# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Nelson Mandela has died

## cajuncocoa

just received breaking news text alert.  no link yet.

----------


## asurfaholic

who's that?

----------


## cajuncocoa

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/africa/...dela-dead-Zuma

----------


## COpatriot

I already know this thread is gonna be good. I've been waiting for this thread for years.

----------


## angelatc

Seems to be confirmed: http://mg.co.za/article/2013-12-05-nelson-mandela-dies

Twitter scooped everybody else.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> who's that?


Here ya go.... 


Nelson Mandela
Former President of South Africa

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela is a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary and politician who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999.Wikipedia

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

Sad day. May he rest in peace.

----------


## Zippyjuan

An amazing man.

----------


## Red Green

Dead commie, big deal.  I'm sure I'll be sickened by all the tributes to this guy.

----------


## sluggo

Wasn't his wife a communist?

----------


## schiffheadbaby

And involved in terrible violent crimes

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Wasn't his wife a communist?


So was Nelson.
*Political ideology*



A "Free Mandela" protest in Berlin, 1986
Mandela was an African nationalist, an ideological position he held since joining the ANC,[326] also being "a democrat, and a socialist".[327] Although he presented himself in an autocratic manner in several speeches, Mandela was a devout believer in democracy and would abide by majority decisions even when deeply disagreeing with them.[328] He held a conviction that "inclusivity, accountability and freedom of speech" were the fundamentals of democracy,[329] and was driven by a belief in natural and human rights.[330]
A democratic socialist, Mandela was "openly opposed to capitalism, private land-ownership and the power of big money".[331] Influenced by Marxism, during the revolution Mandela advocated scientific socialism,[332] although he denied being a communist during the Treason Trial.[333] Biographer David James Smith thought this untrue, stating that Mandela "embraced communism and communists" in the late 1950s and early 1960s, though was a "fellow traveller" rather than a party member.[334] In the 1955 Freedom Charter, which Mandela had helped create, it called for the nationalisation of banks, gold mines, and land, believing it necessary to ensure equal distribution of wealth.[335] Despite these beliefs, Mandela nationalised nothing during his presidency, fearing that this would scare away foreign investors. This decision was in part influenced by the fall of the socialist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc during the early 1990s.[336]

Wikipedia

----------


## dannno

PCU was such an underrated film.





> Protester 1: Free Nelson Mandela!!
> 
> 
> 
> Protester 2: Uh, they freed him already

----------


## sluggo

> So was Nelson.


Nelson Mandela Freeway coming to a city near you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Nelson Mandela Freeway coming to a city near you.


No doubt.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Movie- tie-in?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2304771/

----------


## Red Green

> Nelson Mandela Freeway coming to a city near you.


A good as place as any to pull over and take a dump I suppose.

----------


## Lucille

The Che Guevara of Africa
http://barelyablog.com/nelson-mandel...-of-of-africa/

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Dead commie, big deal.  I'm sure I'll be sickened by all the tributes to this guy.


Despite his political beliefs, what he actually did when he came to power in regards to race and his past was pretty amazing. If you can't see that people can accomplish great things despite having a differing political opinion then you are acting childish. Of course that should come as no surprise to anyone here.

Slutter McGee

----------


## compromise

I guess there were a few good things about Mandela & his actions, and he did become less radical as he got older, but by and large the man did heavy damage to the nation of South Africa.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

*
U.S. has Mandela on terrorist list - USATODAY.com*
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm‎
Apr 30, 2008

*Mandela Visits Israel With Praise but Rifts Linger - New York Times*
www.nytimes.com

Why US had him on Terrist list?

But it seems he was close to drone king's familial relatives:

----------


## asurfaholic

seems like a real decent leader. sad

----------


## eduardo89

Who gives a $#@!. The man was a communist and helped destroy South Africa.

----------


## green73

Not to derail the thread (RIP) but I once thought he was dead, as if I'd heard it on the news. The same with Stephen Hawking. In each case I was a bit confused as hell to find out different. Anyway, I wouldn't be sharing this if I hadn't heard it brought up on Coast to Coast one night. Apparently other people have experienced this very thing, with these same two figures. THAT'S THE WEIRD PART.

----------


## dannno

> helped destroy South Africa.


Summary?

----------


## donnay

Well, hope he made peace before he took his last breath.

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

Bout time

----------


## Red Green

> Despite his political beliefs, what he actually did when he came to power in regards to race and his past was pretty amazing. If you can't see that people can accomplish great things despite having a differing political opinion then you are acting childish. Of course that should come as no surprise to anyone here.
> 
> Slutter McGee


Yeah, South Africa is the jewel of the continent now, just like it always has been :/ .  Tell me, what exactly are the "pretty amazing" things that he did while in power?

----------


## Zippyjuan

South Africa lived under the oppressive regime system of Apartheid- where races were separated and only the whites had power and rights and money- native residents of the country had none.  Manedela sought to change this.  He spent most of his life in prison but when released did not hate his captors.  He did not encourage repression of those who had repressed him but rather urged forgiveness and reconsilation. A nasty civil war could have resulted but didn't becasue of his example. I don't think that was "ruining" South Africa (unless you were one of the overlords and even they got treated well).

----------


## compromise

The problem with Mandela is that his regime laid the foundations for the current black supremacist system in South Africa, which is as bad as the system SA had under Apartheid.

----------


## AngryCanadian

> Dead commie, big deal.  I'm sure I'll be sickened by all the tributes to this guy.


The fact that the Great Reagen proclaimed Mandela as a Terrorist and while he cheered the mujahideen in Afghanistan as Freedom Fighters does not bother you at all?

----------


## AngryCanadian

> The problem with Mandela is that his regime laid the foundations for the current black supremacist system in South Africa, which is as bad as the system SA had under Apartheid.




While at the same time he proclaimed Mandela a terrorist.

----------


## green73

> 


Gosh, that it just so endearing...

----------


## dannno

> The problem with Mandela is that his regime laid the foundations for the current black supremacist system in South Africa, which is *as bad as the system SA had under Apartheid*.


I can't watch the video, but that seems like a pretty bold claim

----------


## twomp

> The fact that the Great Reagen proclaimed Mandela as a Terrorist and while he cheered the mujahideen in Afghanistan as Freedom Fighters does not bother you at all?


Probably not. Fox news has taught the GOP faithful that Reagen is a demi-god. Even his poo poo smells like roses.

----------


## AngryCanadian

I love this picture Mandela knew what GW bush did in Iraq was a War Crime but his expressions on Bush were priceless.


RIP Mandela.

----------


## Ender

> Who gives a $#@!. The man was a communist and helped destroy South Africa.


I give a $#@!.

Mandela was a decent human being who was imprisoned by the CIA for 28 YEARS; that might make anyone a little leery of the west's version of freedom.

Politically, his actual actions were in the middle:




> Political ideology
> 
> Mandela was an African nationalist, an ideological position he held since joining the ANC, also being "a democrat, and a socialist". Although he presented himself in an autocratic manner in several speeches, *Mandela was a devout believer in democracy and would abide by majority decisions even when deeply disagreeing with them.* He held a conviction that "*inclusivity, accountability and freedom of speech" were the fundamentals of democracy, and was driven by a belief in natural and human rights.*
> 
> A democratic socialist, Mandela was "openly opposed to capitalism, private land-ownership and the power of big money". Influenced by Marxism, during the revolution Mandela advocated scientific socialism, although he denied being a communist during the Treason Trial. Biographer David James Smith thought this untrue, stating that Mandela "embraced communism and communists" in the late 1950s and early 1960s, though was a "fellow traveller" rather than a party member. In the 1955 Freedom Charter, which Mandela had helped create, it called for the nationalisation of banks, gold mines, and land, believing it necessary to ensure equal distribution of wealth.
> 
> *Despite these beliefs, Mandela nationalised nothing during his presidency, fearing that this would scare away foreign investors. This decision was in part influenced by the fall of the socialist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc during the early 1990s.*

----------


## green73

> I love this picture Mandela knew what GW bush was a War Crime but his expressions on Bush were priceless.
> 
> 
> RIP Mandela.


His shirt gives me motion sickness. Still, RIP.

----------


## Red Green

> The fact that the Great Reagen proclaimed Mandela as a Terrorist and while he cheered the mujahideen in Afghanistan as Freedom Fighters does not bother you at all?


Not really.  The Afrikaners are no more an invading force than my North American kin of Scottish decent are in the Americas.  And the comparison has nothing to do with Mandela's politics.  I can accept a revolutionary who is after liberty and political equality for all; I can't really say the same for one who wants supposed political equality for all without the liberty.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

I think most mainstream people admire Mandela because he oversaw a relatively peaceful, at least on the surface, "transition from the old order", whereas other African nations were not as successful in this endeavor. The way the government handled the "end" of apartheid was problematic, and that is disappointing given that apartheid was so devastating. I guess I'm not seeing why non-purist libertarians dislike him so much or call him a "commie". Ethiopia and Tanzania were probably more stark examples of Soviet (not purely Marxist) influence, and both of those countries had more problems after the colonial era than South Africa did.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Not really.  The Afrikaners are no more an invading force than my North American kin of Scottish decent are in the Americas.  And the comparison has nothing to do with Mandela's politics.  I can accept a revolutionary who is after liberty and political equality for all; I can't really say the same for one who wants supposed political equality for all without the liberty.


Angry canandian will not address Mandela's wife's horrid violence.  

Mandela and his family were and are disgusting

----------


## Red Green

> Angry canandian will not address Mandela's wife's horrid violence.  
> 
> Mandela and his family were and are disgusting


Many here seek to distance themselves with people who even allude to violence as a means to liberty whereas this jackass was offered his freedom for a pledge to renounce violence, hence his long prison sentence.  I cannot imagine a worse individual to be honored on a board committed to liberty and peace.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Many here seek to distance themselves with people who even allude to violence as a means to liberty whereas this jackass was offered his freedom for a pledge to renounce violence, hence his long prison sentence.  I cannot imagine a worse individual to be honored on a board committed to liberty and peace.


Yes, exactly.  Unfortunately many are brainwashed and want to "feel good" about their beliefs without adequately assessing the spectrum of relevant facts.  

He and his wife, at many different junctures, explicitly involved themselves in violent behavior and at many other times turned a blind eye to the blatant violence of their allies.

----------


## Zippyjuan

So you would support the violence and lack of liberty the Afrikaans imposed on Blacks in South Africa?

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> So you would support the violence and lack of liberty the Afrikaans imposed on Blacks in South Africa?


Zippy, once again you are distorting positions.  Nobody has asserted violence.  There have been rebuttals to the assertion that Mandela is some benevolent and inspirational figure.  This is the mainstream media narrative, but in fact, he is no proper role model

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Zippy, once again you are distorting positions.  Nobody has asserted violence.  There have been rebuttals to the assertion that Mandela is some benevolent and inspirational figure.  This is the mainstream media narrative, but in fact, he is no proper role model


When released from prison, he urged peaceful reconsiliation- not retribution. That is not a proper role model?

----------


## Ender

> Zippy, once again you are distorting positions.  Nobody has asserted violence.  There have been rebuttals to the assertion that Mandela is some benevolent and inspirational figure.  This is the mainstream media narrative, but in fact, he is no proper role model


Ahh.... just think how passive you would be under the apartheid conditions of Africa.




> After the massacre of unarmed black South Africans by police forces at Sharpeville in 1960 and the subsequent banning of the ANC, Mandela abandoned his nonviolent stance and began advocating acts of sabotage against the South African regime. He went underground (during which time he became known as the Black Pimpernel for his ability to evade capture) and was one of the founders of Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), the military wing of the ANC. In 1962 he went to Algeria for training in guerrilla warfare and sabotage, returning to South Africa later that year. On August 5, shortly after his return, Mandela was arrested at a road block in Natal; he was subsequently sentenced to five years in prison.
> 
> In October 1963 the imprisoned Mandela and several other men were tried for sabotage, treason, and violent conspiracy in the infamous Rivonia Trial, named after a fashionable suburb of Johannesburg where raiding police had discovered quantities of arms and equipment at the headquarters of the underground Umkhonto we Sizwe. Mandelas speech from the dock, in which he admitted the truth of some of the charges made against him, was a classic defense of liberty and defiance of tyranny. (His speech garnered international attention and acclaim and was published later that year as I Am Prepared to Die.) On June 12, 1964, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, narrowly escaping the death penalty.


http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011...-flawed-saint/

----------


## Red Green

> So you would support the violence and lack of liberty the Afrikaans imposed on Blacks in South Africa?


I don't have to support one side or the other: it's like saying just because I don't like Obama, I must have liked McCain or Romney.  I pretty much dislike virtually all politicians and all governments, although they might be better or worse to a degree.

----------


## Zippyjuan

A stand against tyrany is a good thing. He did respond to violence with violence while seeking liberty, but once he was in a position of authority, he fully rejected it.

----------


## jmdrake

> South Africa lived under the oppressive regime system of Apartheid- where races were separated and only the whites had power and rights and money- native residents of the country had none.  Manedela sought to change this.  He spent most of his life in prison but when released did not hate his captors.  He did not encourage repression of those who had repressed him but rather urged forgiveness and reconsilation. A nasty civil war could have resulted but didn't becasue of his example. I don't think that was "ruining" South Africa (unless you were one of the overlords and even they got treated well).


Well Zippy, I don't often agree with you, but I agree here.  Regardless of the why, Mandela backed away from the what of communism (nationalization of all industries).  And he did what few African revolutionaries before him did.  He voluntarily stepped down from office after he finished his term.

----------


## juleswin

He wasn't perfect but I think he was a good man that wanted to end oppression of his people. Anyway, the video is a little joke about Mandela from my favorite comedian

RIP

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't have to support one side or the other: it's like saying just because I don't like Obama, I must have liked McCain or Romney.  I pretty much dislike virtually all politicians and all governments, although they might be better or worse to a degree.


Let's see.  Obama attacked Libya, threated to invade Syria, escalated in Afghanistan, increased poppy production there, ran guns to Mexican drug lords, etc.  Mandela reacted violently to a violent situation, then after being in prison for over two decades, came out an renounced violence.  Sorry, but I don't see a valid comparison there.

