Archive for A Contrarian View

The silencing of the brave

▇▇▇▇ [1113] Brian J. Matis via Compfight

It wasn’t enough to hound Brendan Eich out of his job, now one of the bravest women to speak out for women’s rights under Islam, is denied an honorary degree by political correctness.

Rex Murphy reported in the National Post on Saturday 12 April, how Brandeis University withdrew its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Why?

Because the Council on American Islamic Relations protested. Some students predicted that her appearance to receive the award would make them feel unwelcome and persuaded 24% of the faculty to petition against the award.

Yet another case of the tail wagging the dog.

What had Ayaan Hirsi Ali done wrong?

She had survived physical abuse, escaped an arranged marriage in Somalia, spoken out against the treatment of women by Islamists and become a member of parliament in the Netherlands.

She has continued to speak out despite continual persecution and death threats.

Read the article for the full story.

The silence from some of the normally strident women’s rights organisations is deafening.

On the same page of that newspaper was an article by Charles Krauthammer – Thought Police on Patrol – on the spreading of the totalitarian impulse in America.

It explains why the Brendan Eich’s and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s of this world are attacked not celebrated.

Both articles are worth reading and should also convince you to make a stand for what you believe is right before totalitarianism denies you that opportunity.

peter-wright

The Tail Wagging the Dog Nightmare gets worse.

it's a firefox cake! Rakka via Compfight

Yesterday Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla, and leave the company he co-founded.

Why?

Because in 2008 he donated $1000 to an anti same-sex marriage campaign.

It is ludicrous that in a supposed democracy which trumpets the virtue and right of free speech, a man can be forced to resign for expressing an opinion.

An opinion that is shared by a significant percentage, in some areas, a clear majority, of the population.

An opinion that has been the dominant opinion on which the legal, philosophical and natural laws of marriage have been based for thousands of years.

An opinion that has nothing to do with his ability to perform his role as CEO. It could be argued that as a man with the courage of his convictions, it enhances his role.

Another example of political correctness gone berserk, the dark side of social media exposed.

Why is it that a serving US President did not have to resign after the sordid details of an affair with a junior employee made him the subject of international ridicule. Nor after his earlier denials of the affair brought his integrity into question.

I am not suggesting he should have been forced to resign over the affair itself, that might have established a precedent that could have decimated the ranks of politicians and corporate executives.

Denying it is another matter. Both errors of judgement infinitely more serious than Mr. Eich making a small donation to a legal and popular, cause. A cause that was supported by 7 million Californian voters.

Why can celebrities, fading stars and members of the lunatic fringe be not only forgiven, but in liberal circles, celebrated for unpatriotic comments and actions against companies trying to reduce the cost of energy and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

I don’t recall a single case of a celebrity being asked to resign for making ridiculous allegations against, for example, Canadian Oil, GM crops or gun control.

Some of the attacks on national companies and institutions would have been judged as treason not that long ago.

The answer of course is that the liberal left has hoodwinked the media and many people who should know better with it’s campaign of take from the successful and give to those who want it all without having to exert any effort to produce themselves.

Various estimates put homosexuals at between 11 & 19% of the North American population. Sources Smithsonian.com  and Pacific Standard

Just as some heterosexual couples do not get married, it is logical to assume that a significant number of homosexual relationships would not result in same-sex marriage.

Therefore, whichever estimate of the number of homosexual couples, reduced by any further estimate one chooses to use, of those that would not want to enter into a marriage, results in a very small part of the general population.

Why should such a small minority dictate to the majority? Why can a CEO be hounded out of his job for expressing his opinion on a matter that has no bearing what so ever on the company he runs?

Why have the majority of solid, ordinary citizens been cowed into silence by the radical left who cannot accept that there are other opinions in this world?

Why do corporations and worse, local governments aid and abet these views abandoning any backbone they may have had by, for example flying the “rainbow” flag over town halls during the winter Olympics? A direct insult to the majority of taxpayers.

Why do some corporations take it further and try and capitalise on this trend by organising boycotts? OK Cupid allegedly blocked any users of Mozilla’s browser, Firefox, from using it’s website until Brendan Eich resigned.

