Mandela and Mugabe

The massive global adulation given to Nelson Mandela in the days following his death shows how much we are all influenced by the media and how brainwashed we have all become by political correctness.  George Orwell’s classic “1984” has come true – there seem to be few left who can think for themselves and not practice “new speak.”  Orwell preceded political correctness by over two decades, but saw it coming.

As I wrote Friday, most whites in South Africa think that Mandela helped avoid a bloodbath during and after the handover from white to black rule in 1994.

Now, having said that, let’s look at some other facts:

  1. While in office, Mandela turned a blind eye to the excesses of other African presidents.  South Africa’s geographic position and its economic might can be used to achieve political goals in the region.  The white National Party government of John Vorster brought down white-ruled Rhodesia.  Mandela and the African National Congress could easily have brought down Robert Mugabe, but neither he nor his successors have done so.  He even met with Mugabe and other despots and befriended them.
  2. Mandela was guilty of 156 acts of terrorism, resulting in the deaths of many people.  He pleaded guilty to these acts – there is no doubt he authorized them.  A century ago he would have been hanged for terrorism and never heard of again.
  3. In dismantling the white government, the result has been a 1,100% increase in the murder rate, the deaths of an estimated 68,000 whites including over 4,000 farmers, and a rise in crime that has everybody fearful.  When I first visited South Africa in 1974, people I stayed with did not lock their doors.  Now, they have bars on windows, high fences, electronic alarms, dogs and everything they can buy to protect them in their own homes.  It should also be remembered that there have been far more black deaths.  Black on black violence is a far greater problem and often goes unrecorded.
  4. Note the following list of Mandela’s accomplishments sent from a South African friend.  “The fruits of his takeover are mammoth unemployment; increased tension and conflict between the nine different black nations (each composed of several tribes); debasement of the currency by 700%; 8+ million illegal refugees from other African countries; an exploding crime rate; legalization of pornography, abortion, homosexual marriages, etc., which were previously banned by the white government … massive abuse of women and rape; break-down of law and order, and violence against farmers as happened in Rhodesia.”   All of these things would likely have happened with any African president, but there were clearly negative consequences when white rule ended, as there were everywhere else on the continent.

Additionally, there is great uncertainty about the future and has been for years.  If Mandela stopped a wholesale massacre of the whites, his successors may not be able to do so for long.  At some point, South Africa is likely to force land redistribution on the country in a bigger way, just as in Zimbabwe – more white farmers will lose their land.  When Zimbabwe did that, there were serious food shortages, eventually made up by the importation of food from South Africa.  When South Africa’s food production drops by 90% as a result of similar land thefts, where will the food come from to feed the people?   Whites are commercial farmers, while the native African population practice subsistence farming, growing only enough for their own needs.

The Wider Story

We need to understand the wider story here.

When I was in school, almost all of Africa was ruled by European powers, mostly the British and the French.  Only Ethiopia and Liberia were never colonized by Europeans, with the result they were the poorest and most backward countries on the continent.  That fact alone should make people take a second look at the colonial period.

The British Empire in Africa alone was bigger than the United States.  Every colony and the dominion known as the Union of South Africa, were food exporters.  Now, after five decades of independence, they are almost all food importers.

This was part of the blessings promised to the descendants of the patriarch Joseph, whose two sons were to “become a people” (the United States) and a “multitude of nations” (the British Empire and Commonwealth).  (Genesis 48:19)  The name Joseph means “God increases,” a promise of physical prosperity to the patriarch and his descendants.

Other blessings that followed these white settlers were basic freedoms like freedom of religion and freedom of the press; the Bible itself; property rights; relatively efficient and responsive administration; the rule of law and an independent judiciary; plus a political system copied on Great Britain, which gave the various colonies the stability they needed to prosper.  While these colonies existed they were a part of the western world, a major plus for the United States, which took over world leadership after World War II.

Decolonization ended all this.

It was followed by political instability, serious economic decline, a massive lowering of living standards for the ordinary people and a freefall in food production.  But nobody in the West could say anything, cowed by political correctness.

Note what Ghanaian author George Ayittey has to say on this:  “My criticisms of African governments were greeted with suspicion in North America and western Europe.  I quickly learned that, in the United States, African leaders, especially those from black Africa, were viewed almost as saints.  Blacks, having been enslaved and colonized in the past, could do no wrong.  Criticizing African leaders, especially in the North American media, is often regarded as ‘blaming the victim.’  To do so is not “politically correct.””  (Africa Betrayed, by George Ayittey, 1992, page xvi)  Do you see now why you’re not hearing anything negative about Nelson Mandela?