----------


## ZENemy

KILL WHITEY - Chris Farley 





> guys i speak afrikaans and zulu hes singing a song about freedom, peace and happiness, i am south africa, you guys are full of $#@!, your all racist, my great grandparents were jews there family died in the gas chambers survivers were my granny her sister and my greatgrand father, they legally immagrated to south Africa and my granny (jewish) married a british person, my grandpa who is a baron of the royal family. soo... you all are full of $#@! and need to get out more  jewish is a religon not a damn race, blacks, whites and jews have nothing against each other were all at nothing but at peace, so you dont forget, 10000s of thousand of black died in the apartheid,  and millions died in the slavery, but within 12 years over 6 million jews were killed without hope in the gas chambers. so dont start saying all of what has happened is a right thing.﻿

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Thank God for Mandela.  He wasn't perfect and had many faults, but he helped prevent what could have been a bloody civil war in the aftermath of Apartheid.

----------


## Ender

> Thank God for Mandela.  He wasn't perfect and had many faults, but he helped prevent what could have been a bloody civil war in the aftermath of Apartheid.


Nobody's perfect and many here would do similar to protect our own country.




> After the massacre of unarmed black South Africans by police forces at Sharpeville in 1960 and the subsequent banning of the ANC, Mandela abandoned his nonviolent stance and began advocating acts of sabotage against the South African regime. He went underground (during which time he became known as *the Black Pimpernel* for his ability to evade capture)

----------


## 69360

A socialist criminal terrorist is dead, why should I care?

----------


## dannno

> A socialist criminal terrorist is dead, why should I care?


I don't think it is criminal or terrorism to fight back against a violent, oppressive regime. Then he rejected violence once it was no longer being initiated against him. I don't see how you can call him a criminal or a terrorist. 

He never instituted any hardcore socialist policies as leader, so that doesn't even really seem relevant.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Despite his political beliefs, what he actually did when he came to power in regards to race and his past was pretty amazing. If you can't see that people can accomplish great things despite having a differing political opinion then you are acting childish. Of course that should come as no surprise to anyone here.
> 
> Slutter McGee


He didn't do great things.  That is just what the media wants you to believe.

His wife was his accomplice and she was murderer of the worst degree.

What they say is true, apparently.  Only the good die young.  Which is why he lived to be 95.

Good riddance to communist rubbish.

----------


## dannno

> His wife was his accomplice and she was murderer of the worst degree.


Right, and a Jewish person who killed a lot of Nazi concentration camp guards would also be a murderer to the worst degree?

I've been hearing a lot about this murdering stuff and still not seen any examples of him or her murdering an innocent person yet.

----------


## dillo

People act as if South Africa somehow became a better place after Mandela became president.  Its the rape capital of the world, and one of the leaders in almost every statistic of violent crime.  

Mandela was no different than Che or McVeigh or Bin Laden, a violent revolutionary that committed violence against what they considered an oppressive government.  You can certainly argue that their violence was justified but don't try to claim that he was some non-violent figure like Ghandi.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> He didn't do great things.  That is just what the media wants you to believe.
> 
> His wife was his accomplice and she was murderer of the worst degree.
> 
> *What they say is true, apparently.  Only the good die young.  Which is why he lived to be 95.*
> 
> Good riddance to communist rubbish.


Ron Paul didn't die young. He might live to 95.  Are all old people bad? And Mandela divorced his wife. He did not approve of her lifestyle. 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...winnie-mandela




> In 1992, the couple separated after Mrs. Mandela was convicted in the kidnapping of four youths by her bodyguards. One youth was beaten to death.


Divorce was finalized in 1996.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> People act as if South Africa somehow became a better place after Mandela became president.  Its the rape capital of the world, and one of the leaders in almost every statistic of violent crime.  
> 
> Mandela was no different than Che or McVeigh or Bin Laden, a violent revolutionary that committed violence against what they considered an oppressive government.  You can certainly argue that their violence was justified but don't try to claim that he was some non-violent figure like Ghandi.


Thank you, Mandela was on par with Che.  

It's funny, or sad rather, to see Ron Paul fans so easily duped by the mainstream narrative.

----------


## Red Green

> Let's see.  Obama attacked Libya, threated to invade Syria, escalated in Afghanistan, increased poppy production there, ran guns to Mexican drug lords, etc.  Mandela reacted violently to a violent situation, then after being in prison for over two decades, came out an renounced violence.  Sorry, but I don't see a valid comparison there.


I was pointing to the fact that zippyjuan was using a false dialectic, rather than trying to compare Obama to Mandela or Mandela to McCain or Romney.  You missed the point entirely.

----------


## Quark

> native residents of the country had none.


You mean the Khoisan? Non-"natives" such as the Bantu-speaking descendants  and slaves from other African regions also were oppressed.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> People act as if South Africa somehow became a better place after Mandela became president.  Its the rape capital of the world, and one of the leaders in almost every statistic of violent crime.  
> 
> Mandela was no different than Che or McVeigh or Bin Laden, a violent revolutionary that committed violence against what they considered an oppressive government.  You can certainly argue that their violence was justified but don't try to claim that he was some non-violent figure like Ghandi.


What I am arguing is that the world saw South Africa's transition into self-governance as a refreshing change from the typical scenarios that unfolded in other African countries post-independence. Mandela's calls for peace and understanding, however shallow they appear now, were a welcome change from the typical "scramble to the trough" and vicious infighting/wanton slaughter that the world had come to associate with African independence. 

I don't think the focus is on South Africa's position now so much as it is on the politics of the transition. It's also possible that the world was watching and waiting to see if South Africa's economic resources would be flushed down the toilet (like what happened to Nigeria's oil profits), and therefore other issues kind of got lost in the shuffle.

Personally as a libertarian, I think there are still tensions in South Africa stemming from the government's attempts to control social order in the wake of apartheid. I also don't think the transition itself was carried out in a libertarian way - I just appreciate that it didn't lead to the deaths of millions of people like what happened in other countries post-independence. I don't approve of Mandela's presidency for the same reasons I don't approve of statists in general. But to suggest this guy was a butcher using shoddy evidence seems absurd to me. Would some of the people in this topic condemn Pinochet so harshly? I don't think so. 

Everyone also keeps mentioning how awful his wife was, but I just don't see that the two were that close. As Zippy mentioned, they divorced, so he wasn't willing to stand behind her.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Genocide watch warns of White Genocide in South Africa

http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

----------


## Peace&Freedom

This whole matter needs to be understood from a full context/deep politics perspective, and a liberty perspective, along with the concession that people are shades of grey, not Manichean black or white. Most people are mixed bags, and none of them are perfect. What people originally professed, and what they later do from a position of power, can be the difference between night and day. What would Jesus do? Judge people by their fruits. Or, as the song goes, it's not how you start, it's how you finish.

On paper, from his speeches, Lincoln was a champion of liberty, but by his actions, the tyrant's heel. Alan Greenspan was a gold-standard libertarian, once upon a time, then he made his bed with the bankster establishment. Obama ran to end the wars, close Gitmo and curtail the surveillance state, then look what happened in office. Orwell was a socialist by belief, yet wrote the most profoundly anti-government novels of the last century. Saul killed Christians, then something happened on that road...And so on.

According to the Hague and Geneva conventions, which incorporate just war principles extending back 1600 years of Western civilization, fighting back against occupying or aggressor regimes is not terrorism. In that context, Nelson Mandela's violent opposition to that situation in South Africa was defensive, and not terrorist violence. His rejection of aggression was underscored by his not adopting it upon being elected, and in rejecting his wife's actions, which did embrace aggression and terrorism. As with the Arab countries, the PTB feared people like him would prove these peoples could run their nations moderately without our influence/intervention.

Mandela's communist professions gave away to supporting free democracy and a stable market economy when in office. His incarceration was a function of CIA covert interests in the area, who aided and abetted the Apartheid state-enforced repression of blacks, and in setting up kangaroo trials that put inconvenient independent rebels out of the way. The US/UK cared nothing about the repression, so long as the government was properly co-opted under their control. Inspired by Mandela's example, millions of people aspire not to be communists, but to be responsible and peaceful leaders of free societies. By his fruits, on balance, he was pro-liberty.

By way of direct and appropriate contrast, look what Mugabe, a genuine communist by conviction and action, did to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe across his time in office. "While as Rhodesia, the country was once considered the breadbasket of Africa. Today, Zimbabwe is a net importer of foodstuffs, with the European Union and United States providing emergency food relief as humanitarian aid on a regular basis. The nation has suffered profound economic and social decline in the past twenty years," says Wikipedia. Mass nationalization, monetary hyper-inflation, stealing from and violently abusing minority white farmers, etc. Here are the true fruits of communism, showing Mandela abandoned this path based on his track record post imprisonment.

----------


## Ender

> This whole matter needs to be understood from a full context/deep politics perspective, and a liberty perspective, along with the concession that people are shades of grey, not Manichean black or white. Most people are mixed bags, and none of them are perfect. What people originally professed, and what they later do from a position of power, can be the difference between night and day. What would Jesus do? Judge people by their fruits. Or, as the song goes, it's not how you start, it's how you finish.
> 
> On paper, from his speeches, Lincoln was a champion of liberty, but by his actions, the tyrant's heel. Alan Greenspan was a gold-standard libertarian, once upon a time, then he made his bed with the bankster establishment. Obama ran to end the wars, close Gitmo and curtail the surveillance state, then look what happened in office. Orwell was a socialist by belief, yet wrote the most profoundly anti-government novels of the last century. Saul killed Christians, then something happened on that road...And so on.
> 
> According to the Hague and Geneva conventions, which incorporate just war principles extending back 1600 years of Western civilization, fighting back against occupying or aggressor regime is not terrorism. In that context, Nelson Mandela's violent opposition to that situation in South Africa was defensive, and not terrorist violence. His rejection of aggression was underscored by his not adopting it upon being elected, and in rejecting his wife's actions, which did embrace aggression and terrorism. As with the Arab countries, the PTB feared people like him would prove these peoples could run their nations moderately without our influence/intervention.
> 
> Mandela's communist professions gave away to supporting free democracy and a stable market economy when in office. His incarceration was a function of CIA covert interests in the area, who aided and abetted the Apartheid state-enforced repression of blacks, and in setting up kangaroo trials that put inconvenient independent rebels out of the way. Inspired by his example, millions of people aspire not to be communists, but to be responsible and peaceful leaders of free societies. By his fruits, on balance, he was pro-liberty.
> 
> By way of direct and appropriate contrast, look what Mugabe, a genuine communist by conviction and action, did to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe across his time in office. "While as Rhodesia, the country was once considered the breadbasket of Africa. Today, Zimbabwe is a net importer of foodstuffs, with the European Union and United States providing emergency food relief as humanitarian aid on a regular basis. The nation has suffered profound economic and social decline in the past twenty years," says Wikipedia. Mass nationalization, monetary hyper-inflation, stealing from and violently abusing minority white farmers, etc. Here are the true fruits of communism, showing Mandela abandoned this path based on his track record post imprisonment.


Excellent summary- thanks!

+rep

----------


## Snew

> This whole matter needs to be understood from a full context/deep politics perspective, and a liberty perspective, along with the concession that people are shades of grey, not Manichean black or white. Most people are mixed bags, and none of them are perfect. What people originally professed, and what they later do from a position of power, can be the difference between night and day. What would Jesus do? Judge people by their fruits. Or, as the song goes, it's not how you start, it's how you finish.
> 
> On paper, from his speeches, Lincoln was a champion of liberty, but by his actions, the tyrant's heel. Alan Greenspan was a gold-standard libertarian, once upon a time, then he made his bed with the bankster establishment. Obama ran to end the wars, close Gitmo and curtail the surveillance state, then look what happened in office. Orwell was a socialist by belief, yet wrote the most profoundly anti-government novels of the last century. Saul killed Christians, then something happened on that road...And so on.
> 
> According to the Hague and Geneva conventions, which incorporate just war principles extending back 1600 years of Western civilization, fighting back against occupying or aggressor regime is not terrorism. In that context, Nelson Mandela's violent opposition to that situation in South Africa was defensive, and not terrorist violence. His rejection of aggression was underscored by his not adopting it upon being elected, and in rejecting his wife's actions, which did embrace aggression and terrorism. As with the Arab countries, the PTB feared people like him would prove these peoples could run their nations moderately without our influence/intervention.
> 
> Mandela's communist professions gave away to supporting free democracy and a stable market economy when in office. His incarceration was a function of CIA covert interests in the area, who aided and abetted the Apartheid state-enforced repression of blacks, and in setting up kangaroo trials that put inconvenient independent rebels out of the way. The US/UK cared nothing about the repression, so long as the government was properly co-opted under their control. Inspired by Mandela's example, millions of people aspire not to be communists, but to be responsible and peaceful leaders of free societies. By his fruits, on balance, he was pro-liberty.
> 
> By way of direct and appropriate contrast, look what Mugabe, a genuine communist by conviction and action, did to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe across his time in office. "While as Rhodesia, the country was once considered the breadbasket of Africa. Today, Zimbabwe is a net importer of foodstuffs, with the European Union and United States providing emergency food relief as humanitarian aid on a regular basis. The nation has suffered profound economic and social decline in the past twenty years," says Wikipedia. Mass nationalization, monetary hyper-inflation, stealing from and violently abusing minority white farmers, etc. Here are the true fruits of communism, showing Mandela abandoned this path based on his track record post imprisonment.


Very good post!

----------


## Red Green

Compared to Hitler, I'm a saint.  So what?  People seem to think that Mandela deserves to be canonized based on that he did bring about civil war or a Marxist economy.  That just means he was pragmatic rather than some sort of peaceful champion of liberty.  There could be no real winnable civil war in SA and his refutation of Marxism probably had more to do with realizing he was best not to strangle the gold egg laying goose for his own sake.  

In the end the real test of Mandela's worth should be how the population of SA fared after the ANC took over and how his actions contributed to that.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Very good post!


Please address Winnie Mandela's known violent past.  She brutally murdered many people and we are to say that Mandela is a good man?