Because socialist propaganda has convinced too many good people that the tail can wag the dog.

For a group that whines continuously and vociferously about the unfairness of discrimination, it is bizarre that it should be the weapon of choice to be used against any one with a different opinion.

My personal philosophy is one of live and let live, I have as little interest in any one else’s sexual habits or preferences as I have in publicising my own.

I believe that those involved in same-sex relationships can be protected without a “marriage” of the same status as that for ordinary marriages between a man and a woman.

That’s my opinion and I could assemble pages of facts to support it. Just as proponents of same-sex marriage can raise compelling arguments to support it. It is my right to disagree with that opinion as much as it is theirs to disagree with mine.

Neither of us have the right to destroy the other’s careers, businesses or even lives because of that disagreement.

I have a great interest in fairness and minimal interference in the private lives of others by both government and mobs of social media vigilantes flying a liberal flag.

This mob violence – digital or real – may well come back to bite the hands that feed it. Already there is at least one counter boycott from a Christian group blocking Mozilla users.

What will be the next cause these vigilantes adopt? It might be directed against you or the values you stand for. Will you have the fortitude to resist it?

We had better hope that enough of us do find the courage otherwise we will soon realise that we no longer live in a democracy, mob rule will have triumphed. Anarchy will prevail.

peter-wright

Sinister Tax and Wealth Re-distribution Strategy.

cute penguin couple - explored Adam Foster via Compfight

Killing two birds with one stone.

Now the target is the auto industry, not penguins, but almost as vulnerable.

The US regulators have discovered a new, almost bottomless pit of tax revenue and a sinister method of wealth distribution that is under the radar of most observers.

Even more cunning is that the very organisations that are being used to harvest this revenue are the worst placed to complain about it.

The tax is so cleverly designed, applied and publicised, that it is guaranteed to meet the approval of the liberal left, anti business crusaders and assorted bunny and tree-huggers.

It is wildly attractive to the less or un-productive members of the economy. Guaranteed to excite those who continually whine about the natural condition of “income inequality” as if it were a cardinal sin.

It is a tax that does not need the approval of voters.

Another bonus for the US regulators is that this tax can be applied to organisations anywhere in the world without needing bi-lateral agreement or even any form of government to government approval.

The system is so cleverly designed that governments of the countries where the affected parties are based are reluctant to protest or even comment on the policy.

Any response they give is likely to damage the interests of their domestic manufacturers and exporters to the USA.

The new tax / redistribution policy first got major attention during the aftermath of the explosion of the BP oil rig Deep Horizon, in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

I am not making light of the deaths of workers, the effect on the environment nor the livelihoods of business owners in the region.

Fair compensation for loss and the costs of the clean up should be paid. In the case of this disaster there is some indication that in many cases, grossly unfair compensation was extracted from BP.

There is an argument for some form of punishment when businesses make mistakes and fail to make corrections. That punishment can be financial penalties or fines, lost opportunities, cancellation of leases, contracts, permits or a combination of these.

In the case of the BP disaster, the fines were huge.  Billions of dollars.

Billions more have been collected from banks, and other financial service providers since the recession started in 2008.

Including 16 more banks, some British and Canadian, this week, in connection with the alleged manipulation of the LIBOR. A rate that is set in London UK and not Wall street.

Recently, the regulators, perhaps fearing that further forays into the bank’s reserves might kill the golden goose, have set their sights on the auto industry.

General Motors is starting to squeal under the pressure. They may well have been slow to acknowledge and report problems in some of their vehicles.

Now today, Toyota has been fined $1.2 Billion for failing to adequately respond to reports that some of their vehicles were accelerating spontaneously.

It appears that Toyota will meekly pay up, thereby subsidising the US treasury and diverting profits in the form of dividends from international shareholders to, amongst others, welfare recipients in the USA.

Why will Toyota meekly pay up as the banks have done in the past? Because the long-term cost of the adverse publicity could be higher than the penalty.

This penalty and portrayal of Toyota as another example of evil big business could open the floodgates of compensation-seeking litigation against the company.

Added to the massive fine, the total costs could seriously impact profits and could arguably add to the cost of Toyota vehicles for years.

