailed as a “great man of his generation”? No wonder some people say that many of those who won the Nobel Peace Prize are “hypocrites”!
This reminds us of Arafat, who, when answering Western journalists in English, talked about reconciliation with the Israelis and how he loves peace. And when he speaks in Arabic to his own community, he incites racial hatred and even encourages children to be “martyrs” (attacking Israel with suicide bombers). It seems that all villains are the same.
Anyone who wants to defend Mandela, please watch this video and hear how Mandela, a black leader who was hailed as a moral saint, openly supported “killing white people”! Is this Mandela’s “black-white reconciliation”?
Mandela’s fourth legacy: South Africa became a pro-dictator stronghold.
Mandela worshipped heroes and friends of the world’s most notorious dictators, including Mao Zedong, Gaddafi, Castro, Arafat, Jiang Zemin, Zeng Qinghong, Li Peng and others.
While in prison, Mandela studied Mao’s books and became known as an “international fan of Mao”. Mandela praised Mao’s communist revolution and later told a Chinese Communist Party official (Zeng Qinghong) that they celebrated the 11th National Day of the Communist Party’s founding in prison. He was eager to go to Beijing to pay homage to “Chairman Mao” and ask for advice on how to achieve communism in Africa after his release from prison. But when he was released from prison, Mao had been dead for many years, and he lost the opportunity to express his admiration to Mao.
So his first trip out of prison was to Libya to pay homage to Gaddafi. That trip was a difficult one, because at that time the UN Security Council passed a sanctions (embargo) resolution and no civil aviation could land in Libya. There are reports that to go to Libya, you have to take a plane to Tunisia, change the car for five hours to the border, and then the desert road for three hours to reach the Libyan capital Tripoli.
Libya was sanctioned by the United Nations because Gaddafi’s men blew up the U.S. civil aviation “Pan Am” aircraft, causing the “Lockerbie air disaster” that killed 270 people (after Gaddafi was killed, the former Libyan justice minister confirmed that the bombing of U.S. civil aviation was planned by Gaddafi). . (Gaddafi’s government had also compensated $2.7 billion to the victims of the crash). And Mandela went on a pilgrimage to such Gaddafi, which is tantamount to endorsing evil and challenging the international community.
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton criticized Mandela’s move as “unpopular,” and Mandela rightly retorted, “No country can claim to be the world’s policeman, and no country can decide what another should do.”
But when he was in prison, he hated all the countries in the world, such as the United States, to be the “international police” and called on the international community to “intervene” in the internal affairs of South Africa and sanction the white government of South Africa. But as soon as he got out of prison, his principles and standards changed. And it was a big black-and-white change.
Shortly after Mandela’s visit to Libya, Gaddafi gave Mandela an “international human rights prize” of $250,000 (probably Mandela’s “first bucket of money”). The list of Gaddafi’s “human rights awards” shows that they are mostly awarded to political villains who have violated human rights, including Cuban President Castro and Venezuelan President Chavez. The fact that Gaddafi included Mandela in this “category” shows that in the eyes of Gaddafi, Mandela was their accomplice, and Mandela was very happy to be in their company.
If Mandela had just gotten out of prison and was not well-informed, it would have been justifiable. But later he became president, with sufficient information, still insisted that Gaddafi as a good friend, and publicly praised: “Gaddafi is one of the revolutionary icons of our time.”
The “idol”, Mandela is even worshiped. After Libya was lifted from the UN embargo, Gaddafi’s first trip abroad was to South Africa to meet with Mandela. People can see in this youtube video (http://youtu.be/wEoK4KGMO54) if Mandela warmly received his old friend Gaddafi, bear hugs at the airport, held a state dinner. In fact, not to mention the fact that Gaddafi had a “beauty guard” with him, anyone who is still sane and not yet crazy would know what a ridiculous clown that dictator is. Mandela, on the other hand, received it with a straight face; the shot with Gaddafi’s hands in the air framed Mandela’s position on right and wrong.
In the above video there is a shot of Mandela speaking at a banquet with former US President Clinton in attendance, going so far as to justify his support for Gaddafi, saying that it was his moral imperative not to forget his old friends who supported him in the past. But the question is, not to mention Gaddafi’s so-called support for Mandela, just had canceled Libya to South Africa, such as civil aviation, does not Mandela have basic intelligence? If Gaddafi really valued human rights and supported the oppressed, then why was Libya under his rule one of the worst countries in the world in terms of human rights? Why were there never any democratic elections? Why did the “Mandelas” in Libya never have the opportunity to vote and be elected? How is it possible that Mandela did not understand this common sense and logic?