I'm ashamed of some of the naive commentary on this board.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

I would not be caught dead living in SA for what it is worth. Post-apartheid is like saying it was kumbaya for blacks in deep Mississippi in the early 20th Century. SA simply turned from a white-racist country, to a black-racist country. The differences are superficial.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Please address Winnie Mandela's known violent past.  She brutally murdered many people and we are to say that Mandela is a good man?
> 
> I'm ashamed of some of the naive commentary on this board.


So... guilt by association? I could see your point if the two had stayed together, but they divorced shortly after her crimes became public. It wasn't a happy marriage by any account.




> Compared to Hitler, I'm a saint.  So what?  People seem to think that Mandela deserves to be canonized based on that he did bring about civil war or a Marxist economy.  That just means he was pragmatic rather than some sort of peaceful champion of liberty.  There could be no real winnable civil war in SA and his refutation of Marxism probably had more to do with realizing he was best not to strangle the gold egg laying goose for his own sake.  
> 
> In the end the real test of Mandela's worth should be how the population of SA fared after the ANC took over and how his actions contributed to that.


I think most mainstream people see him as a champion of peace and liberty, and that is the point I was attempting to make. I certainly don't see him as one, because ultimately I don't particularly like statist solutions to problems. SA's government failed to adequately address the wrongs of apartheid because government cannot fundamentally right those wrongs. However, I think there is a reasonable distinction between Mandela and someone like Idi Amin, for example.

----------


## James Madison

I predict this will draw the self-hating whites out of the woodwork.

----------


## 69360

> I predict this will draw the self-hating whites out of the woodwork.


I've noticed an epidemic of white guilt.

----------


## FrankRep

*"Saint" Mandela? Not So Fast! -- He's a Communist, Terrorist, and a Liar*

*New Evidence Shows Mandela Was Senior Communist Party Member*

*Mayor Linda versus Mandela*

*Mandela's Messianic Image: The Rest of the Story*

*"Invictus" Means Invincible, Like Hollywood Myths*

----------


## Lucille

LOL  Obama honors Mandela with a picture of himself and a quote from his speech.

----------


## jmdrake

> The problem with Mandela is that his regime laid the foundations for the current black supremacist system in South Africa, which is as bad as the system SA had under Apartheid.


You know, I watched this expecting to see some video about how post appartheid soclialism was destroying white people.  Instead, I see that hundreds of thousands of blacks in South Africa are ebracing capitalism and joining the middle class as a result.  I also see a government patronage system that once helped Afrikaaners, now being re-engineered to help upwardly mobile blacks.  The blacks without upward mobility are staying poor.  The whites who were dependent upon government jobs are becoming poor.  According to the video, English speaking whites, who are more entreprenural than the Afrikaaners, are faring much better.  Now if Nelson Mandela had been libertarian, these same whites who have become poor because they couldn't adjust to a society where they couldn't depend on government jobs or government farm subsidies, would still have become poor.  The blacks who have become rich through the free market would have still become rich.  The whites who are still fairing well because they embraced the free market from jump street would still be fairing well.  There are some blacks, who have prospered from government patronage, who might not have done as well, or might have decided to engage the free market instead of getting a government job.

----------


## vita3

Do any of Mandela's harshest critics here think a white-only South African Apartheid Gov was NOT going to have major problems in it's transition?

Mandela did a reasonable job keeping the peace between the two as his Nations leader. 

& please state the facts of what exact business he Nationalized to his communistic stances when he was Presidente?

----------


## green73

> *Mandela and the Economics of Apartheid* 
> By Peter G. Klein 
>   Friday, December 6th, 2013 
> 
>     Nelson Mandela, public face of the anti-Apartheid movement and South  Africas first post-Apartheid president, has died. Much will be written  about Mandela in the coming days, but little of it will deal directly  with the Apartheid system, particularly its economic aspects. Apartheid  is widely misunderstood as a system based purely on racial prejudice,  while it was actually a more complex mix of economic controls  (primarily, restrictions on capital ownership and movements of labor)  and racial separatism  what Tom Hazlett  calls socialism with a racist face. Apartheids political support  came primarily from working-class (white) Afrikaners and their labor  unions eager to suppress competition from unskilled black labor. As  Hazlett notes: *The conventional view is that apartheid was devised by  affluent whites to suppress poor blacks. In fact, the system sprang from  class warfare and was largely the creation of white workers struggling  against both the black majority and white capitalists.*
> 
>  The classic treatment of Apartheid as an economic system is W. H. Hutts_ Economics of the Color Bar,_  first published in 1964. Hutt advocated free markets for capital and  labor and strict limits on government intervention in economic affairs.  (Hutt, a student of Edwin Cannan at the LSE, was a distinguished labor  and monetary economist and a well-known opponent of Keynes; see Peter  Lewins essay on Hutt for more information.) Leon Louw and Frances Kendalls 1986 book _South Africa: The Solution_ (republished in 1987 as _After Apartheid_)  offers a thoughtful analysis of South Africas economic system,  proposing a highly decentralized alternative modeled after the Swiss _cantons_ (see Bettina Bien Greavess review here).
> 
>  Unfortunately, the leaders of the anti-Apartheid movement, Mandela  included, viewed Apartheid as a capitalist system, turning to  Marxism-Leninism as the only viable economic (and political)  alternative. When the African National Congress came to power in 1994,  it dismantled Apartheids system of racial separation, opening up land  ownership and labor-market opportunities for all South Africans, but  continued to embrace the socialist economic principles that underlie the  Apartheid model. As Murray Rothbard  pointed out, economic freedom is a better path to racial  reconciliation: Free-market capitalism is a marvelous antidote for  racism. In a free market, employers who refuse to hire productive black  workers are hurting their own profits and the competitive position of  their own company. It is only when the state steps in that the  government can socialize the costs of racism and establish an apartheid  system.


http://bastiat.mises.org/2013/12/man...-of-apartheid/

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Comparing Mandela to the Federal Reserve is like comparing the Scarlet Pimpernel to Satan.
> 
> Get over yourself.


Are you that dumb?  I was using Fed as an example of another media-backed entity that is sold as good but is really nefarious.  

You are a clown

----------


## jmdrake

> http://bastiat.mises.org/2013/12/man...-of-apartheid/


Thanks for posting this!  I don't have a link, but I remember years ago Mandela responding to accusations that he was going to implement socialism in South Africa with "Apartheid is a socialism system."

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> It is true that South Africa is Number 7 in world crime, although it might be hard to lay all that on Mandela since he left the presidency in 1999.
> 
> Of course, the US is Number 1 in crime but- hey- we're the good guys.


Our crime rate is not remotely comparable to South Africa. Check your facts.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> You know, I watched this expecting to see some video about how post appartheid soclialism was destroying white people.  Instead, I see that hundreds of thousands of blacks in South Africa are ebracing capitalism and joining the middle class as a result.  I also see a government patronage system that once helped Afrikaaners, now being re-engineered to help upwardly mobile blacks.  The blacks without upward mobility are staying poor.  The whites who were dependent upon government jobs are becoming poor.  According to the video, English speaking whites, who are more entreprenural than the Afrikaaners, are faring much better.  Now if Nelson Mandela had been libertarian, these same whites who have become poor because they couldn't adjust to a society where they couldn't depend on government jobs or government farm subsidies, would still have become poor.  The blacks who have become rich through the free market would have still become rich.  The whites who are still fairing well because they embraced the free market from jump street would still be fairing well.  There are some blacks, who have prospered from government patronage, who might not have done as well, or might have decided to engage the free market instead of getting a government job.


I have been to South Africa, didn't take usual tourist sightseeing trips. I met a lot of people there of different backgrounds and I really don't know what many of you are talking about. Jmdrake's characterization is spot on. I don't have much if anything to add to that.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

I deeply admire Franco. He might not have been perfect, but when you compare him to his contemporaries he really stands out as a defender of peace and freedom!

----------


## JohnM

> *Nelson Mandela: champion of economic freedom*
> 
> The South African leader was not just a hero in the struggle for race freedom, he was also a champion of economic freedom
> 
> By Klaus Schwab   10:15AM GMT 06 Dec 2013
> 
> Of all the many leaders I have met in the course of my life, none made a deeper impression on me than Nelson Mandela.
> His courage, compassion, humility and wisdom were without parallel on the world stage, and he himself was an enduring source of inspiration.
> And while he is rightly revered as a hero in the struggle for race freedom, he also deserves recognition as a champion of economic freedom who set his country and continent on the path to growth.
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...c-freedom.html

----------


## Ender

> Are you that dumb?  I was using Fed as an example of another media-backed entity that is sold as good but is really nefarious.  
> 
> You are a clown



Ahhh.....I am dumb and a clown, while you resort to name-calling- looks like I won the argument w/o trying.

And BTW- most evil (or satanic) stuff is sold as good by the media, in case you haven't noticed.

----------


## Ender

> Our crime rate is not remotely comparable to South Africa. Check your facts.


Well, lessee- about about this?

List of Top 10 Countries with Highest Crime Rates


Rank	Country	No. of Crimes
1.	United States	11,877,218
2.	United Kingdom	6,523,706
3.	Germany	6,507,394
4.	France	3,771,850
5.	Russia	2,952,370
6.	Japan	2,853,739
7.	South Africa	2,683,849
8.	Canada	2,516,918
9.	Italy	2,231,550
10.	India	1,764,630


Crime may be in different type either in shape of civil crime or social crime etc. But both have bad results at last and the conclusion is the punishment. it may be stopped by the law so that it may not harm people and its rate can be decreased. There are several reasons for increased crimes in all over the world. At present USA has the highest rate as compared to all other nations.

- See more at: http://www.whichcountry.co/top-10-co....3fAZUXjs.dpuf

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Well, lessee- about about this?
> 
> List of Top 10 Countries with Highest Crime Rates
> 
> 
> Rank	Country	No. of Crimes
> 1.	United States	11,877,218
> 2.	United Kingdom	6,523,706
> 3.	Germany	6,507,394
> ...


So you don't factor in population size or types of crime?  Very shrewd

----------


## Ender

In cities with the highest murder rate, the first US city comes in at #21; the first South African city comes in at #34.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_murder_rate

----------


## Red Green

> Well, lessee- about about this?
> 
> List of Top 10 Countries with Highest Crime Rates
> 
> 
> Rank	Country	No. of Crimes
> 1.	United States	11,877,218
> 2.	United Kingdom	6,523,706
> 3.	Germany	6,507,394
> ...


Moreover, "crime" goes by a country's definition.  Here in the US it is a 'crime' to possess certain plants.  The US has created a lot of 'crime' out of thin air in the last 50 years.  You can't compare 'crime' across legal boundaries where crime is re-defined.  Compare stuff like homicide and rape, which have a pretty standard definition.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Well, lessee- about about this?
> 
> List of Top 10 Countries with Highest Crime Rates
> 
> 
> Rank	Country	No. of Crimes
> 1.	United States	11,877,218
> 2.	United Kingdom	6,523,706
> 3.	Germany	6,507,394
> ...


I think you need to reexamine what the word rate means.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> I think you need to reexamine what the word rate means.


Yes, Ender only considers cumulative "crimes" (which have jurisdictional issues of course) and not crime per capita.  SA is a small country and has incredibly high violent crime per capita.  So naturally he considers SA a safe haven , wish he would move there.

----------


## AuH20

ESPN's Sportcenter led with a 10 minute intro of this guy? Puzzling.

----------


## Red Green

> In cities with the highest murder rate, the first US city comes in at #21; the first South African city comes in at #34.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_murder_rate


So the entirety of the US is safer than the entirety of South Africa, with the exception of New Orleans.  Got it.

----------


## AuH20

Mandela's past has been definitely whitewashed in this recent flurry of tributes. The ANC killed far more blacks than whites for not joining their organization, yet I consistently read about "liberty", "peace" and "freedom" when Mandela is mentioned. Granted, he should be remembered for his accomplishments, but this media adulation has been embellished to say the least.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...c-freedom.html


That article didnt cite many specific free market policies implemented in South Africa under Mandela because they didn't exist, the only free market policies pursued was the attempt to normalize trade after the end of the Apartheid ended sanctions against South Africa. The author just wants Nelson to support free market policies.

Spending on welfare and infrastructure exploded under Nelson and the Black Economic Empowerment Act took away economic freedom from whites and heavily regulated their economy.

The unemployment rate was 30% when Mandela left office, the five expectancy had fallen, and crime had increased from its already enormous levels. Mandela and his allies (the Trade Union and Communist parties) have been complete disasters for South Africa.

----------


## dannno

> Bombing government and public buildings isn't terrorism?


In 1940 Germany? $#@! no. Freedom fighters. 

It starts to get morally vague as you go down the ladder, but I would just recommend not being apart of a tyrannical government at all. It is safest to opt out. If you don't, you are just taking your chances of getting retribution from whichever group your government is oppressing.





> How about setting landmines on public roads? Kidnapping and extrajudicial executions? How about those? Because your hero Nelson Mandela did all that.



Depends on the context, have any specific examples?






> Your justification for his actions could also justify what somebody like McVeigh did. Do you?



I have no idea what McVeigh actually did because I'm pretty sure he may or may not have set off a van bomb from far away that did very little damage but was then followed by several high tech explosives which were located in the building and placed there by CIA agents which were responsible for blowing up the daycare and such. 

The real problem with OKC was that it did nothing for the cause of liberty because they ended up using it to create more tyrannical laws, in fact that is why the CIA placed the bombs in the building so that they could further oppress American citizens. McVeigh was just a patsy on some level.

What was your question again, in the proper context of what happened?

----------


## osan

> who's that?


Nobody worth remembering.  Just a cheap instrument of murder.

Shame the rat bastard didn't snuff it in prison where he belonged.

The praise and the wailing that is rising for that low-rent hood is astonishing.  Not surprising, mind you, but astonishing in any event.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> In 1940 Germany? $#@! no. Freedom fighters. 
> 
> It starts to get morally vague as you go down the ladder, but I would just recommend not being apart of a tyrannical government at all. It is safest to opt out. If you don't, you are just taking your chances of getting retribution from whichever group your government is oppressing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the context, have any specific examples?
> ...