All public companies are ultimately owned by the share holders. Some of those are institutions with their own shareholders, some are wealthy. Many are not.

Many are relying on dividends from corporations like Toyota, either directly or through pension funds, for their retirement income.

It is ironic that greedy and vindictive prosecutors and revenue agents in the USA can deprive pensioners from Japan to Britain of their incomes and jeopardise their livelihoods.

The authorities claim that this is to protect consumers, that claim has as much validity as local municipalities’ claim that speeding fines are only to prevent speeding not raise revenue.

If laws are broken, punishment is deserved, but it should be relevant and reasonable. Leave the raiding of corporate reserves to the real victims, there are more than enough avaricious lawyers itching to help. They don’t need US regulators to do it for them.

This and similar acts of piracy against foreign investors increases the cost of doing business in the USA. When that cost becomes too high, those investors will look elsewhere.

It also invites retaliation from the, as yet, restrained financial watchdogs in other major economies.

 

peter-wright

What’s Important, Investigate Drone Strikes or Feed Refugees?

RAF Reaper MQ-9 Remotely Piloted Air System

RAF Reaper MQ-9 Remotely Piloted Air System – Drone

UK Ministry of Defence via Compfight

BBC International news showed an interview with an anguished gentleman from the UN earlier this week.

Why was the poor guy anguished?

Because he was horrified at the effects of drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He had computer simulations, fancy graphics and tons of data showing how terrible it is to use drones.

The investigation must have taken hundreds or even thousands of man-hours. Knowing how organisations like the UN operate, you can bet that those man-hours were not spent by people on minimum wage.

Far from it, calculate the cost of the highly paid specialists required, considerable travelling to the affected countries, local travel in air-conditioned, gas-guzzling luxury SUVs, accommodation in top hotels, squads of security guards and local “advisers”.

That little exercise must have cost the equivalent of many day’s food bill for all the Syrian refugees living in neighbouring countries.

Collateral damage, the injury, death and displacement of innocent civilians and damage to their property is an unfortunate consequence of armed conflict, whatever the scale.

Cases of blatant disregard for the safety of civilians should be investigated and where negligence or worse is established, action against those responsible, taken.

However, speaking from personal experience of conflict and being on the receiving end of blatant government instigated violence, it is easy for professional do-gooders and critics of the West to pontificate and point fingers after the event.

It can be argued that drones cause less collateral damage and fewer unintended casualties than older or less technologically advanced weapons.

They are cheaper than larger aircraft, no crew members are risking their lives which means that they can be maneuvered closer to their intended targets.

That in turn means that less powerful weapons can be used, less risk of widespread damage.

Altogether a more precise weapon than large bombs or artillery barrages.

If the UN really wanted to end the conflict and minimise casualties, it should be using its resources to expose the atrocities of the Taliban and other extremist groups. Especially those that shoot schoolgirls, teachers and medical workers protecting children by vaccinating them against polio.

But that just does not generate the same publicity as attacking the USA in particular and the West in general. It doesn’t appeal to the liberal left, rabid environmentalists, and other wearers of rose-tinted glasses.

It is unbelievable t organisations like the UN can spend vast amounts of money, time and energy attacking countries and people who are trying to do a difficult job. Often for a largely ungrateful and unhelpful, population.

While ignoring, excusing, condoning or making excuses for the perpetrators.

Then, the ultimate irony, asking those it is attacking and villifying, for more funds to help the victims of conflict and refugees, in other parts of the region.

But of course, if we look at the history of the UN’s actions from the days when it became hijacked by the newly independent third world states in the 1960’s, it is entirely believable.

It’s time for the Western Nations that finance this circus to hold it accountable, or make it fold its tent and disappear in the night.

 

peter-wright

 

 

 

Dangerous moves on the Ukrainian chess board

Killer QueenCreative Commons License aussiegall via Compfight

Back in September 2013, in this post, I suggested that Russia’s President Putin had acted like a Chess Master to out manoeuvre the Western powers in Syria.

Seems he learned from that success and has again played the more decisive opening moves. This time in the Ukraine, a bigger chessboard and a game with much higher stakes.

As offensive as his action in moving thousands of troops into the Crimea overnight is to our Western Democratic sensibilities, he has an element of legality on his side.