And how could Mandela not know, through widespread media coverage, that Gaddafi’s men blew up civilian planes, killing hundreds of people? Mandela strongly opposed the white regime in South Africa, which was only apartheid, but the Gaddafi’s were intentionally murderous and indiscriminate, regardless of color, so how could Mandela be friends with such butchers and even hail this dictator as “the revolutionary icon of our time”? From this “icon” criterion, one can also clearly see what kind of revolution Mandela wants!
How can Mandela’s so-called “black-white reconciliation” in South Africa be true when he and Gaddafi are “comrades in arms”? He was not able to reconcile with the former white president Clark, who was willing to compromise and renounce white racism, and even to promote black racist rule in turn. The fundamental reason for all this can be found in his friendship with the Gaddafis.
Mandela’s friendship with Gaddafi lasted until Gaddafi was killed. When the Libyan people rose up to revolutionize the rule of Gaddafi, Mandela’s voice was never heard in support of the Libyan people. Instead, it was his successor (South African President) Zuma who publicly attacked NATO for trying to change the regime in Libya, saying that NATO’s bombing was a “political assassination” of Gaddafi. South Africa was among the six countries where Gaddafi was speculated to be hiding at the time.
The fact that Gaddafi hid tens of billions of dollars of stolen money in South Africa shows how much he trusted the Mandelas. Gaddafi’s chief of staff, Bashir Saleh, was later responsible for an African investment fund of up to $40 billion. After Gaddafi was killed, the funds were unaccounted for. Although Saleh is on Interpol’s most wanted list, he also publicly attended the BRICS summit in Bend, South Africa, last March. South Africa’s opposition parties questioned why the police did not arrest the wanted man and let him attend the meeting in style. They demanded an explanation from the Zuma government, but the Mandelas would not answer. After persistent representations by the Libyan government, the South African government was recently ready to return the $1 billion hidden by Gaddafi, which is just a fraction of that, not to mention that the wanted man is still at large in South Africa.
My claim that Mandela was friends with the dictator “Gaddafis” is also clear from another example. After his release from prison, Mandela travelled thousands of miles to Cuba in the Americas to pay homage to another hero he admired, Castro.
From this video on youtube (http://youtu.be/w36mzjObod0), one can see that Mandela is respectfully confronted with Castro, as if he were meeting the “big man”, with Castro sitting on the couch and Mandela standing, pleading with him over and over again. “When will you be able to go to South Africa? Promise me.”
At a Communist Party rally in Havana, Mandela shouted “Long live the Cuban Revolution, long live Comrade Castro!” When walking with Castro, Mandela even held Castro’s arm in the humble manner of a disciple supporting his master and complimenting the dictator.
Castro is the oldest dictator in the world, having been in power for more than half a century (more than Stalin and Mao Zedong) since the late 1950s. And like Gaddafi, he has imposed harsh repression internally and is anti-American and anti-Western, exporting revolution and unrest externally. Yet Mandela identifies with, likes, and admires such a great dictator. If Mandela’s admiration for Gaddafi was a coincidence (of course not at all), then it was definitely not a coincidence that he also admired Castro, but he had the same thing in his bones – from anti-white, to anti-Western, anti-human civilization, etc. There was a common ideological root behind it.
After Mandela became president, Castro finally went to South Africa and received a bear hug from Mandela, and was scheduled to speak in parliament. The elected members of the South African Parliament even welcomed the dictator Castro with a song and dance in the halls of Parliament. All of this was arranged by Mandela. This is the ugliest scene in the South African parliament, and the most disgusting chapter in Mandela’s political legacy.
Mandela’s “friendship” with Castro continues to this day, and the media reported that on Mandela’s 88th birthday, Castro “kept his word and sent a nice rum and cigar smoke.” On Mandela’s 90th birthday, Castro wrote in Cuba’s Uprising Youth newspaper that Mandela “has become a symbol of the highest quality of humanity”. The fact that the world’s longest living dictatorship celebrates Mandela better explains why they are “comrades in arms”.
Mandela never hid the fact that he was friends with these dictators, and was even proud to have these “friends”. When Mandela first came to the United States (1990), he made a point of visiting the black neighborhood of Harlem on 125th Street in Manhattan, New York. The media reported that Mandela told the welcoming crowd that “PLO Chairman Arafat, Libyan Colonel Gaddafi, and Cuban military chief Castro are my comrades in arms.
On Mandela’s list of friends are not only the aforementioned villains, but also Iran’s Nejad, China’s Jiang Zemin, Zeng Qinghong, Li Peng and so on. As the saying goes, “Things gather in groups, and people are divided by groups.