Political Correctness continues to this day.  Nelson Mandela is the hero of the western, progressive, left-wing elite.  No one from the present US Administration attended Mrs. Thatcher’s funeral.  No American president, either, attended Churchill’s funeral – four will be present at Mandela’s.  Conservative Churchill was a relic of the Victorian age to them; Mandela was the future, symbol of the new multicultural ‘rainbow’ world dreamt of by the Fabians, John Lennon, JFK, Lenin and other influential men and organizations.   Their dream is of one world government, where all races and all religions blend into one.

Of course, without Churchill, we would all be goose-stepping and speaking German.   Hitler was the greatest racist of all – the Africans would have had no chance if he had conquered their continent.  Churchill was the great imperialist – he inspired the peoples of the British Empire to fight as one against the Third Reich.  The Empire no longer exists – what will Britain do next time there is a major threat to world peace from the continent of Europe or anywhere else?

What will Africa do if western countries can no longer send them aid?  Having kicked out the white farmers, they will have serious food shortages.

Those of us who have lived in Africa have lived through the fall of the British Empire.   South Africa was the last part to fall, in 1994, to the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

This is a major reversal for the modern Israelites, but they cannot see it for what it is.  Political correctness and the cult of celebrity have, rather, made it all seem progressive for Africa and for the world.

But it’s the slow fulfillment of the curses to come upon Israel, prophesied in Deuteronomy chapter 28, for their rejection of God.  “You shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but shall not gather its grapes … the alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower.”  (verses 30 & 43)

Africa has gone out from under Israelite domination.  So has Asia.  All that’s left  are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some north-west European nations – and they are all well down the road that will lead them to the same gentile domination that has befallen Africa!


  1. Good synopsis Melvin. I think you showed the side ignored by most, but it was a weakened argument because of the British/Israel fallacy. I was in Cape Town when Mandela was released and am personally very glad he preached reconciliation at that time. His approach taught me that my racism was as wrong as his pre-prison politics.

  2. Nobody said apartheid was good. It was a mess.

    Yes, he was a total politician. He saw what Mugabe did in Zimbabwe to the whites who provided most of the food production and shrewdly decided not to do that. A political move. But all the while he was president and since then, whites have been murdered and he said/did nothing. Ask any South African. He was chums with Castro, Qaddaffi, Mugabe, and was a communist. He played the political game well with both sides of his mouth saying different things. He was brilliant in that respect. But embrace Christian principles? The only evidence is that it was all politics. As for judging him at all, God can do that. But there are some facts no one seems to want to look at being brought out here.

  3. Well said.
    I have just learned of the plight of the whites in South Africa
    within the past year.
    The House of Israel has fallen prey to political correctness.
    A very sad day.

  4. One slight addendum to your statement that we’d all be speaking German if it weren’t for Sir Winston Churchill. Yes, true, and and also if it weren’t for the huge sacrifice by the Russians, loosing 5 million military and 10 million civilians, and stopping 200 crack German divisions cold (culminating in the victory at Stalingrad). Stalin was evil, but the Russian people deserve due praise. Too often we have ignored or made light of this fact of history.

  5. Hey look, I’m a history nut to the extreme, and I’ve proven that the majority of the ten tribled Kingdom of Israel (just ahead of the Assyrian captivity we’re allowed to march north Azerbijan region near the Caspian Sea, because the major prophets had brought about a degree of repentance) and the rest were captured by the Assyrians. They did historically “disappear” off the scene, and although to us the Jews will never admit it, they debate amongst themselves “where did the lost ten tribes go?” To take an angry stance for or against on things we don’t possess total knowledge of is just plain ignorant. Suffice it to say at the Wedding Feast just prior to Christ’s return with us to rule and reign on earth, we’ll get all the answers to these myriad and less important questions. But to get rabid on either side of the issue is counter-productive to the cause of Christ.

  6. I do think we can see the prophecies given to Israel (some to Joseph, some to Ephraim, some to Manasseh …….) and find some pretty good clues, and we can take these prophecies/clues and identify many, if not all.
    Beyond that, as you say, we will get the answers soon enough.

    1. So true, Pam. I’ve seen it from the historic viewpoint, and it can be seen from the prophetic viewpoint as well. But I would add a word of caution to having the knowledge of who we are. This knowledge has led to the evil doctrine of “Manifest Destiny” which has led to the oppression and/or murder of millions of Native Americans and Aborigines, Indians from India, Burmese, and Black Africans, and Philippinos (1899-1905). British and American rule were not perfect, and too often these events have been downplayed in our history books. In the Kingdom Age we will have to do a better job, and Jesus will make sure we do (as a people). I have a fourth-grade reader from the late 1800s that teaches “Manifest Destiny” and the virtues of Americans and Englishmen being descended from the Teutonic race. Herbert Armstrong grew up when this textbook reader was in the schools. The last chapter in his booklet about the United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy, about our national sins, should have been about twice as long as it was, and far more severely written as a correction for our attitudes in following “Manifest Destiny.” But then again, he was a school-child of this doctrine, quite literally.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s