Mandela and his group bombed civilian targets, not just government targets.

Trying to overthrow a tyrannical government is only justified if you want to replace it with a smaller government or no government. Over throwing the Apartheid to replace it with another Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, Pol Pots Cambodia, or Ho Chi Mihns Vietnam isn't justified.

----------


## dannno

> Nobody worth remembering.  Just a cheap instrument of murder.
> 
> Shame the rat bastard didn't snuff it in prison where he belonged.
> 
> The praise and the wailing that is rising for that low-rent hood is astonishing.  Not surprising, mind you, but astonishing in any event.


If you dislike an enemy of the CIA you should always read the other side of the story.

----------


## dannno

> Mandela and his group bombed civilian targets, not just government targets.


http://www.csmonitor.com/1990/0216/onel.html




> He said that government installations were legitimate targets for ANC guerrillas and that, while civilians were not a target, whites could get caught in the cross-fire. (those remarks were directed at what had happened in the past)





> ``But you must be careful of being more worried about the violence that comes from the oppressed and saying little - or nothing at all - about the violence that comes from the government,'' he said yesterday.


It sounds to me like his group was the one that occasionally hit civilian targets and with all of the CIA involvement can we be sure that those who hit civilian targets were not CIA agents working within his group?





> Trying to overthrow a tyrannical government is only justified if you want to replace it with a smaller government or no government. Over throwing the Apartheid to replace it with another Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, Pol Pots Cambodia, or Ho Chi Mihns Vietnam isn't justified.


He did replace it with a 'smaller' government in the sense that it was less tyrannical.

----------


## James Madison

> ESPN's Sportcenter led with a 10 minute intro of this guy? Puzzling.


Yeah, I noticed that too. A lot of black athletes talking about what a great guy he was. I'm sorry -- how did he have any affect on you?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> If you dislike an enemy of the CIA you should always read the other side of the story.


We did. They called for Communism. 

Almost every enemy the CIA has ever had was evil. Evil organizations tend to fight each other. Like Communists fighting the CIA.

----------


## osan

> An amazing man.


Jesus Zipp0 - get a grip.  Mandela was involved in the murder of innocent people.  If he had a beef against someone particular, take the fight to that person and not his neighbors or his children.

Just as men like Bush and Obama are murderers, so was Mandela.  That anyone wants to service his missile makes no good sense.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> He did replace it with a 'smaller' government in the sense that it was less tyrannical.


When Mandela was committing his murders (the context of this discussion) he was a communist that wanted a communist government. Mandela changing his mind more than 30 years later is irrelevant.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> When Mandela was committing his murders (the context of this discussion) he was a communist that wanted a communist government. Mandela changing his mind more than 30 years later is irrelevant.


How do you know he only changed his mind more than thirty years later? It is possible, for example, that he saw the results of experiments with communism in other African countries. He could have had this revelation in the 70's when Ethiopia and Tanzania's regimes proved that the Soviet model was just a convenient cover for the same kinds of power-hungry people that generally plagued the continent in the post-colonial era.

----------


## Ender

> Jesus Zipp0 - get a grip.  Mandela was involved in the murder of innocent people.  If he had a beef against someone particular, take the fight to that person and not his neighbors or his children.
> 
> Just as men like Bush and Obama are murderers, so was Mandela.  That anyone wants to service his missile makes no good sense.


So- who was he fighting? Was he invading another country or was he fighting oppressors in his own country?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> So- who was he fighting? Was he invading another country or was he fighting oppressors in his own country?


Let's ask Lesotho is Mandela invades other countries.

----------


## Ender

> Let's ask Lesotho is Mandela invades other countries.


Mandela didn't give the orders, Mangosuthu Buthelezi did. Mandela endorsed it later.




> The Southern African Development Community (SADC) military intervention in Lesotho, codenamed Operation Boleas, was a military invasion of Lesotho in 1998 launched in the name of SADC and led by South Africa through its South African National Defence Force (SANDF). Troops from Botswana were supposed to join SANDF forces when they crossed the border to quell a suspected coup d'état. However, the Botswana contingent lost its way and only SANDF troops entered the landlocked kingdom of Lesotho. This led, after an incident at the Katse dam to rioting in the Lesotho capital, Maseru, initially directed at South African-owned businesses. But this soon spread and much of the centre of Maseru was severely damaged with shops and hotels looted and burned.
> 
> Trouble began in March 1998 when parliamentary elections in Lesotho resulted in an overwhelming majority for the ruling Lesotho Congress for Democracy Party, which won 79 out of 80 seats. However, allegations of vote fraud soon surfaced, and after a failed lawsuit by the opposition parties, widespread rioting broke out and there was talk in August and September of a possible coup by Lesotho's small army.
> In September while President Nelson Mandela of South Africa was out of the country, *Inkatha Freedom Party leader and then home affairs minister in the African National Congress-led government, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, acted in his place. It was he who took responsibility for ordering SANDF troops to lead a SADC "intervention" into Lesotho and some 700 South African troops entered Lesotho on 22 September.* Mandela subsequently endorsed the decision and the invasion. South Africa was particularly keen to ensure control of the Katse dam in the Maluti mountains above Maseru and which provides much of the water for South Africa's major industrial region of the Witwatersrand.
> Looting and arson erupted, and it took several years to rebuild Maseru's town centre. SADC troops were pulled out in May 1999.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Mandela didn't give the orders, Mangosuthu Buthelezi did. Mandela endorsed it later.


You want us to believe that Mandela, the President of South Africa, had no knowledge of the fact that his government was about to invade another country and kill its people over nothing. 

Right.

----------


## Ender

> You want us to believe that Mandela, the President of South Africa, had no knowledge of the fact that his government was about to invade another country and kill its people over nothing. 
> 
> Right.


Prove otherwise and I'll be happy to listen. 

Mandela was pragmatic- he was fighting for a cause he believed in- freedom.




> Mandela has often been portrayed in international popular imaginations as a leader in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, a proponent of principled non-violent resistance. But this is a completely misleading view. Not once in his career did Mandela ever endorse pacifism as a universal principle. Throughout his life, he believed that there were circumstances in which the use of violence was politically justified. What is the case though, was that his thought on this question was always informed by a deep ethical concern, and sense of responsibility for the possible unintendedconsequences of violence. On the other hand, in recent years there as a tendency amongst some writers in the tradition of post-colonial theory to depict Mandela as an anti-colonialrevolutionary in the lineage of Frantz Fanon, favouring the purifyingviolence of insurrection by the oppressed. And in some cases, he isportrayed as oscillating between a violent Fanonism and a peaceful Gandhianism.
> 
> But Mandela was no Fanonian either. There was never any sense in his thought of the healing psychological power of armed resistance for the colonized that Fanon found. Mandela's ideas about the use of force were pragmatic and instrumental. He was indeed, as we shall see, influenced by leaders of the anti-colonial movement in which Fanon participated, the Algerian FLN. But their advice pointed him in a very different direction from that suggested by the Martiniquan revolutionary. And Mandelas ethical approach to the use of force was informed by exactly the kind of "humanist‟ ideas that Fanon and the post-colonial theorists, despised.


http://www.academia.edu/1480927/An_I...Mandela_on_War

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Prove otherwise and I'll be happy to listen. 
> 
> Mandela was pragmatic- he was fighting for a cause he believed in- freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.academia.edu/1480927/An_I...Mandela_on_War


There is no evidence that can change your opinion on Mandela. It has already been shown to you that he was a communist who killed white and black women and children alike, and you didn't care. It was shown to you that South Africa's crime rate was horrible and you denied it, after it was shown to you, you decided you didn't care. It was just shown to you that when Nelson was President his government invaded and conquered a small weak country that did nothing to South Africa, and you're currently trying to deflect blame.

You're indifferent to the dead children he killed. There is nothing that can be said that will change your mind about him at this point.

----------


## Lucille

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-mandela-myth/




> I wrote yesterday in this space that Nelson Mandela was a great man, and I believe that. However, *this 2009 Standpoint essay by Sarah Ruden needs to be attended to amid the hagiography. Nobody wants to hear it, but we need to bear it in mind. Ruden, a Quaker and a liberal, lived and worked in the new South Africa, and was by her own account a believer in the Mandela myth. But the brutal reality of post-apartheid South Africa sobered her.* Excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				    The worship of Mandela amounts to a very determined worship of South Africans’ own self-will. Mandela’s cult cuts people loose, sanctifies whatever they feel like doing. I saw this most clearly in his attempts to change people’s behaviour. He would declare, for example, that men and women must share housework and childcare, or that parents who refused to send their children to school would go to jail. Naturally, he has railed against crime. Nothing ever happened. No one on the ground seemed to equate loving Mandela with doing anything he wanted done.
> 
>     I would by no means single out the black majority here. The white buy-in to Mandela isn’t startlingly more enlightened, and its consequences may be more destructive. Suburbanites who revere him apply his lessons about the sanctity of aspiration and success in unconsciously ironic ways: Mandela is wonderful, most things are better now, we can do deals with the new government and take a six-week vacation in the Seychelles, but what does our gardener mean about wanting to be paid while we’re gone?
> ...

----------


## Ender

> There is no evidence that can change your opinion on Mandela. It has already been shown to you that he was a communist who killed white and black women and children alike, and you didn't care. It was shown to you that South Africa's crime rate was horrible and you denied it, after it was shown to you, you decided you didn't care. It was just shown to you that when Nelson was President his government invaded and conquered a small weak country that did nothing to South Africa, and you're currently trying to deflect blame.
> 
> You're indifferent to the dead children he killed. There is nothing that can be said that will change your mind about him at this point.


Really.

Where is the proof that Mandela was a communist and that he killed children? I have not seen it. I have seen accusations that say he did/was and I have also seen info that says he didn't/wasn't. AND I have posted some of that. 

My philosophy is "Question Everything." When certain members of this and other forums start name calling and going off on how bad someone is and you'd just better believe them- I am always suspicious and begin to research.

The research I have found says that Mandela was no Gandhi but he wasn't Hitler either; he was a pragmatic man who fought for some freedom. As president he did not rule under communism but by democracy. I am no fan of democracy either, but it does show he went with the popular vote.

And so I could say to you:

Yes, SA crime rate is horrible but the US has the highest in the world and you don't care.
The US kills innocent children and you don't care.
The neocon media and the liberal media are both liars and you don't care.

----------


## Lucille

> The Che Guevara of Africa
> http://barelyablog.com/nelson-mandel...-of-of-africa/


Update:  UPDATED (12/5) : On Economic Policy Journal, Nelson Mandela, The Che Guevara of Of Africa has generated an interesting debate. Editor Robert Wenzel sure knows how to keep things humming.

----------


## Red Green

> Yes, SA crime rate is horrible but the US has the highest in the world and you don't care.


This is incorrect.  Especially if you discount non-violent crimes.  I'm unsure why you keep perpetuating this false impression.




> The US kills innocent children and you don't care.
> The neocon media and the liberal media are both liars and you don't care.


I doubt that.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> There is no evidence that can change your opinion on Mandela. It has already been shown to you that he was a communist who killed white and black women and children alike, and you didn't care. It was shown to you that South Africa's crime rate was horrible and you denied it, after it was shown to you, you decided you didn't care.


South Africa's crime problem was there before the end of Apartheid.

----------


## Lucille

http://barelyablog.com/why-i-am-asha...-by-dan-roodt/




> Other than Hermann Giliomee, author of The Afrikaners, I don’t know of a writer in South Africa more astute and insightful than Dan Roodt.
> 
> Why I am Ashamed Of Being South African
> By Dan Roodt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## osan

> Prove otherwise and I'll be happy to listen.


FAIL.  You made the assertion against the most likely truth.  Onus rests with you to prove your claim.




> Mandela was pragmatic- he was fighting for a cause he believed in- freedom.


So were Mao, Stalin, Pot, and so forth.  More FAIL.  You will have to do better.

The fact is he was directly involved in the murder of innocent people.  That is really all we need to know.  Those cowards were not facing the SA police, shooting or bombing the white politicians who arguably deserved such a fate.  They blew up $#@! and took innocent people with them.  He and his kind conceded the high ground and in fact became the same criminal sort as those they fought.  At that point all I can say is "$#@! 'em".  They strayed from the good path and thereafter it was pretty well anything goes.  I am surprised the white SAs exercised the restraint they did.  I'd have stretched Mandela's neck a couple inches.

----------


## dannno

> Update:  UPDATED (12/5) : On Economic Policy Journal, “Nelson Mandela, ‘The Che Guevara of Of Africa’” has generated an interesting debate. Editor Robert Wenzel sure knows how to keep things humming.





> In 2003, Bush had conferred on Mandela the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom. Mandela greedily accepted the honor, but responded rudely by calling America “a power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly,” and “is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust … *If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings.*” If the then eighty-five-year-old Mandela was referring to the invasion of Iraq, he must have forgotten in his dotage that he had invaded Lesotho in 1998. Pot. Kettle. Black.


..

----------


## Peace&Freedom

*The Day Mandela Was Arrested, With A Little Help From the CIA*
By Jeff Stein / December 05 2013 6:20 PM

One of the great things about the late great Nelson Mandela is that he didn’t hold grudges.

How else could he have accepted normal relations with the CIA, which tipped off the white-supremacy regime to his whereabouts in 1962?

According to a 1990 Johannesburg Sunday Times newspaper account, a CIA agent by the name of Millard Shirley fingered Mandela for the apartheid regime’s secret police, allowing them to throw up a roadblock and capture him.

“Shirley had a high-ranking ‘deep throat,’ a Durban-based Indian, within South African Communist party ranks,” Gerard Ludi, a retired senior South African intelligence agent told the paper.

“I can only guess that Shirley was instructed by his government to supply the information to the South Africans because it was in America’s interest to have Mr. Mandela out of the way.”

A dozen years later, Ludi told me in 1996, he went into business with Shirley, who had officially retired from the CIA. Naturally, they ran a private security business.