The process of breaking off diplomatic relations with Taiwan (and communist China) when Mandela became president shows what kind of person he is.
When Mandela was in jail, he called on the international community to sanction South Africa (the white regime) and stressed not to throw away his principles for bread. But when he became president, he set his eyes on bread, disregarding his principles, and wanted to break off diplomatic relations with Taiwan. At that time, Taiwan felt a diplomatic crisis and sent a top-level congratulatory delegation led by President Lee Teng-hui during Mandela’s presidential inauguration celebration (1994). The Chinese Communist Party sent only a small official like “Vice President of the China-Africa Friendship Association” (Xie Bangding). According to Xie Bangding’s memo, they were received by Mandela on the day they arrived and talked for more than half an hour. Mandela said that when he was in prison, “he read Mao Zedong’s works intently. He was deeply inspired and influenced by Mao’s ideas and theses on armed struggle. Now, he is reading the rich writings of Deng Xiaoping.” Mandela was not only in tune with violent revolutionaries like Mao and Deng, but also had to please minor Communist officials like the “Vice President of the China-Africa Friendship Association.”
South Africa was a diplomatic partner of the Republic of China at the time; but in the banquet hall, the South African government put up the Communist flag. But Xie Bangding didn’t think it was enough, he said, “I checked carefully beforehand and finally saw the Taiwan flag in a semi-hidden place in a corner. We had a prior agreement with the South African authorities that only the flag of the People’s Republic of China would be flown on official occasions if the Chinese flag was to be flown, not the Taiwan flag. We immediately took up the matter with the South African authorities. They told us that the staff had made an error by oversight and immediately found out to take it down and correct it.”
Taking down the flag of Taiwan, which had official diplomatic relations, and flying the flag of the Communist Party of China, which (at the time) had no diplomatic relations, was Mandela’s choice of “bread and principle”!
Mandela’s insult to Taiwan was that at the dinner, the presidential-level people from Taiwan were placed in the corner, while the CCP representatives (who were only vice presidents of the China-Africa Association) were placed at the main table with “VIPs” such as Arafat and Castro (as well as Mbeki and Zuma, who later became president of South Africa). Xie Bangding said that they talked and laughed at the main table, while the Taiwanese delegates “sat in a corner and were rarely attended to. What’s more, what they talked about at the main table was the “expulsion” of Taiwan from Africa! Faced with this deliberate coldness, alienation and even humiliation, the Taiwanese delegation left the banquet early, without waiting for it to end.
Of course, Mandela’s presidency, to solve South Africa’s economic problems, the need to establish relations with the rising economy of China, this idea is understandable. It is a reality that today’s world powers have established diplomatic relations with China and broken off diplomatic relations with Taiwan. But Mandela was different from other heads of state in that he emphasized that “principles are more important than bread” and called on world leaders to have moral courage. But when he got power and became president, he immediately became a moral bear! And it’s not just for bread that he is sucking up to Beijing. Former Taiwan ambassador to South Africa, Lu Yi-zheng, said on Taipei Min TV yesterday that Taiwan gave South Africa a lot of money back then, plus “I gave (Mandela’s wife) Winnie $1,000 a month to keep her in that place.” Taiwan treats South Africa well, and Mandela wants to establish diplomatic relations with Beijing because in his bones, ideologically, he is more inclined to the Chinese Communist Party.
Mandela’s pandering to Beijing sometimes went so far as to make a fool of himself: when he first visited China as president (1999), he brought with him the South African “Order of Good Hope in Gold”, which was awarded to the Chinese Communist leader Jiang Zemin. According to common sense, foreign leaders to visit your country, in order to pull the relationship, you give people a prize, it can be justified. But how can you go all the way to the visiting country with a medal to present it? This is not only outrageous, but also cheap. Imagine if Obama visited China and brought a “U.S. medal” to Xi Jinping, I’m afraid even the leftist media, which is extremely fond of Obama, would not be able to stand it. The scene where Jiang Zemin was given a “South African medal” framed Mandela’s closeness to the Chinese dictator.
When Jiang Zemin returned to South Africa (in 2000), Mandela hugged him “bear-style” even though he had left the presidency, praising his old friend and how great China’s communist revolution was.
Later, when Jiang Zemin’s direct descendant Zeng Qinghong visited South Africa (2004), Mandela was also given a special reception. Liu Guijin, the CCP ambassador to South Africa, recalled, “When we arrived at his villa, the old man was already standing in the middle of the courtyard to welcome him, and he was a bit slow in his pace, and stood for a long time talking with Vice President Zeng.” He praised “the Long March as the epic of China and the epic of his heart” and thanked the Chinese Communist revolution for inspiring him.