The government under President Yanukovich as bad as it appeared, was the elected government. It was overthrown by a violent revolution, police and protesters were killed, property damaged, buildings occupied and public officials prevented from doing their jobs.

Our Western leaders loudly condemn, and sometimes take action against, coup leaders in other countries – when we do not approve of them. It seems we have a selective morality when it comes to approving of, or condemning revolutions.

How then can we complain when Russia chooses to side with what to them is a beleaguered minority, deprived of their elected government by an uprising and fearful for their safety?

Not that I am supporting Russia’s invasion of the Crimea. Far from it, I am just suggesting that the situation is a little more complicated than most people believe.

Will Putin put troops into the rest of the Ukraine? That may well depend on his assessment of the “consequences” that British Foreign Minister William Hague threatens.

While I suspect that Russia will not be aggressive enough to launch a takeover of the whole country, it would not be surprising if they did attempt to annexe those parts of Eastern Ukraine with majority Russian speaking populations.

It looks like the Crimean peninsula is lost, a result that may eventually prevent further problems for the new government in Kiev. A Russian move into Eastern Ukraine would create more serious problems both for the country itself and other countries in Europe.

Depending on their assessment of the West’s likely reaction, Putin could well put troops around the Russian speaking cities in Eastern Ukraine temporarily to extract concessions from both the new Ukrainian government and the West.

Those concessions could include higher prices for Russian natural gas supplied to the Ukraine and beyond, removal of the threat of sanctions proposed by the USA and even more favourable consideration of Russian interests in unrelated sources of disagreement like Syria.

For now the Russian Chess Master has the West in check, will it be checkmate when more Ukrainian cities have been lost like pawns? Or will the West be bold enough to protect the Queen of Kiev and the rest of the pieces not yet lost?

My bet is that right now it’s too close to call. My gut instinct tells me that this game would have played out differently if Presidents John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had still been leaders of their countries.

More recently, if either President Bush had been in power, Russia’s opening moves may have been less provocative.

I do not believe that the West will, or should, get into a war with Russia, the potential cost is too high, the outcome unlikely to improve the situation for the people of Ukraine.

However the Russian action is a clear indication that the USA is no longer seen as the only world superpower, the balance of power is steadily shifting Eastwards and Russia desperately wants to improve its standing in the ranks of nations that carry weight.

Interesting times ahead.

 

peter-wright

Ukraine, Peaceful Protest, Revolution or Mob Rule?

 

consequences

Peaceful Protest or Anarchy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the protests against the government of the Ukraine became increasingly violent it was not surprising that they invited an equally violent response from the forces of law and order.

The overwhelming reaction from commentators and political leaders in the West was support for the protesters and condemnation of the government for stopping “peaceful” protests with violent confrontation.

Can protests be considered “peaceful” when barricades are set up in streets to stop the police doing their job as well as preventing free access to other law-abiding citizens? When police are shot at, stoned, petrol bombed with many injured and some killed.

When government buildings, vehicles and other public assets are invaded, burned and the occupants prevented from doing their jobs.

I have always been wary of the right to peaceful protest. The moment the number of protesters becomes high enough, or their actions violent enough, to interfere with the ability of others to enjoy freedom of movement, ability to work or use their property, a line has been crossed.

That line should not be crossed in a democratic system.

The first time a brick or more dangerous missile, is hurled at a policeman, public or private property damaged, the protesters must accept the risk of being seriously injured or killed.

I have no sympathy for recently deposed President Yanukovych or his government, however I have little enthusiasm for mob rule.

Why do we in the West automatically side with the protesters? Even when the government that is the target of the protesters was freely elected and by some standards no worse than others? – That was not necessarily so in the case of the Ukraine.

The Western leaders and media fell over themselves to praise the protesters in the “Arab Spring”. The result, certainly in Libya, Egypt and Syria, less stable countries with more casualties than before under the old autocratic regimes.

What would happen in North America or Western Europe if freely elected governments were faced with massive and violent revolution? We saw how Greece experienced a taste of it at the start of the austerity measures.

It was ugly, but the government had no alternative to using force to contain the situation, protect lives and property, prevent a revolution.