Then, in 1985, came the call from a secret South African government unit called Stratcom (Strategic Communications), whose function was to disrupt and destroy anti-apartheid groups, I reported for Salon. Shirley was hired to train the unit’s operatives and develop a covert operations training manual.

My Salon story continued:

“The South African intelligence services didn’t have decent training materials,” Ludi said. “They asked Millard to update and do a proper training manual. He did it for a year  off and on for a year.”

Asked whether his friend was still working for the CIA at that point, Ludi answered, “Who knows? Shirley tried to retire many times, but the CIA kept calling him back to duty. We gave him about 20 retirement parties.”

According to Mike Leach, who also worked for Stratcom, the manuals used by Shirley had U.S. Department of Defense stamped on their covers. But Shirley’s activities went beyond designing training manuals, according to Leach.

“One of the things Shirley did during the negotiations with unions was to doctor the water on the table with chemicals to induce stomach cramps, to bring about a point where the union officials would want to hurry up the negotiations and just settle because they were physically uncomfortable.”

Another trick was to launder anti-apartheid T-shirts in a fiberglass solution and hand them out to demonstrators, who would soon be convulsed in uncontrollable itching.

The Stratcom unit also intercepted foreign donations to anti-apartheid groups, then sent back thank-you notes on phony letterheads and put the money into more “psychological warfare operations,” said Leach.

The CIA’s involvement in these activities is unclear, but Leach claims the agency sent South Africans to a facility in Taiwan for advanced psychological warfare training. The Telcom auditing official called the CIA’s alleged wiretap training “very sinister.” He suspects the CIA used the program to develop its own spies in Telcom, to protect its assets in the country at this time.

“The American government wanted to know which way the cookie would crumble,” he said...

http://www.newsweek.com/day-mandela-...elp-cia-223935

----------


## Ender

> This is incorrect.  Especially if you discount non-violent crimes.  I'm unsure why you keep perpetuating this false impression.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that.



It's all over the freakin' internet- wouldn't want you to soil yourself by actually researching.

http://www.whichcountry.co/top-10-co...-in-the-world/

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...ime-rates.html

http://www.thecountriesof.com/top-10...-in-the-world/

isttoptens.com/top-10-countries-with-highest-rape-crime/

South Africa's murders definitely are higher but they also have a 100% gun ban, which can certainly perpetuate crime- along with these other countries.

*Murders per 100,000 citizens.*

Honduras 91.6

El Salvador 69.2

Cote d'lvoire 56.9

Jamaica 52.2

Venezuela 45.1

Belize 41.4

US Virgin Islands 39.2

Guatemala 38.5

Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2

Zambia 38.0

Uganda 36.3

Malawi 36.0

Lesotho 35.2

Trinidad and Tobago 35.

South Africa 31.8

----------


## Red Green

> *It's all over the freakin' internet- wouldn't want you to soil yourself by actually researching.*


I was disputing your assertion that the crime rate in the US was higher than SA.  I did look it up on the internet.  What you were stating was false, which is why I wondering why you kept repeating it.




> http://www.whichcountry.co/top-10-co...-in-the-world/
> 
> http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...ime-rates.html
> 
> http://www.thecountriesof.com/top-10...-in-the-world/
> 
> isttoptens.com/top-10-countries-with-highest-rape-crime/
> 
> South Africa's murders definitely are higher but they also have a 100% gun ban, which can certainly perpetuate crime- along with these other countries.


Yeah, that what I and other users have been saying: your assertion that the US somehow had a worse crime rate was nonsense.

----------


## dannno

> *The Day Mandela Was Arrested, With A Little Help From the CIA*
> By Jeff Stein / December 05 2013 6:20 PM
> 
> One of the great things about the late great Nelson Mandela is that he didn’t hold grudges.
> 
> How else could he have accepted normal relations with the CIA, which tipped off the white-supremacy regime to his whereabouts in 1962?
> 
> According to a 1990 Johannesburg Sunday Times newspaper account, a CIA agent by the name of Millard Shirley fingered Mandela for the apartheid regime’s secret police, allowing them to throw up a roadblock and capture him.
> 
> ...


See, the CIA had operatives within "Mandela's organization" that you people keep blathing about was so horrible. My question is, whose organization was it, Mandela or the CIA? 

I can't really attribute any of the actions of Mandela's organization to him if there were CIA operatives within the organization. 

What did Mandela himself do that was so bad? What would you have done in his position, besides bleach your skin and pretend like you would have been talking about Austrian Economics which you would have probably had zero exposure to?

----------


## dannno

> South Africa's murders definitely are higher but they also have a 100% gun ban


How's that working out for them?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I see a lot of people talking about how Mandela didn't lead the transition out of Apartheid the right way.  How exactly would you people have lead the transition?

----------


## Red Green

> I see a lot of people talking about how Mandela didn't lead the transition out of Apartheid the right way.  How exactly would you people have lead the transition?


With a large staff, two stone tablets and shouting "SET MY PEOPLE FREE" a'la Charleton Heston.

----------


## Ender

> I was disputing your assertion that the crime rate in the US was higher than SA.  I did look it up on the internet.  What you were stating was false, which is why I wondering why you kept repeating it.
> 
> Yeah, that what I and other users have been saying: your assertion that the US somehow had a worse crime rate was nonsense.


Shall we try these- South Africa isn't even mentioned, as many of you have accused it of being high in rape statistics (of course some sites also hold that the US is #1 in this, as well):

*Countries With Highest Rape Rates	Rate / 100,000*
Lesotho	91.6
Trinidad and Tobago	58.4
Sweden	53.2
Korea	        33.7
New Zealand	30.9
United States	28.6
Belgium	26.3
Zimbabwe	25.6
United Kingdom	23.2

----------


## Ender

> How's that working out for them?


Obviously, not too well.

----------


## vita3

"I see a lot of people talking about how Mandela didn't lead the transition out of Apartheid the right way. How exactly would you people have lead the transition?"

& who here has the courage to admit they didn't want any transition?

----------


## Red Green

> Shall we try these- South Africa isn't even mentioned, as many of you have accused it of being high in rape statistics (of course some sites also hold that the US is #1 in this, as well):
> 
> *Countries With Highest Rape Rates	Rate / 100,000*
> Lesotho	91.6
> Trinidad and Tobago	58.4
> Sweden	53.2
> Korea	        33.7
> New Zealand	30.9
> United States	28.6
> ...


If there were no figures published, that means that either they are unavailable or unreliable.  There is very little reason to believe that a country with a murder rate 11 times the US would have a lower rate of rapes.

----------


## dannno

> How exactly would you people have lead the transition?


Fire everybody, then fire yourself, go home and open a Barbour Shop.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Really.
> 
> Where is the proof that Mandela was a communist and that he killed children? I have not seen it. I have seen accusations that say he did/was and I have also seen info that says he didn't/wasn't. AND I have posted some of that. 
> 
> My philosophy is "Question Everything." When certain members of this and other forums start name calling and going off on how bad someone is and you'd just better believe them- I am always suspicious and begin to research.
> 
> The research I have found says that Mandela was no Gandhi but he wasn't Hitler either; he was a pragmatic man who fought for some freedom. As president he did not rule under communism but by democracy. I am no fan of democracy either, but it does show he went with the popular vote.
> 
> And so I could say to you:
> ...


Everything here is strawman or an emotional rant. You've changed your argument and erected strawman several times in this thread already in your desperate attempt to justify Mandela's crimes.





> Really.
> 
> Where is the proof that Mandela was a communist and that he killed children? I have not seen it. I have seen accusations that say he did/was and I have also seen info that says he didn't/wasn't. AND I have posted some of that.


It isn't up for debate. Mandela being a Communist Party member is objective fact. Mandela plead guilty to his crimes. 




> My philosophy is "Question Everything." When certain members of this and other forums start name calling and going off on how bad someone is and you'd just better believe them- I am always suspicious and begin to research.


Mandela alleged that he didn't know that his government was going to go to war when he was president and you believe him. You aren't questioning everything. You're sticking to your preconceived notions.





> The research I have found says that Mandela was no Gandhi but he wasn't Hitler either; he was a pragmatic man who fought for some freedom. As president he did not rule under communism but by democracy. I am no fan of democracy either, but it does show he went with the popular vote.


Nobody said he was Hitler. Strawman.





> Yes, SA crime rate is horrible but the US has the highest in the world and you don't care.


You still don't seem to know what rate means.






> And so I could say to you:
> 
> Yes, SA crime rate is horrible but the US has the highest in the world and you don't care.
> The US kills innocent children and you don't care.
> The neocon media and the liberal media are both liars and you don't care.


No, you can't. I've never advocated the US government killing children or defended it. You on the other hand have been defending Mandela for pages. Inside your emotional rant you can't seem to see the difference.

----------


## Ender

> Everything here is strawman or an emotional rant. You've changed your argument and erected strawman several times in this thread already in your desperate attempt to justify Mandela's crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't up for debate. Mandela being a Communist Party member is objective fact. Mandela plead guilty to his crimes. 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're funny.

I have absolutely no emotional ties to Mandela. 

My objections have come from actually researching and finding that many of the rants against him are not based in fact. So- go ahead and rant and rave all you want. if you are not willing to look at the links I provide or at least question TPTB, I have nothing left to say to you.

----------


## Ender

> If there were no figures published, that means that either they are unavailable or unreliable.  There is very little reason to believe that a country with a murder rate 11 times the US would have a lower rate of rapes.


http://www.statisticbrain.com/rape-statistics/

http://www.indexmundi.com/blog/index...cs-by-country/

http://www.indexmundi.com/blog/index...cs-by-country/

----------


## Red Green

> http://www.statisticbrain.com/rape-statistics/
> 
> http://www.indexmundi.com/blog/index...cs-by-country/
> 
> http://www.indexmundi.com/blog/index...cs-by-country/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_...n_South_Africa

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

I don't think I have ever awarded +rep in a thread at the rate I did in this one. I am so glad that other people recognize what a villainous, murderous, racist, terrorist thug Mandela was. I raise a glass in gratitude that one less Commie is sucking up precious oxygen.

----------


## Red Green

> I don't think I have ever awarded +rep in a thread at the rate I did in this one. I am so glad that other people recognize what a villainous, murderous, racist, terrorist thug Mandela was. I raise a glass in gratitude that one less Commie is sucking up precious oxygen.


I for one take no joy in seeing a 95 yo man take a dirt nap, but I do have problems with the lionization for Mandela.  He was a communist, prisoner and a politician albeit a pragmatic one.  He was not the freedom-fighter the MSM will make him out to be, and not the man of peace he'll be remembered as being.  When you compare how the press treats a real man of freedom and peace like Ron Paul (ie crazy uncle in the attic, gadfly, etc) vs the revisionist history that will be bestowed upon Mandela, it makes one wonder.  

The fact is that there are many greater men in this world who will go unknown; men who accomplished great things that will help millions of people.  Researchers who get a science a little closer to eliminating a terrible disease, engineers who make life safer, more efficient and the world more wealthy, not to mention those who are just quite heroes to their own family and community.  Politicians don't normally accomplish anything and most times do great harm to the world around them.  I wish people would stop holding them up as great pillars of the international community.

----------


## Antischism

Free Mandela.

----------


## 69360

> I have no idea what McVeigh actually did because I'm pretty sure he may or may not have set off a van bomb from far away that did very little damage but was then followed by several high tech explosives which were located in the building and placed there by CIA agents which were responsible for blowing up the daycare and such. 
> 
> The real problem with OKC was that it did nothing for the cause of liberty because they ended up using it to create more tyrannical laws, in fact that is why the CIA placed the bombs in the building so that they could further oppress American citizens. McVeigh was just a patsy on some level.
> 
> What was your question again, in the proper context of what happened?


You have got to be freaking kidding me. I'm not even going to dignify you with a response to that.

----------


## jmdrake

> When Mandela was committing his murders (the context of this discussion) he was a communist that wanted a communist government. Mandela changing his mind more than 30 years later is irrelevant.


So....let me get this straight.  Mandela seeking to overthrow a brutal, repressive, socialist government, and the fact that he didn't specifically target civilians, is all irrelevant because he was also a socialist himself?   The bottom line is that South Africa is better off without apartheid.  While I like Alex Jones on a lot of things he is wrong on this.  (And I'm not saying you like or dislike Alex Jones.  Just bringing this point up for the sake of bringing it up.)  The video that someone posted ealier in an attempt to be critical of Mandela actually proved the opposite point.  Blacks in South Africa are embracing capitalism.  Yes, some whites who were dependent on the old socialist patronage system are suffering now that the patronage system is tilted the other way and that's unfortunage.  But there is no question that capitalism is growing in South Africa.  Mandela could have chosen a much worse path when released from prison than he did.  That's just a fact.

----------


## dannno

> You have got to be freaking kidding me. I'm not even going to dignify you with a response to that.


There is no response you can make to that. It just shows how much more dangerous a huge machine is than any one individual.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> So....let me get this straight.  Mandela seeking to overthrow a brutal, repressive, socialist government, and the fact that he didn't specifically target civilians, is all irrelevant because he was also a socialist himself?   The bottom line is that South Africa is better off without apartheid.  While I like Alex Jones on a lot of things he is wrong on this.  (And I'm not saying you like or dislike Alex Jones.  Just bringing this point up for the sake of bringing it up.)  The video that someone posted ealier in an attempt to be critical of Mandela actually proved the opposite point.  Blacks in South Africa are embracing capitalism.  Yes, some whites who were dependent on the old socialist patronage system are suffering now that the patronage system is tilted the other way and that's unfortunage.  But there is no question that capitalism is growing in South Africa.  Mandela could have chosen a much worse path when released from prison than he did.  That's just a fact.