How could Mandela not know about the Chinese Communist dictatorship, including the June 4 massacre, when he was president and information would not be lacking? But he even received Li Peng, one of the June 4 butchers, at his home; he even stood in the courtyard with his wife to “greet” him beforehand in order to please the senior CCP officials. Chinese media reported that “Li Peng and the Mandelas held hands in the courtyard and talked as if they were close friends.”
James Kirchick, an American scholar, said in his article “Betrayal in South Africa” that “this is no longer just hypocrisy on Mandela’s part, but a betrayal of the principles he himself emphasized during his 27-year ordeal in prison.”
But Mandela, who had done all this, was praised on his death by the New York Times, the flagship of the American leftist media, as “a moral model for the world today.” What kind of model is that? In what world is this morality?
Even as late as the end of 2002, at the age of 84, Mandela was still in contact with Jiang Zemin. Liu Guijin, the Chinese ambassador to South Africa, recalled that Mandela had offered to “talk” to Jiang Zemin before, “but he couldn’t get in touch” (with today’s modern technology, how could he not get in touch? It is likely that President Jiang Zemin is no longer interested in Mandela, who is no longer president), but this time he arranged a call with “President Jiang”, and it turned out that Mandela was eager to talk about stopping the “Iraq war” led by the United States and Britain. This was Mandela’s “deal” with Jiang Zemin to negotiate with the dictator against the free world.
As late as 2010, Mandela was still trying to please the Chinese Communist Party at the expense of global disgrace: that year, when South Africa held a “peace conference” to promote its hosting of the World Cup, Mandela invited world figures, including the Dalai Lama. But the move was boycotted by the Chinese Communist Party, and South Africa immediately bowed to Beijing and refused to issue a visa to the Dalai Lama. There was a world outcry, and even South Africa’s Nobel Laureate Archbishop Tutu, former President Clark, who won the same Nobel Prize as Mandela, and the Nobel Committee publicly boycotted the “peace conference” because of their sympathy for the Dalai Lama. The South African press also denounced the shameful behavior of the Zuma government.
But in the face of criticism from South Africa and the world, Mandela has remained silent and has not voiced any sympathy or solidarity with his fellow Nobel laureate, the Tibetan leader who is being oppressed by the Chinese Communist Party, the Dalai Lama. In fact, at his word, those “Zuma’s” have to obey, because they were promoted by Mandela. There is an analysis that it was Mandela himself who supported the refusal of the visa, so that South Africa would stage such a scandal.
In the face of strong criticism from all walks of life, the Mandelas insisted on not changing their decision to deny the Dalai Lama a visa, and finally “delivered” to Beijing by cancelling the “peace conference”.
But while the Dalai Lama was denied a visa, the South African government awarded the Cuban dictator Castro the “OR Tambo Gold Medal”. This is a South African award, previously given to India’s Gandhi and American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, among others. Before that, the Mandelas had already given Castro the “Ubuntu Award”. This is a “humanitarian award” established after Mandela became president, the first winner was Mandela himself, and the second was given to Castro. In order to honor the dictator, the award was added to the award. The Dalai Lama, who was described by the international media as a “little dolphin meeting a big evil dragon of the Chinese Communist Party”, was given a frosty face.
From the fact that Mandela gave medals to Jiang Zemin and awards to Castro twice, it seems that if Arafat and Bin Laden were still alive, they would probably be “rewarded” by the Mandelas as well. Because “South Africa has become a leader in the free world today in favor of dictators” (in the words of the American magazine The New Republic). Mandela’s South Africa has supported Burma’s military government, Iran’s Nejad, Palestine’s Arafat, Libya’s Gaddafi, Cuba’s Castro, anti-American Venezuelan President Chavez, and even the notorious dictator, Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe’s backstage…. they have something “in common” deep down. “something deep inside them.
South Africa’s Time magazine editorialized at the time: “This is a betrayal, a betrayal of South Africa’s own history of struggle.”
But from Mandela’s scandalous acts mentioned above, he actually did not have a “betrayal” in his bones, he originally admired the ideas of Stalin and Mao Zedong. The Wall Street Journal article on the day of Mandela’s death mentioned that “Mandela led a black movement toward Marxism and an alliance with the Soviet Union. Above the desk in Mandela’s home hung portraits of Lenin and Stalin.”
Mandela died at home, probably still looking at the portrait of his “hero” hanging above his desk in his last moments. That’s the real Mandela!
Written in the United States on December 7, 2013
Recent Comments