We saw a much more wishy-washy response to protesters during the “Occupy” movement when crowds illegally invaded private and public property, used private gardens as camp sites and toilets and prevented thousands of people going about their legitimate business.

That is not democracy at work, that is the action of a selfish minority attempting to replace a government it does not like by revolution instead of the ballot box.

Why should your and my tax dollars be wasted on replacing burned police cars and paying for thousands of hours of police overtime because the authorities are too timid to use force to maintain law and order?

The new interim government in the Ukraine is now calling for the arrest and trial of President Yanukovych. That may well be justified and he certainly invited retribution by is actions and by the recently revealed opulence of his residence.

That creates the concern that other presidents and prime ministers will be too nervous about their own futures to use force to stop revolutions. The job of being the leader of a country will become more dangerous, less attractive. Weak governments will result, anarchy will prevail.

There is a great danger in glorifying revolution. Yes some revolutions are just and eventually result in better governed countries with better conditions for most citizens. The French Revolution of 1789 – 1799 is probably the best example.

Other revolutions have had more sinister outcomes.The Russian revolution in 1905, being a prime example. One oppressive regime being replaced by a worse and more deadly one that affected the lives of millions of people inside and beyond the borders of the country itself.

The danger is that accepting increasing levels of violence and destruction as the “right of peaceful protest” opens the door to insurrection and chaos every time a segment of the population becomes dissatisfied with the government of the day. Irrespective of whether that government was democratically elected or not, good or bad, effective or not.

In Canada, Australia and most of Europe, the population has largely been disarmed, ordinary citizens will be unable to defend themselves, their families or their properties when weak leaders fear the consequences of firm action and mob rule is allowed to become the norm.

A sad state of affairs and one deliberately engineered by successive levels of increasing “big government”.

The USA, Israel and Switzerland alone in the West have allowed their citizens the security of legal possession of fire arms to defend themselves against the results of mob rule.

peter-wright

 

 

 

Graphic by Artvex.com

The great inequality propaganda machine.

Solidarity (2 of 25) Glenn Halog via Compfight

You cannot listen to a news broadcast or open a newspaper without hearing, watching or reading about that mortal sin “inequality” or it’s more sinister partner “income inequality”.

Politicians love using it, the media cannot resist hammering us with it.

It is designed to induce feelings of guilt amongst the successful and more so those who are both wealthy and successful.

It has been elevated to the heights of manipulation by a superbly orchestrated propaganda machine. Sponsored by liberal politicians, media and celebrities (many of whom are extremely wealthy). It is right up there with or beyond, “oil sands”, “Keystone Pipeline”, or “apartheid” in its capacity to stir the emotions.

There is one problem with it.

Income inequality (and many other inequalities) will always be with us.

They have to be, it is a fundamental rule of nature and life.

Our politicians, media and bleeding heart social commentators are using the wrong term.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “inequality” as

The quality of being unequal. Lack of equality. Difference or variation in size, amount, rank, quality, social position, etc.

It’s important to consider the same dictionary’s definition of “equality”:

State or instance of being equal.

Both terms are absolute, not relative. Two or more conditions, values, amounts, are either equal or they are not equal. Similar to the condition of pregnancy, a female is either pregnant or not.

Income equality could only exist under a perfect communist system where every person received an equal income regardless of contribution to the source of that income.

That did not happen in the former USSR, the communist states of Eastern Europe and is certainly not happening in North Korea, Cuba or China. In all those examples, the politically advantaged did and do receive far greater incomes (in different forms) than the masses.

The correct term is “Income Disparity”. A condition that has existed since the first evidence of life on the planet. A stronger, more active, more adaptable and more motivated member of any species will tend to be more successful, acquiring more and better resources. This allows it to attract and keep better mates and produce offspring with a better chance of survival and continuation of the species.

Although more accurate, the word disparity does not carry the same emotional, guilt inducing weight as does inequality, perhaps because of the intense emotion generated by reference in the past to racial and sexual inequality.

That is why the proponents of wealth distribution both in government and the media, continually portray income inequality as a mortal sin instead of a natural condition.

