Nelson Mandela Dies: A Nationalist Reappraisal
All News Opinion

Nelson Mandela Dies: A Nationalist Reappraisal

Instead of condemning Africans for wanting to rule themselves, pro-European activists should accept that it was wrong for Europeans to colonize the Third World—and therefore, that it is equally wrong for the Third World to colonize European lands, according to March of the Titans author Arthur Kemp.

Writing on his blog in response to the news that Nelson Mandela had died, Kemp said that “Commentary on the news of the death of 95-year-old Nelson Mandela will vary tremendously, from fawning obsequience and hero-worship in the mass media, to outright condemnation by ‘right wing’ commentators.

“I would like to take a different approach, not only because I want to be different, but also because this is something which I really believe and which the ‘right wing’ would do well to consider.

“The time has come for all honest pro-European activists across the world to take on a new perspective of this African nationalist.

“Yes, Mandela was a Communist.

“Yes, although Mandela personally did not kill anybody, and never set off any bombs, or even shoot a gun in anger—he certainly had the intention to do so and the organization which he founded—the ANC’s armed wing—most certainly did kill people.

“And Mandela was no friend of white people, no matter how the media tries to spin it.

“Yes, the current state of South Africa is shocking.

“But I would suggest that the current state of South Africa was inevitable, and would have occurred even if Mandela had never lived.

“The knee-jerk condemnation of Mandela as the cause of South Africa’s problems, is a typically “right wing” misunderstanding of the story of the political development of South Africa.

“I know, because this was the line I was fed as a youngster in Southern Africa, and, sadly, believed for a long time—until I became wiser and realized it was just another lie of apartheid.

“The reality is that the ANC only resorted to “armed struggle” some 50 years after its foundation. During those prior five decades, it had sought to end white minority rule by protests, mass demonstrations, strikes, stay-aways and so on.

“The state, however, refused to contemplate black rule, and cracked down on the ANC—using force.

“From Mandela’s perspective therefore, it can be argued that the resort to ‘armed struggle’ was a reaction to the state’s violence against opposition to Apartheid.

“And, contrary to the ‘right wing’ version of history, this is in fact completely accurate. The ANC resorted to violence and, yes, terrorism, after its five decades of peaceful attempts to end white rule.

“Think about it for a minute: if you had been a black person in pre-1994 South Africa, what would you have done?

“The time has come to be completely honest about this: if I had been a black in South Africa in the pre-1994 era, I would have supported the ANC and the armed struggle as well. And so would all of my ‘right wing’ friends in South Africa—had they been black.

“The truth is that any objective observer cannot ‘blame’ Africans for wanting to rule themselves, not be ruled by whites and for eventually taking up arms to achieve this goal.

“Quite frankly, that is a perfectly normal human reaction, and I would expect it of any healthy people.

“No healthy race wants to be ruled by others.

“Why would you, except if you were sick?

“Now I know that Mandela was a self-admitted socialist. He described himself as such (see Sampson, Anthony (2011) [1999]. Mandela: The Authorised Biography. London: HarperCollins) and one of the main pieces of evidence during the Rivonia Treason Trial was a hand-written document by him called ‘How to be a Good Communist.’

“I know that the ANC committed many gruesome atrocities in its ‘armed struggle.’ But I also know, from personal experience of my four years’ national service in South Africa from 1985-1988, that the state was prone to violence as well. It was a cycle of violence, each outrage feeding the next in an ever-increasing spiral.

“But all of this aside: the true meaning of Mandela is that here was a man, fully committed to the liberation of his people at whatever cost, who held true to this belief and never wavered.

“Even though you may personally not like his ideology or what was done in his name (and, given the outrageous black-on-white murders in South Africa which are still occurring), you cannot get away from the fact that from his perspective, he stood by his principles and never faltered, even though the personal cost was massive.

“The desire of Africans to rule themselves in their nations, free of white rule, as personified by the life of Mandela, in fact justifies the demand of Europeans to rule themselves in their nations.

“Think about it. Instead of condemning Africans for wanting to rule themselves, pro-European activists should accept that it was wrong for Europeans to colonize the Third World—and therefore, that it is equally wrong for the Third World to colonize European lands.

“Instead of condemning Africans for doing what any healthy people would do, “right wingers” should give up the old, tired and failed rhetoric, and instead be looking for a ‘European Nelson Mandela’ to help lead them away from the path of extinction on which they are currently headed.”

4 Comments

  1. Thank you Mr. Kemp for your thought provoking commentary on the death of Nelson Mandela. If we’re going to win the war for white survival we’ll have to engage in fresh thinking otherwise the same mistakes which brought us to our present sorry state will be repeated until we reach oblivion.

    From the pragmatic point of view it makes a lot of sense to work in support of Black aspirations because this then buys us space to pursue our own purposes. The original Apartheid mantra was, “Separate but equal.” But this ideal became corrupted when the White folk started relying on Blacks for cheap labour.

     
    Reply
  2. I understand, but disagree, with the conclusions in this article. I used to be a hardcore anticolonialist, but now I ask why we should cede so much of the world to these people of such lesser intelligence and such greater propensity for violence? Why should any part of the world be closed off? I’m not advocating genocide, but I am advocating we bring civilisation to the furthest reaches of the globe (Africa included) and give no aid to diversity. They’ll have to survive completely on their own, with no welfare, foreign aid or charity. Who is with me?

     
    Reply
  3. A very interesting thesis by Mr Kemp.I add two points: if you live under a tyrannical government with no access to the ballot box, if you are treated like animals, and if your are thought fit to serve only as servants, you have only two choices if you wish to bring about change: peaceful protests or violence. When bigots disallow the former, you have no choice but to oppose the bigots with violence. If only some people would read history.
    Next, comments like the one above are outrageous as well as being plain wrong. There is NO foundation whatsoever in the predjudiced belief that non white people are less intelligent. On the contrary, some I have met and worked with around the world are far, far more intelligent than the average white ( incidentally, he who does not ‘advocate genocide’ is clearly unaware there are no white people, we are pink-look in a mirror).

     
    Reply
  4. If the blacks were so sincere about ‘self governance’they would never have invited themselves into that region, and if the Boers, who were there first, gave a tinkers about their civilization, they would never have tolerated their presence!!!
    P.S. Same with ‘us’ south!!!They should have ‘hoed their own sweet taters etc.!!! DEUS DAMNO ILLUD TOTUS!!!

     
    Reply

Post Comment