The Far Right's Reaction To Mandela's Passing

"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." -- Benjamin Frankin

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I don't know how many we shot. It all started when hordes of natives surrounded the police station. My car was struck with a stone. If they do these things they must learn their lesson the hard way." -- Colonel J. Pienaar,local area police commander, Sharpeville

We include the quotes above to illustrate a point. Please bare with us.

Nelson Mandela, Madiba, was buried today.

Nelson Mandela's death can't be considered a surprise. He was a 95 year old man who had been in ill health for much of the last three years. He had also more than 27 years in prison, much of it in exceedingly difficult conditions, before being released at the age of 72. But his loss was still felt by much of the world who truly did value freedom and justice and his fight to achieve these goals in South Africa. Mandela was eulogized by world leaders and human rights activists and his passing cause for almost universal mourning.

Almost universal. A small, but relatively vocal, minority have used the passing of Mandela to attack the man himself and in particular the armed struggle that the ANC began in 1960. Most of the attacks is couched in the fact that Mandela spent 27 years in prison after being convicted of terrorism and the ANC had been outlawed as terrorist organization. And to be sure the ANC did engage in bombings of government institutions and other business associated with the apartheid regime as well as targeting the infrastructure of the country. But then it might also be useful to provide some context that could

provide a rationale for these actions.

Prior to March 21, 1960, the African National Congress had been, for close to 60 years, a civil rights organization that used non-violent means to fight for the rights of the majority African population of South Africa. They used methods similar to that of other civil rights organizations; strikes, sit-ins, and, perhaps unique to South Africa, the burning of pass books.

In South Africa under the apartheid regime, Africans living in South Africa were required to be in possession of a passbook regimenting their movement and where they could live. Failure to be in possession of one's pass book would result in arrest. Being in an area deemed off-limits would result in arrest. Any white South African could demand to see the pass book of an African citizen. No white South African was required to be in possession of a pass book.

If you have ever watched to movie, "Gandhi" you might be familiar with this particular law, as well as the means of fighting against it.

The goal of groups such as the ANC and the splinter group Pan-Africanist Party was to refuse to carry the pass book. They would then go to jails throughout the country and demand to be arrested for not following a just law. Eventually, the prisons would be packed forcing the government to address the concerns of the ANC and other similar groups. And it could be achieved in a peaceful manner. The desire was to shame the government, not overthrow it.

Such a campaign began in March of 1960 when the Pan-Africanist Party organized a pass book protest in the South African township of Sharpeville:

There is some debate as to how many arrived at the Sharpeville jail to protest; numbers range from 5,000 to 20,000. What isn't debated is what happened next to protesters who had been engaged in a peaceful action:

Prior to Sharpeville the South African apartheid regime had been engaged in systematic state-sponsored violence to quell the legitimate concerns of the majority African population as well as the Indian and "colored" populations. And even as the violence continued to escalate, the ANC believed that they could, Sharpeville, and the subsequent crackdown on Africa civil rights groups and leaders, altered this view. After Sharpeville, the once non-violent ANC believed the only way to force the South African government to negotiate was through an armed struggle.

through non-violent means, achieve the goal of a multi-racial democracy.

But even during the armed struggle, it might be instructive to read the manifesto of Umkhonto we Sizwe:

"Our men are armed and trained freedom fighters not terrorists. 

We are fighting for democracy—majority rule—the right of the Africans to rule Africa. 

We are fighting for a South Africa in which there will be peace and harmony and equal rights for all people.

We are not racialists, as the white oppressors are. The African National Congress has a message of freedom for all who live in our country."

As we noted though, the attacks on Mandela and the ANC were merely couched in condemnation of the armed struggle as terroristic. What seems pretty clear though is that condemnation is merely a pretext for the real rationale for their attack on the man and his legacy.

Yep, Ed Kennedy has been back posting on Free Dominion for a while now.
First, let us assure Mr. Kennedy that no one at ARC is interested in the least of being anywhere near his junk. Quite honestly the very thought of the prospect sort of nauseating.

Second, in a case where a broken clock might be correct twice a day, we have here a situation in which Mr. Kennedy and the members of ARC are in agreement. While we oppose the use of violence, we aren't opposed to the use of force in defending ourselves and our loved ones. And to be sure that as much as we find Ed Kennedy and his views.... well.... "distasteful" doesn't seem strong enough an adjective.... but regardless, should someone try to harm him based on his beliefs (as loathsome as they might be), we would  argue that he has the right to defend himself.

But let's be honest. He really doesn't have anything to worry about.