In modern society, only the most rabid communist would expect that a top-level executive responsible for creating and securing thousands of jobs, or the leader of a country, should receive the same income as someone who cannot or will not work at all.

Those comfortably off middle class who complain about the millions paid to CEOs and call for caps on bonuses should be careful what they wish for. Where salary caps and wage controls have been tried, they tended to suffer from “downward bracket creep”.

When those at the middle and lower-income levels, the very people who have been calling for controls, suddenly see their own incomes capped or reduced, they quickly lose their appetite for the policy.

It’s also worth remembering, that those at the lower end of the income scale in the first world are seen as fabulously rich by millions in the developing world.

An unemployed Zimbabwean with a life expectancy of 36 and no prospect of either employment or welfare thanks to disastrous government policies, is not going to have much sympathy for an American or European struggling to survive on $40 000 a year.

We should be concerned about income disparity. Real or perceived disparity in wealth, incomes, living conditions, access to resources are the sparks that ignite revolutions.

The way to address income disparity is to encourage, inspire and push those at the lower end of the scale to rise up it. Not drag those at the top down to their level through punitive taxation, legislation or politically expedient propaganda.

Let shareholders decide on executive and management income packages, not politicians, the media or celebrities.

 

peter-wright

 

Odd reactions in the West to Ariel Sharon’s death.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon

Ariel Sharon 2004
Wikipedia Creative Commons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting to read about reactions to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s death.

Most of the media, including, sadly, the BBC falling over themselves to give Israel’s enemies plenty of opportunity to condemn him.

Neither the leaders of USA nor the UK attending his funeral, sending instead the Vice President and a former Prime Minister respectively.

Compare that with the total absence of any hint of criticism of Mandela in the media in the first weeks after his death. One or two negative reports surfacing after two weeks or so but given no prominence.

The President of the USA and the British Prime Minister neglecting the running of their own countries for days so that they could be seen and photographed at services for Mandela. (Including being photographed taking their own pictures)

South Africa is now ruled by a communist oriented and corrupt party that was previously labelled a terrorist organisation by the USA. It’s currency has devalued from being worth more than a US dollar to 9 cents today under an ANC government.

Except for a small minority of the politically well-connected, conditions for most South Africans are worse than they were 20 years ago under the “old” South African government.

Crime rates are atrocious, businesses are suffering, the mining sector, the former backbone of the economy with more labour unrest than ever.

South Africa while still enjoying the remnants of what was once the most formidable military power on the continent, is not a major international player.

Israel is – with the chaos in Egypt – the West’s only major ally in the Middle East.

With the demise of the former USSR and with no overt signs of either the new Russia or China desiring to control the shipping lanes around the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa is of far less strategic importance to the West than Israel.

If South Africa was a more important trading partner, we could perhaps understand this preferential treatment.

That is not the case;

Trade with USA January to November 2013

Exports      Imports

Israel                 $12.5 bn    $$20.6 bn

South Africa        $6.8 bn      $7.8 bn

Source : United States Census Bureau

The statistics show the reverse to be true. In the first 11 months of 2013, Israel was twice as big an export market as South Africa for the USA and provided three times the imports.

That pattern has been similar for the last 5 years.

The entire trade between the USA and sub-Saharan Africa is less than double that with Israel alone and for the entire continent less than three times the figure for Israel.

If there are no economic or strategic arguments for two of the major Western nations favouring South Africa over Israel, what are the real reasons?

The existing perceived and actual support of Israel by the West is an irritant to some of the more important Arab and other Islamic states, however this irritant is already a fact of life and unlikely to be increased by reaction to the death of a former Israeli leader.

Iran now appears to have found some common sense as a result of sanctions (and perhaps concern that Israel might act unilaterally to remove the nuclear threat).

Perhaps the real reason is appeasement, as part of foreign policy to keep the third world rabble at the UN quiet and to do the same with the pro-Palestinian liberal left domestically.

It’s a sad day when former terrorists and a relatively insignificant country are accorded more respect than allies and leaders of major trading partners.

peter-wright

The hypocritical hysteria continues

Mandela died last week.

World leaders are falling over themselves to be seen and heard, to fawn over his supposed saintliness.