Yes, SA is better off without apartheid just like the Russians are better off without Stalinism, but that doesn't make Gorbachev some great man. That's also ignoring the fact that SA is no less racist today than under apartheid. All that happened was the lever of powers changing from one racist, to another. Of course, in the minds of many this is great because they look past Black racism, or hell, even justify it based on the racist behavior of white SA's. Compare this to someone like Tolstoy, Ghandi, etc. Mandela was no great man, he was and is no better or worse than those he took power from. As for the capitalism assertion, well, I haven't done enough research on this point, but something tells me it probably is hyperbolic at best (every index I remember seeing about economic freedom had SA way far down). If you want to look at an African nation to emulate it would be Mauritius, not SA.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, SA is better off without apartheid just like the Russians are better off without Stalinism, but that doesn't make Gorbachev some great man. That's also ignoring the fact that SA is no less racist today than under apartheid. All that happened was the lever of powers changing from one racist, to another. Of course, in the minds of many this is great because they look past Black racism, or hell, even justify it based on the racist behavior of white SA's. Compare this to someone like Tolstoy, Ghandi, etc. Mandela was no great man, he was and is no better or worse than those he took power from. As for the capitalism assertion, well, I haven't done enough research on this point, but something tells me it probably is hyperbolic at best (every index I remember seeing about economic freedom had SA way far down). If you want to look at an African nation to emulate it would be Mauritius, not SA.


From the video that I was referring to that was, again, posted as an attack on Mandela, there is more opportunity for whites in post apartheid SA than there was for blacks in apartheid SA, so I don't think your attempt at moral equivalency holds water.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> As for the capitalism assertion, well, I haven't done enough research on this point, but something tells me it probably is hyperbolic at best (every index I remember seeing about economic freedom had SA way far down). If you want to look at an African nation to emulate it would be Mauritius, not SA.


In relation to the rest of Africa, SA certainly did better for itself economically. Surely it's no bastion of free-market philosophy, but things could have been a _lot_ worse, which is what a lot of people here have been arguing. I don't think the comparison to Mauritius is a fair one, either. The two countries developed completely differently.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

South Africa's unemployment rate has been over 20% for 20 years. There is no opportunity for anyone.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> From the video that I was referring to that was, again, posted as an attack on Mandela, there is more opportunity for whites in post apartheid SA than there was for blacks in apartheid SA, so I don't think your attempt at moral equivalency holds water.


Assuming that what I wrote was in specific regards to this objection. Let's just say the amount of violence committed against whites (for being white) in SA is quite a bit worse than that suffered by blacks from the KKK here in America (historically). That was my contention - that racism (in general) is no better than it was under apartheid. Just because the powers of the State shifted from White to Black doesn't make it per se any better. They're equivalent racists - a racist a racist no matter what skin color he is or hates. That's why I don't quite take some black's serious who praise MLK then in their next breath spew hatred for white people. I've seen it before. This is all to say that I don't particularly care for any racist, and just because the white racism was changed to black racism doesn't make someone a great person, it makes them just as lousy as the people they replaced.

Also, I just did a quick look up, and the President of SA is an avowed socialist/communist, so something is telling me the country is probably not shifting towards 'capitalism' in whatever sense you're defining it as. SA is a crap nation, riddled with racial hatred, corruption, welfare, and violent crime, let alone its poor record of liberty. The only reason people even view Mandela favorably is because he transitioned out of apartheid, but no one pays any attention after that.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> In relation to the rest of Africa, SA certainly did better for itself economically. Surely it's no bastion of free-market philosophy, but things could have been a _lot_ worse, which is what a lot of people here have been arguing. I don't think the comparison to Mauritius is a fair one, either. The two countries developed completely differently.


And Leninism is better than Stalinism, but I don't see any redeeming factors in either of these philosophies. That sums up my reaction to your post. It reminds me a lot of the well...Romney would be better than Obama, ignoring how bad they both are. I guess what I am saying is I'm not some wild eyed optimist looking at the tiny bright spots in the desert of space. I tend to look at the whole picture. As for the comparison, why is it not fair? Because it destroys this notion that SA is some jolly place, righteous in its defense of liberty, and tolerance in race relations? LOL. Don't make me laugh. Mauritius is more diverse than SA, has little racism especially compared to SA, is far less corrupt, is much freer politically and economically, and has a much higher GDP even though it's population is 1,200,000 compared to 52 million and is a tiny island with NO natural resources, compared to SA vast mineral wealth. Yeah...ok...Mandela some great person. Sure...

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> And Leninism is better than Stalinism, but I don't see any redeeming factors in either of these philosophies. That sums up my reaction to your post. It reminds me a lot of the well...Romney would be better than Obama, ignoring how bad they both are. I guess what I am saying is I'm not some wild eyed optimist looking at the tiny bright spots in the desert of space. I tend to look at the whole picture. As for the comparison, why is it not fair? Because it destroys this notion that SA is some jolly place, righteous in its defense of liberty, and tolerance in race relations? LOL. Don't make me laugh. Mauritius is more diverse than SA, has little racism especially compared to SA, is far less corrupt, is much freer politically and economically, and has a much higher GDP even though it's population is 1,200,000 compared to 52 million and is a tiny island with NO natural resources, compared to SA vast mineral wealth. Yeah...ok...Mandela some great person. Sure...


Did I ever say that Mandela was some great person? I'm just trying to explain the vast majority of people's attitudes within a "statist context". Of course you and I certainly know a genuine freed market would do more to lift South Africa out of poverty than Mandela ever could. However, I refuse to put South Africa in the same category as Zimbabwe, Uganda or Rwanda. I just can't reasonably equate Mandela with Idi Amin or Mengistu in Ethiopia (who more readily embraced the Soviet label). 

Just like trying to blame everything that is wrong in the US on Obama, it is equally ridiculous to pin all of SA's problems on Mandela. This does not mean I am defending either Obama or Mandela, just that the problems in South Africa are more symptomatic of the problems with statism overall than with any figurehead. Nowhere did I claim, either, that SA has solved its issues with racism (in fact, I asserted the opposite).

Mauritius isn't in anywhere near the same level of socioeconomic turmoil that South Africa is in both now and from a historical perspective. Some areas of the southern US lag noticeably behind areas of the Northeast, too.

----------


## jmdrake

> Assuming that what I wrote was in specific regards to this objection. Let's just say the amount of violence committed against whites (for being white) in SA is quite a bit worse than that suffered by blacks from the KKK here in America (historically). That was my contention - that racism (in general) is no better than it was under apartheid.


That may be your contention.  I don't believe it is true.  It's certainly not born out in the video I was referencing.  Simply look at the newspapers from Birmingham Alabama during the height of the KKK.  Klan meetings were advertised on the front page of the paper.  The police chief was an open member of the Klan.  It was like being part of the rotary club.  George Wallace only adopted the politics of race because he was beaten by his opponent after the local media broadcast the "scandal" of his opponent palling around with the Klan.

By contrast you what can loosely be described as affirmative action in South Africa.  While some consider that equivalent to the Klan, I don't, especially in the SA context.  If certain people are unjustly enriched by the system, simply saying "Well we won't do this any more, but we'll let them keep the jobs and subsidies they got when they were being unjustly enriched" doesn't cut it.  Now, personally, I would simply get rid of their jobs rather than giving them to someone else.  And that's the subtle point I was making that you, and others, seem to miss.  If/when we get what we want, there will be blacks and whites angry at us for the same reason newly poor whites who had benefited from the system are angry at Mandela.  Maybe the fact that people will be equal opportunity sufferers will assauge the anger some.




> Just because the powers of the State shifted from White to Black doesn't make it per se any better.


Straw man.  I didn't say they were.




> They're equivalent racists - a racist a racist no matter what skin color he is or hates. That's why I don't quite take some black's serious who praise MLK then in their next breath spew hatred for white people. I've seen it before. This is all to say that I don't particularly care for any racist, and just because the white racism was changed to black racism doesn't make someone a great person, it makes them just as lousy as the people they replaced.


Another straw man.




> Also, I just did a quick look up, and the President of SA is an avowed socialist/communist, so something is telling me the country is probably not shifting towards 'capitalism' in whatever sense you're defining it as. SA is a crap nation, riddled with racial hatred, corruption, welfare, and violent crime, let alone its poor record of liberty. The only reason people even view Mandela favorably is because he transitioned out of apartheid, but no one pays any attention after that.


Again, I didn't say anything about the president of SA or what his goals may have been or may even be.  Again, I went from *a video posted to attack Mandela* which pointed out that *blacks living in South Africa were embracing capitalism* and the *whites who had already embraced capitalism were doing okay under the new regime*.  Go back and watch the video instead of trying to bring up points that have nothing to do with anything I said.

----------


## LibertyEagle

White people developed South Africa and created jobs.

Blacks moved there to get those jobs to improve their well-being.

Some blacks then got pissed and wanted what the whites had built.  Not all blacks agreed with this and the Mandelas proceeded to murder their opposition.

And here we are today.  Our media lavishing praise on this $#@!.  Disgusting, is what it is.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Those enamored with Mandela, are you watching the ABC special?  "Winnie was his soul-mate".  ".. was carrying out his agenda while he was in prison".   I guess that includes the way she directed putting tires filled with kerosene around their opposition's necks and lighting them on fire.  A practice deemed as "necklacing".  Of course, they aren't mentioning that on the special.  No, can't do that.  It puts a kink in the propaganda that they're selling.

From wikipedia:
"Necklacing is the practice of summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire. The victim may take up to 20 minutes to die, suffering severe burns in the process."

----------


## dannno

> White people developed South Africa and created jobs.
> 
> Blacks moved there to get those jobs to improve their well-being.
> 
> Some blacks then got pissed and wanted what the whites had built.  Not all blacks agreed with this and the Mandelas proceeded to murder their opposition.
> 
> And here we are today.  Our media lavishing praise on this $#@!.  Disgusting, is what it is.


That's the entire story?

----------


## FrankRep

**
Nelson Mandela with South African Communist Party head Joe Slovo


Revolutionary leader Nelson Mandela died late Thursday, December 5, and presidents, dictators, and the press from around the world are in mourning, but it should be remembered that the U.S. government labeled his group a terrorist group for a reason.

*In Death, as in Life, Truth About Mandela Overlooked*


The New American
06 December 2013


With the widely anticipated passing of South African revolutionary leader Nelson Mandela late Thursday, December 5, presidents and dictators from around the world — as well as everyday people, and especially the press — are in mourning. Lost amid the tsunami of praise and adoration, almost canonization even according to some of his supporters, however, is *the truth about the man* himself, who was, after all, still just a man.

The announcement of Mandela’s death was made by current South African President Jacob Zuma, the fourth leader of the so-called “rainbow nation” ushered in after the fall of Apartheid rule some two decades ago. “Our beloved Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, the founding President of our democratic nation has departed,” *said* Zuma, a polygamous tribal chief who, amid never-ending corruption scandals, *regularly sings “struggle” songs about murdering European-descent Afrikaners*.

According to the current South African president, Mandela passed on “peacefully” in the company of his family late Thursday. “He is now resting. He is now at peace,” Zuma continued, adding that the deceased leader would receive a state funeral and flags would be flown at half-mast until then. “Our nation has lost its greatest son. Our people have lost a father. Although we knew that this day would come, nothing can diminish our sense of a profound and enduring loss.”

Like heads of state and the media around the world, Zuma celebrated Mandela’s alleged “tireless struggle for freedom” and how he “brought us together” in common cause. “Our thoughts are with his friends, comrades and colleagues who fought alongside Madiba over the course of a lifetime of struggle,” South Africa’s current president continued, offering the briefest of glimpses into the *reality about Mandela* that has been largely expunged from the history books.

President Obama, also heaping praises on Mandela, even *ordered American flags flown at half-mast* until Monday — especially shocking when considering that the late leader and his Soviet-backed armed movement spent decades on the official U.S. government terror list before *being removed in 2008*. “I am one of the countless millions who drew inspirations from Nelson Mandela’s life,” Obama said. “I cannot fully imagine my own life without the example that Nelson Mandela set. So long as I live, I will do what I can to learn from him.”

By contrast, even in the late 1980’s, shortly before the Apartheid regime surrendered to overwhelming global pressure to hand over power, Western leaders saw Mandela and his “African National Congress” in a very different light. “The ANC is a typical terrorist organization,” *explained* former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. U.S. President Ronald Reagan put Mandela and the ANC on the American terrorist list in the 1980s.

Indeed, outside of *open support from ruthless communist dictatorships* — the tyrants ruling over Cuba, East Germany, and the Soviet Union, for example — Mandela’s ANC and its South African Communist Party partners were widely viewed as ruthless communist terrorists. Considering their *murderous activities*, which included the barbaric executions and torture of countless South African blacks who opposed them, it is easy to understand why.

With help from *elements of the Western establishment and the media*, however, all of that gradually changed. Widely adored in South Africa and around the world, today Mandela is almost universally portrayed as a peaceful hero who struggled to bring down the white-led Apartheid regime that ruled the area for decades — all in the name of “democracy,” “equality,” and racial harmony.

Lost amid the cacophony of praise and near-worship, though, is the truth about the late South African leader, which has been all but erased from the planet’s collective memory. Today, for example, endless amounts of news reports on Mandela’s death continue to falsely suggest that he was a political prisoner jailed merely for his “beliefs” and opposition to the system of Apartheid (meaning separate development, which despite its myriad flaws, was *working to grant full independence and sovereignty* to the various tribal and ethnic groups in South Africa).

A mere handful of articles have offered even a hint of the truth. In reality, the Soviet-backed revolutionary was *imprisoned for terrorism, sedition, and sabotage* — an integral part of Mandela’s long communist history that his adoring fans tend to downplay, at best, or more often, ignore altogether. Almost none of the adoring eulogies pouring forth from around the world have noted, for example, that Mandela was offered the chance to walk out of prison a free man if he would just renounce violence. He refused.

Instead of a man of peace, as his legions of fans would like to believe, and in many cases do believe, Mandela was actually the *co-founder of the armed wing of the ANC* known as Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation). Outside of communist dictatorships, virtually every government recognized the movement as a communist-backed terrorist outfit — it was, after all, famous for murder, torture, bombings, sabotage, and more. More recently, as The New American reported, *conclusive evidence further confirming Mandela’s senior role in the Soviet-backed South African Communist Party* has been widely published. 