No stranger to violent rhetoric, Kennedy justifies the use of violence however if it is in defence of freedom and justice. In fact, "freedom and justice" (or "justice and freedom") is almost a mantra for Mr. Kennedy as one might note in the following recent screen grabs:

When Kennedy is writing about freedom and justice, he is often railing against political correctness, multiculturalism, divorce, common sense gun laws, certain traffic laws, bylaws, and government regulations (and the men and women tasked with enforcing these regulations). These, for him, constitute tyranny and needs to be resisted, with force if necessary. So if he is to be consistent, one would think Kennedy would be absolutely outraged by apartheid, which was in fact classified as a crime against humanity, in South Africa.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, don't hold your breath too long:

To be fair, not everyone on Free Dominion has the same
views of Kennedy on Mandela and the end of apartheid.

When he does refer to the policy of apartheid, Kennedy appears to dismiss it as an afterthought:

We mentioned that much to the criticism of the armed struggle is a pretext for the real reason for the hatred of Mandela and the ANC. The above partial screenshot touches on that real reason. Since Mr. Kennedy has condemned us for not providing the context for his comments, we will post the entirety of the screen grab here:

And to further illustrate this point:

While we doubt this will mollify Mr. Kennedy, he might be interested in the following article published in October of this year:

Are whites really being killed, "like flies"?

At best Mr. Kennedy is a hypocrite ("freedom and justice for me, but not for thee"), but given the content of his missives it's pretty clear that his attack has less to do with the "violence" (something he justifies frequently) and more to do with the pigment of those who carried on the armed struggle in an effort to achieve freedom and justice for all South Africans.

The entire discussion on Free Dominion is pretty interesting in the amount of disinformation being presented as fact as well as what we'll refer to as a minor schism regarding Mandela's legacy. If you're interested you might click here for the full context.

It would be unfair to claim that Kennedy is the only person who exhibits this kind of hypocrisy who we have profiled on this blog. Hell, he isn't even the worst.

Take our friends Louis Morin, Bill Noble, and ol' Paulie.

When Mandela's passing was announced, the reaction from these three was to be expected:

Regarding the last screen grab, given that Mandela was in prison during that particular timeline it might be stretching the truth to refer to the chronology as "Mandela's Bombs" but we'll let that go for for now.

Fine. They regard Mandela as a terrorist and the ANC as a terrorist organization. Then, if they are to be consistent, they would have to condemn ALL terrorists and terrorist organizations. To do otherwise might call into question their motives.

By coincidence, not long after Mandela's passing, many in the racist movement commemorated the 29th anniversary of another, much more violent, demise:

Our readers are well aware of who Robert Jay Mathews is as well as what The Order was about. But for those who either are not aware or who need a reminder, we offer you this:

So at the same time they are condemning Mandela as a terrorist, they are quite literally honoring the memory of a terrorist and who led a terrorist organization. Hell, Only six years after Mathews' death, Paulie spoke at Heritage Front event honoring Mathews and The Order:

But we aren't through yet.

Some of will remember our reference to the execution of Joseph Paul Franklin last month in one of our articles. Among the reasons why was he executed?

Joseph Franklin murdered as many as 20 people for the "crime" of being black or in a relationship with someone who was white while they went along their daily lives. These murders include children. He also severely injured a number of individuals as a result of gun fire and assaults in addition to the bombing of at least on synagogue. And for that distinction, Bill Noble feels he should be honored as a great man:

Armed struggle for civil rights and multi-racial democracy < random murders motivated by racial hatred.

Gotcha.

And this blog post wouldn't be complete without an appearance from the Chairman himself:

Don't flatter yourself toots. We merely collect some of the crazy which, to be fair, is much of your content.

Even months prior to the passing of Mandela, the Goudreau was giddy with excitement at the prospect of his death:

So it shouldn't be much of a surprise when the Goudreau wrote the following on his own blog:

We note a number of ironies here. First as a subheading for the title of the Goudreau's blog reference to the "Fourteen Words" coined by David Lane, a member of the terrorist group The Order who was convicted in the murder of Alan Berg as well as conspiracy and racketeering. Second, while condemning the armed struggle, he appears to lend his support to the position of our other buddy "David Lawson" (aka: "Odin TheCelt" aka: "Yordi JewKiller") who suggests that mass murderer Anders Breivik had the right idea targeting children:

 

 

 

 

And given the context af all of the above, a third irony:

In short, you don't like Mandela? Fine. But at least be honest enough to admit the real reason for your hatred.

And don't pretend the concepts of freedom and justice have any actual meaning or value to you when you are unwilling to apply those standards to others.