None that I have noticed have had the honesty to expose him for what he was, leader of a terrorist group responsible for the brutal murders of thousands of mainly black South Africans.

Their presence at his funeral is an insult to every victim of terrorism and their families. It is an insult to those of us who defended our countries from the terrorism he and his ally Mugabe in Zimbabwe were perpetrating.

Above all it is an insult to the hundreds of thousands who have been forced to leave their homeland by the deteriorating economic and security situation unfolding as a direct result of the ANC’s policies.

South Africa following Zimbabwe down the same slippery slope of destruction.

Why are so many supposedly astute leaders from the political world continuing with this disgraceful charade?

Will they treat Castro the same way when he goes? Will there be the same anguish and protestations of greatness?

Is it guilt about how the indigenous peoples of North America and Australia were treated, in many ways far worse than in Southern Africa.

Why do so many otherwise sensible people make excuses for atrocious behavior by African leaders, but call for sanctions, enquiries, human rights trials against European, Asian and conservative South American leaders.

Compare the treatment of Mandela, with that of Pinochet of Chile or the recent condemnation of Sri Lanka during the recent commonwealth conference.

Seems that if you are a suitable candidate for socialist sainthood, you can get away with murder. If you are two millimeters right of centre, you are guilty the moment you take office, no matter how well you lead your country.

Or is it just to appease the third world and canvass votes from the liberal left at election time.

It is understandable that the liberals in academia and politics who promoted the Mandela myth would be lamenting his passing. But for supposedly competent and conscientious leaders of major democracies, including the USA who previously declared the ANC a terrorist organization, it defies logic.

Irrespective of whatever one thinks about Mandela, facts are facts, he was convicted of terrorism, not opposing a government.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Never have so many been fooled by so few.

peter-wright

 

 

The Mandela Myth

 

 

Richard Branson recently posted an article about Nelson Mandela’s book on Linked In.

I could not believe that someone as astute as Richard Branson would be taken in by the Mandela Myth, but perhaps he is looking to expand his business in South Africa. Political Correctness? Hypocrisy?

Mandela Myth

South African Protea -source Wikipedia Creative Commons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seemed that my comment might be of interest to readers.

Here is my comment (it exceeded the number of words for a comment, the last 3 paragraphs did not appear in the Linked In version)

As someone who saw the effects of terrorism in both Rhodesia and South Africa at first hand including losing a parent to terrorism in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and being a victim of Mugabe’s brutal farm invasions, I am surprised that a man of your vision and experience is promoting the Mandela myth.

It is a frequently and conveniently overlooked fact that Mandela was convicted and imprisoned for acts of terrorism, not for opposing the South African government. If he had been convicted of the same crimes in the USA or Europe, he would almost certainly have been executed, or still be serving a life sentence.

It is a further fact that approximately double the number of violent deaths have occurred South Africa since Mandela was released from prison in 1992 than in the 44 years from 1948 to that date under the “old” South Africa. Which government was more benign?

I am not sure that the families of those 5000 or so mainly Zulu opponents of Mandela’s ANC who were brutally murdered, many by the burning tyre “necklace” method would agree with your assessment of Mandela.

Before accusing me of being a racist, white supremacist or worse, yes there were aspects of the South African government policies that with hindsight, appear horrendous. Yes the native population could have been treated better in many ways. Yes some white South Africans did terrible things to black South Africans.

However white South Africans did not reduce the indigenous population to a powerless minority through massive European immigration, introduction of diseases, alcohol or casual murder as happened in North America and Australia. South Africa did not practice slavery as did the USA.

It’s very easy to point fingers from the safety of a country in Europe that has not had to deal with the same issues or from a “conquered” country that dealt with them much more harshly, two centuries ago. It’s time that the world starts recognising the contribution white (and other immigrant) South Africans did make to the country and all its people and time to recognise Mandela for what he was.

The world did a huge disservice to all South Africans by imposing sanctions and boycotts, pressuring the country to release Mandela and hand over to a former terrorist group that is proving incapable of managing a sophisticated economy.

By the early 1990’s demographics were changing South Africa and would have continued to do so, allowed to develop and change at its own pace the country would have evolved into a true “Rainbow Nation” and thousands of lives may have been saved.

peter-wright