Meanwhile, Mandela’s wife during much of that time, fellow ANC revolutionary Winnie, was a zealous and open advocate for one of the most brutal murder tactics ever conceived by man. Pioneered by the ANC, *so-called “necklacing”* involves filling a tire with gasoline before putting it around the victim’s neck, setting it ablaze, and watching the poor target slowly writhe in horrifying agony before eventual death. Most of the ANC’s “necklace” victims were fellow blacks.

Unsurprisingly, Mandela’s history of violence, brutality, terror, and communist scheming has scarcely been mentioned in the thousands of obituaries currently on the front pages of newspapers around the world. Instead, one of the ex-guerilla’s key accomplishments, which earned him praise from around the world, was his supposed ability to prevent a “blood bath” and mass-slaughter in the transition to “democracy” — as if *genocide* were the obvious course that history would have inevitably taken absent a figure like Mandela.

Almost incredibly, the few reports that have highlighted even the tiniest hint of controversy surrounding the life and works of Mandela suggest that the only criticism of his legacy comes from extremists who think the late leader did not do enough to turn South Africa into a full-blown Marxist dictatorship. An opinion piece in the New York Times, for example, *describes* the rage among some forces in South Africa over Mandela’s failure to completely disempower or even obliterate the Afrikaner people — a process that many respected *analysts say is accelerating and could quickly spiral out of control*.

“It is ironic that in today’s South Africa, there is an increasingly vocal segment of black South Africans who feel that Mandela sold out the liberation struggle to white interests,” claimed Ohio University Professor Zakes Mda, who knew Mandela, in the Times column. “This will come as a surprise to the international community, which informally canonized him and thinks he enjoyed universal adoration in his country.” As the Times’ piece suggests, even more extreme anti-white racist and Marxist forces are gathering momentum.

All of that, however, has been largely covered up amid news of Mandela’s death. “As we gather, wherever we are in the country and wherever we are in the world, let us recall the values for which Madiba fought,” said Zuma, referring to Mandela by his African tribal name. “Let us commit ourselves to strive together – sparing neither strength nor courage – to build a united, non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous South Africa.”

*Acquitted* of rape charges in 2006 by claiming that his victim was wearing a “kanga” and so, clearly wanted to have sex with him, Zuma has been steadily following in the footsteps of his communist-affiliated predecessors. With the economy crumbling and violence exploding, Zuma and his allies continue to publicly sing “struggle” songs *inciting genocide* against the white population at virtually every political rally.

Meanwhile, the ANC-Communist Party alliance that has ruled South Africa since the end of Apartheid is steadily working to foist tyranny and lawlessness on what was once among the most prosperous countries in the world. The planet’s top authority on genocide, a man who worked to help bring down Apartheid in South Africa, has even warned that the Afrikaners *may be on the verge of literal extermination*.

While the largely bogus public image created of Mandela certainly has some praiseworthy elements — opposition to racism, violence, and support for human rights, for example — it is important that reality not be overlooked. Senior Editor William Jasper with The New American magazine wrote a detailed piece on the real Nelson Mandela under the headline *“Saint” Mandela? Not So Fast!* If the truth is worth anything, Americans should resist the temptation to worship a fake caricature of a leader who was, after all, still just a man.



*Related articles:*

*“Saint” Mandela? Not So Fast!*

*New Evidence Shows Mandela Was Senior Communist Party Member*

*Genocide and Communism Threaten South Africa*

*South African Communists’ Friends in High Places*

*Socialist International Congress Hosted by ANC Amid Genocide Alert*

*South African Tells of Genocide in Communist-dominated South Africa*

*Silk-tie Revolutionaries*

*South Africa: The Questions That Need to Be Asked*

*A Meeting of Minds*

*The Comrades' Necklace*

----------


## Ender

> White people developed South Africa and created jobs.
> 
> Blacks moved there to get those jobs to improve their well-being.
> 
> Some blacks then got pissed and wanted what the whites had built.  Not all blacks agreed with this and the Mandelas proceeded to murder their opposition.
> 
> And here we are today.  Our media lavishing praise on this $#@!.  Disgusting, is what it is.



Do you have any idea about the history of South Africa? About the murders and repression? How the blacks and the Indians were treated? How 1000's were murdered, lands taken, slaves brought in? People jailed for simply disagreeing?

The blacks didn't move there- it was their land. It was taken from them and when diamonds and gold were discovered they were enslaved even more. The whites didn't "create jobs". There were no jobs for blacks except slavery or slave labor.

Mandela was jailed for 28 years and guess what- he wasn't the $#@!.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> That may be your contention.  I don't believe it is true.  It's certainly not born out in the video I was referencing.  Simply look at the newspapers from Birmingham Alabama during the height of the KKK.  Klan meetings were advertised on the front page of the paper.  The police chief was an open member of the Klan.  It was like being part of the rotary club.  George Wallace only adopted the politics of race because he was beaten by his opponent after the local media broadcast the "scandal" of his opponent palling around with the Klan.
> 
> By contrast you what can loosely be described as affirmative action in South Africa.  While some consider that equivalent to the Klan, I don't, especially in the SA context.  If certain people are unjustly enriched by the system, simply saying "Well we won't do this any more, but we'll let them keep the jobs and subsidies they got when they were being unjustly enriched" doesn't cut it.  Now, personally, I would simply get rid of their jobs rather than giving them to someone else.  And that's the subtle point I was making that you, and others, seem to miss.  If/when we get what we want, there will be blacks and whites angry at us for the same reason newly poor whites who had benefited from the system are angry at Mandela.  Maybe the fact that people will be equal opportunity sufferers will assauge the anger some.
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man.  I didn't say they were.
> 
> 
> ...


Mugabe, Mandela, Idi Amin.  The list of black African leaders is very inspiring, all seeking their version of freedom and justice

----------


## Ender

> Mugabe, Mandela, Idi Amin.  The list of black African leaders is very inspiring, all seeking their version of freedom and justice


Well, why not? They certainly had solid inspiration from the British.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Those enamored with Mandela, are you watching the ABC special?  "Winnie was his soul-mate".  ".. was carrying out his agenda while he was in prison".   I guess that includes the way she directed putting tires filled with kerosene around their opposition's necks and lighting them on fire.  A practice deemed as "necklacing".  Of course, they aren't mentioning that on the special.  No, can't do that.  It puts a kink in the propaganda that they're selling.
> 
> From wikipedia:
> "Necklacing is the practice of summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire. The victim may take up to 20 minutes to die, suffering severe burns in the process."


+1.  Have you seen the video of Mandela shouting to kill the whites.

And yet people on this board support him because he was ostensibly for "freedom."  Anyone can say they are for "freedom", but Mandela's actions and deeds were those of a vicious man.  He deserves nothing but scorn

----------


## FrankRep

> Do you have any idea about the history of South Africa? About the murders and repression? How the blacks and the Indians were treated? How 1000's were murdered, lands taken, slaves brought in? People jailed for simply disagreeing?
> 
> The blacks didn't move there- it was their land. It was taken from them and when diamonds and gold were discovered they were enslaved even more. The whites didn't "create jobs". There were no jobs for blacks except slavery or slave labor.
> 
> Mandela was jailed for 28 years and guess what- he wasn't the $#@!.


This will piss you off.





*Were blacks better off under apartheid?*

Walter Williams
Jan. 9, 2001


...
The tragic fact of business is that ordinary Africans were better off under colonialism. Colonial masters never committed anything near the murder and genocide seen under black rule in Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Nigeria, Mozambique, Somalia and other countries, where millions of blacks have been slaughtered in unspeakable ways, which include: hacking to death, boiling in oil, setting on fire and dismemberment. If as many elephants, zebras and lions had been as ruthlessly slaughtered, the world's leftists would be in a tizzy.

During South Africa's apartheid era, I visited several times and lectured at just about every university. In a 1987 syndicated column, I wrote: "Africa's past experience should give Western anti-apartheid activists some pause for thought. Wouldn't it be the supreme tragedy if South African blacks might ponder at some future date, like the animals of Jones' Manor (George Orwell's Animal Farm), whether they were better off under apartheid? That's why blacks must answer what's to come after apartheid? Black rule alone is no guarantee for black freedom."
...

----------


## dannno

> Do you have any idea about the history of South Africa? About the murders and repression? How the blacks and the Indians were treated? How 1000's were murdered, lands taken, slaves brought in? People jailed for simply disagreeing?
> 
> The blacks didn't move there- it was their land. It was taken from them and when diamonds and gold were discovered they were enslaved even more. The whites didn't "create jobs". There were no jobs for blacks except slavery or slave labor.
> 
> Mandela was jailed for 28 years and guess what- he wasn't the $#@!.


I have no idea what you are talking about, the British have always been known to be very fair, unexploitive and non-violent towards their colonies. They granted the American colonists their liberty without any fuss, remember?

----------


## jmdrake

> White people developed South Africa and created jobs.
> 
> Blacks moved there to get those jobs to improve their well-being.
> 
> Some blacks then got pissed and wanted what the whites had built.  Not all blacks agreed with this and the Mandelas proceeded to murder their opposition.
> 
> And here we are today.  Our media lavishing praise on this $#@!.  Disgusting, is what it is.




What's "digusting" is people treating socialist apartheid South Africa as some bastion of freedom.  I suppose Mao improved China?

----------


## dannno

> This will piss you off.


Pretty much.

----------


## jmdrake

> Mugabe, Mandela, Idi Amin.  The list of black African leaders is very inspiring, all seeking their version of freedom and justice


 Right.  The media just loves black despots.  That's why Mugabe and Amin are lionized by....wait a minute.  That's bull$#@!.

----------


## fr33

Y'all are arguing over which $#@!-sandwich tastes better.

----------


## dannno

> I already know this thread is gonna be good. I've been waiting for this thread for years.


I wish I could give more rep to this post.

----------


## amy31416

> White people developed South Africa and created jobs.
> 
> Blacks moved there to get those jobs to improve their well-being.
> 
> Some blacks then got pissed and wanted what the whites had built.  Not all blacks agreed with this and the Mandelas proceeded to murder their opposition.
> 
> And here we are today.  Our media lavishing praise on this $#@!.  Disgusting, is what it is.


Violent, unethical white people developed South Africa and created jobs by virtually enslaving the local population.

Blacks "moved" there to get these jobs that paid nearly nothing and worked in mines 14 hours/day, then performed their tribal dances for the amusement of white people. (I've been to those!)

Blacks had curfews where they had to be out of most places by sundown or be brutalized by police. A working mother and father had to leave their child home alone all day (she was five, I took care of her.)

Strangely, this pissed some blacks off and they wanted what the whites had built (and maybe the ability to live on their own land as they saw fit.) The Mandelas, especially Winnie, used a lot of violence to fight back, even against their own Uncle Toms.

And here we are today--with praise being lavished on the Mandelas because some white people had no ethics and created their own monsters.

Yeah, it's disgusting--to oversimplify it and only be capable of seeing one side.

Any time you feel it necessary to take what belongs to other people using force, you are reaping what you sow.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Right.  The media just loves black despots.  That's why Mugabe and Amin are lionized by....wait a minute.  That's bull$#@!.


The media slobbers on black politicians.  

How many times has the media exposed corrupt black urban mayors?  They gave Obama passes consistently.  

Few Americans know how terrible Idi Amin or Mugabe were.

Any 60 minutes specials on Mugabe destroying and killing tons of whites in Rhodesia?  Maybe one time.  You're the one spewing bs, but it's not surprising a black man would defend Mandela

----------


## dannno

> Y'all are arguing over which $#@!-sandwich tastes better.


No, we're arguing about whether exploitation of Africa and its people for its resources is the primary cause of the poverty and violence there or whether black people need white people to build societies for them and tell them how to live and take care of them otherwise they will live uncultured like animals.

I'm arguing the former if it isn't obvious.

----------


## Ender

> I have no idea what you are talking about, the British have always been known to be very fair, unexploitive and non-violent towards their colonies. They granted the American colonists their liberty without any fuss, remember?


DOH! My bad- I completely forgot their benevolent history.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> No, we're arguing about whether exploitation of Africa and its people for its resources is the primary cause of the poverty and violence there or whether black people need white people to build societies for them and tell them how to live and take care of them otherwise they will live uncultured like animals.
> 
> I'm arguing the former if it isn't obvious.


Please provide the examples of well-run black-run countries.  Very interested in this, are they only struggling because the ethnocentric europeans are holding them down bro?

----------


## jmdrake

> The media slobbers on black politicians.  
> 
> How many times has the media exposed corrupt black urban mayors?  They gave Obama passes consistently.  
> 
> Few Americans know how terrible Idi Amin or Mugabe were.
> 
> Any 60 minutes specials on Mugabe destroying and killing tons of whites in Rhodesia?  Maybe one time.  You're the one spewing bs, but it's not surprising a black man would defend Mandela


If you think that Mugabe has been anything but vilianized by the mainstream media than you're just full of $#@! and not worth listening too.  And as for your play of the race card, I don't think Ender, Zippy or Dannno are black.  The stormfart forums are calling your name.

----------


## dannno

> Please provide the examples of well-run black-run countries.  Very interested in this, are they only struggling because the ethnocentric europeans are holding them down bro?


*Whoosh*

----------


## jmdrake

> Please provide the examples of well-run black-run countries.  Very interested in this, are they only struggling because the ethnocentric europeans are holding them down bro?


Yep.  Stormfarter alert.  The Bahamian economy is doing quite nicely thank you very much.  In fact if you go to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index, Mauritius, the Bahamas, St Lucia and Botswana all fall in the "mostly free" category right along with Canada and the United States.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> If you think that Mugabe has been anything but vilianized by the mainstream media than you're just full of $#@! and not worth listening too.  And as for your play of the race card, I don't think Ender, Zippy or Dannno are black.  The stormfart forums are calling your name.


How routinely is Mugabe discussed relative to "the evil Portuguese held back the Angolans" rhetoric

----------


## dannno

> I don't think Ender, Zippy or Dannno are black.


Scandi here.

----------


## FrankRep

> Yep.  Stormfarter alert.  The Bahamian economy is doing quite nicely thank you very much.  Better than the U.S. actually.


Who's the Monarch of The Bahamas?


Oh Yeah,  Queen Elizabeth II 




The *monarchy of the Bahamas* is a system of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign and head of state of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, who has reigned since the country became independent on 10 July 1973. The Bahamas share the Sovereign with a number of Commonwealth realms. The Queen does not personally reside in the islands, and most of her constitutional roles are therefore delegated to her representative in the country, the Governor-General of the Bahamas. Royal succession is governed by the English Act of Settlement of 1701, which is part of constitutional law.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Who's the Monarch of The Bahamas?
> 
> 
> Oh Yeah,  Queen Elizabeth II 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *monarchy of the Bahamas* is a system of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign and head of state of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, who has reigned since the country became independent on 10 July 1973. The Bahamas share the Sovereign with a number of Commonwealth realms. The Queen does not personally reside in the islands, and most of her constitutional roles are therefore delegated to her representative in the country, the Governor-General of the Bahamas. Royal succession is governed by the English Act of Settlement of 1701, which is part of constitutional law.


It is amazing how poorly run these countries are.  I suppose it is all the fault of the French from the 17th century.

----------


## amy31416

Boy, when it comes to certain countries, some folks around here become the most rabid interventionists--using that same wretched hypocritical "argument" that Ayn Rand used in regards to the Palestinians.

Just remember this on the day that your new overlords, someone like the Chinese or Japanese (or whomever) roll up into your state and force the citizens into submission, forced labor, loss of land, family--and you can thank them for building your hillbilly backwards society up. Bunch of ungrateful savages.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Who's the Monarch of The Bahamas?
> 
> 
> Oh Yeah,  Queen Elizabeth II 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *monarchy of the Bahamas* is a system of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign and head of state of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, who has reigned since the country became independent on 10 July 1973. The Bahamas share the Sovereign with a number of Commonwealth realms. The Queen does not personally reside in the islands, and most of her constitutional roles are therefore delegated to her representative in the country, the Governor-General of the Bahamas. Royal succession is governed by the English Act of Settlement of 1701, which is part of constitutional law.


And just as she is in England, she is nothing but a figurehead in the Bahamas with no real authority.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who's the Monarch of The Bahamas?
> 
> 
> Oh Yeah,  Queen Elizabeth II


Another stormfarter?  Should have known.  The Queen of England does not run the day to day affairs of the Bahamas.  And note that there are many other commonwealth countries that aren't doing nearly as well.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

Are people here really defending colonization?

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Boy, when it comes to certain countries, some folks around here become the most rabid interventionists--using that same wretched hypocritical "argument" that Ayn Rand used in regards to the Palestinians.
> 
> Just remember this on the day that your new overlords, someone like the Chinese or Japanese (or whomever) roll up into your state and force the citizens into submission, forced labor, loss of land, family--and you can thank them for building your hillbilly backwards society up. Bunch of ungrateful savages.


Big difference.  Most hillbilly areas would do fine absent government transfer payments.

Imagine how much more dire the situation in Africa would be if it weren't for international organizations transferring wealth to support them.  

Why aren't the farms in Zimbabwe doing well now?  I figure that once the hillbilly whites left Mugabe's black buddies should be increasing the yields since they are much wiser and proficient than the backward white?

----------


## juleswin

> Please provide the examples of well-run black-run countries.  Very interested in this, are they only struggling because the ethnocentric europeans are holding them down bro?


I can give the example of Nigeria. I do not know the exact dates but after the Nigeria civil war (late 70s, early 80s I guess) the president refused to take IMF loans, but was pressured with economic embargo on the country. We could not import, we could not export anything. 

Not saying the west are the sole cause of the problems Africans. but maybe if they stayed the $#@! out, then nobody would be able to blame them for anything. But something tells me that aint going to happening anytime soon . The presidents of most African countries are picked by western leaders and when they step out of line, they are wacked and everybody knows that. The colonials never really left Africa


Edit: Still need to confirm the trade embargo on Nigeria. I wasn't born when it allegedly happened and cos it was just something my parents told me had happened but my googling is coming up empty on it.

----------


## jmdrake

> How routinely is Mugabe discussed relative to "the evil Portuguese held back the Angolans" rhetoric


Like I said stormfarter, we must live on different planets.  Mugabe gets far more press coverage than the "evil Portugese" hear on planet Earth.  Mugabe has the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and the threat of war in Iran to thank for his more recent lack of coverage.

----------


## jmdrake

> Big difference.  Most hillbilly areas would do fine absent government transfer payments.
> 
> Imagine how much more dire the situation in Africa would be if it weren't for international organizations transferring wealth to support them.  
> 
> Why aren't the farms in Zimbabwe doing well now?  I figure that once the hillbilly whites left Mugabe's black buddies should be increasing the yields since they are much wiser and proficient than the backward white?


Yep.  Keep up with the racism.  It does wonders for your cause.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> Like I said stormfarter, we must live on different planets.  Mugabe gets far more press coverage than the "evil Portugese" hear on planet Earth.  Mugabe has the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and the threat of war in Iran to thank for his more recent lack of coverage.


Thanks Drake, many schoolchildren are taught how evil the white man is.  Hardly any know about Mugabe and his "brothers."  I'm glad you recognize Mugabe may not be the most altruistic of souls.  Mandela was only marginally better.  But this nation will drop the flag for Mandela.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Big difference.  Most hillbilly areas would do fine absent government transfer payments.
> 
> Imagine how much more dire the situation in Africa would be if it weren't for international organizations transferring wealth to support them.  
> 
> Why aren't the farms in Zimbabwe doing well now?  I figure that once the hillbilly whites left Mugabe's black buddies should be increasing the yields since they are much wiser and proficient than the backward white?


Actually, aid is one of the biggest reasons the corruption continues. The colonial era certainly taught some valuable lessons to future oppressors. The governments in Africa function very well for those in charge. The extent to which patronage occurs in these countries is quite frankly astonishing. 

*SPIEGEL Interview with African Economics Expert: "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"* http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-363663.html



> SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.
> 
> Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.
> 
> SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?
> 
> Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. *In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit.* Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.
> 
> SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.
> ...

----------


## dannno

> Boy, when it comes to certain countries, some folks around here become the most rabid interventionists--using that same wretched hypocritical "argument" that Ayn Rand used in regards to the Palestinians.
> 
> Just remember this on the day that your new overlords, someone like the Chinese or Japanese (or whomever) roll up into your state and force the citizens into submission, forced labor, loss of land, family--and you can thank them for building your hillbilly backwards society up. Bunch of ungrateful savages.



/thread

----------


## FrankRep

> And just as she is in England, she is nothing but a figurehead in the Bahamas with no real authority.


That is nonsense. Queen Elizabeth II just hasn't abused her powers like the previous Kings.

----------


## fr33

> No, we're arguing about whether exploitation of Africa and its people for its resources is the primary cause of the poverty and violence there or whether black people need white people to build societies for them and tell them how to live and take care of them otherwise they will live uncultured like animals.
> 
> I'm arguing the former if it isn't obvious.


I guess my comment was aimed at people like FrankRep who are touting the superiority of apartheid over other governments. It's those types who choose the Hitler $#@!-sandwich over the Stalin $#@!-sandwich.

----------


## schiffheadbaby

> /thread


I hope one day you find yourself in East St. Louis or Capetown for an extended period of time and see how you are received Danno.  

Perhaps this should be renamed nelsonmandelaforums given his huge support here

----------


## FrankRep

> Another stormfarter?  Should have known.  The Queen of England does not run the day to day affairs of the Bahamas.  And note that there are many other commonwealth countries that aren't doing nearly as well.


I just posted information about Queen Elizabeth II and The Bahamas. Facts are not racist.

----------


## Ender

> *The greatness of Nelson Mandela challenges us all
> *
> AMONG Nelson Mandela’s many achievements, two stand out. First, he was the world’s most inspiring example of fortitude, magnanimity and dignity in the face of oppression, serving more than 27 years in prison for his belief that all men and women are created equal. During the brutal years of his imprisonment on Robben Island, thanks to his own patience, humour and capacity for forgiveness, he seemed freer behind bars than the men who kept him there, locked up as they were in their own self-demeaning prejudices. Indeed, his warders were among those who came to admire him most.
> 
> Second, and little short of miraculous, was the way in which he engineered and oversaw South Africa’s transformation from a byword for nastiness and narrowness into, at least in intent, a rainbow nation in which people, no matter what their colour, were entitled to be treated with respect. That the country has not always lived up to his standards goes to show how high they were.
> 
> Exorcising the curse of colour
> 
> As a politician, and as a man, Mr Mandela had his contradictions (see article). He was neither a genius nor, as he often said himself, a saint. Some of his early writings were banal Marxist ramblings, even if the sense of anger with which they were infused was justifiable. But his charisma was evident from his youth. He was a born leader who feared nobody, debased himself before no one and never lost his sense of humour. He was handsome and comfortable in his own skin. In a country in which the myth of racial superiority was enshrined in law, he never for a moment doubted his right, and that of all his compatriots, to equal treatment. Perhaps no less remarkably, once the majority of citizens were able to have their say he never for a moment denied the right of his white compatriots to equality. For all the humiliation he suffered at the hands of white racists before he was released in 1990, he was never animated by feelings of revenge. He was himself utterly without prejudice, which is why he became a symbol of tolerance and justice across the globe.
> ...


More at:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/baoba...lson-mandela-0

----------


## jmdrake

> I just posted information about Queen Elizabeth II and The Bahamas. Facts are not racist.


Well the *fact* is that Queen Elizabeth isn't running the Bahamas.  Maybe I should have called you stupid instead of racist.  Sorry about that.

Edit: And I get a neg rep from Frank after he distorts facts to back up someone clearly being racist.  Classy Frank.  Real classy.

----------


## FrankRep

> Well the *fact* is that Queen Elizabeth isn't running the Bahamas.  Maybe I should have called you stupid instead of racist.  Sorry about that.


True or False.

Queen Elizabeth II is the Monarch of The Bahamas.

*TRUE.*


Yay Facts!

----------


## Ender

> Big difference.  Most hillbilly areas would do fine absent government transfer payments.
> 
> Imagine how much more dire the situation in Africa would be if it weren't for international organizations transferring wealth to support them.  
> 
> Why aren't the farms in Zimbabwe doing well now?  I figure that once the hillbilly whites left Mugabe's black buddies should be increasing the yields since they are much wiser and proficient than the backward white?


*Development in Africa
Growth and other good things*
May 1st 2013, 13:41 by J.O'S | LUSAKA

THERE is no shortage of economic growth in Africa.* Six of the world’s ten fastest growing economies of the past decade are in sub-Saharan Africa.* A clutch of countries have enjoyed growth in income per person of more than 5% a year since 2007. Zambia is one of them. Yet a frequent complaint heard in Lusaka, the capital, is that the country’s rising GDP has passed much of the population by. The populist appeal of Michael Sata, who became president in 2011, is in part explained by a sense that ordinary Zambians had missed out on the benefits of economic growth.

GDP is not a perfect measure of living standards. A new study from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and the Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative takes a broader look at well-being in Africa. As well as income per person, BCG’s gauge of living standards includes jobs, governance, health, and inequality. Measured in this way, well-being in much of sub-Saharan Africa is lower than it ought to be, given rising average incomes per person. Levels of well-being in South Africa are out of whack with its GDP per head. Kenya and Ghana do a much better job of reaping the benefits of a growing economy.

*Yet many of the countries whose well-being has improved most in the past five years are in Africa.* This list is headed by Angola and includes Congo, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda and Tanzania. All have enjoyed rapid growth in GDP per person. But they have also done well at translating that strong growth into improved well-being: in technical terms, the correlation between GDP per person and well-being above one in these countries (see chart). Income growth per person has been above 5% a year in Ghana, Mozambique and Uganda, too. But increases in well-being have not been quite as rapid as in the best performers.

Zambia is another of Africa’s fast growers but it is the worst performer by a distance at turning that GDP growth into greater well-being. It has improved only half as much as it should have, given the growth in GDP per head. So those who feel Zambia has somehow missed out, despite the great strides it has made, have a point.

----------


## jmdrake

> True or False.
> 
> Queen Elizabeth II is the Monarch of The Bahamas.
> 
> *TRUE.*
> 
> 
> Yay Facts!


True or False.  Ron Paul's name was on a newsletter that some people have decried as racist.  Yay facts!    You posted your "fact" to push the nonsensical idea that somehow the Bahamas has a decent economy because it's not run by blacks.  That was the context of the discussion.  Schiffhead said "No black run countries are doing well".  Well the Bahamas is a black run state and it's doing fairly decently.  A titular monarchy which isn't running the day to day affairs of the country is an irrelevant "fact" to that point.

----------


## amy31416

> Big difference.  Most hillbilly areas would do fine absent government transfer payments.
> 
> Imagine how much more dire the situation in Africa would be if it weren't for international organizations transferring wealth to support them.  
> 
> Why aren't the farms in Zimbabwe doing well now?  I figure that once the hillbilly whites left Mugabe's black buddies should be increasing the yields since they are much wiser and proficient than the backward white?


Imagine people were ethical and left them alone. Self-determination for the backwards redneck hillbillies and the blackest man in Africa with bones through his nose. He'll hunt big game and feed his family and tribe, make some poison darts, brew some beers, play soccer, start a fire, build a hut. While the hillbilly will hunt some buck and feed his family and neighbors, make arrows or re-load, brew some beer, play his banjo, start a campfire, maybe build a nice little shed.

Holy $#@!, not a whole lot of difference between the two people, is there?

Leave them the hell alone.

----------


## juleswin

> Big difference.  Most hillbilly areas would do fine absent government transfer payments.
> 
> Imagine how much more dire the situation in Africa would be if it weren't for international organizations transferring wealth to support them.  
> 
> Why aren't the farms in Zimbabwe doing well now?  I figure that once the hillbilly whites left Mugabe's black buddies should be increasing the yields since they are much wiser and proficient than the backward white?


I am sure you know but most of the foreign aid are stolen by western backed dictators/rulers. The second largest portion go into military equipment for the dictator or bribe money to buy off the necessary idiots and the smallest portion go into actual aid

Why did the Zimbabwean farms fail? maybe because the gave the modern farms to inexperienced people? Nobody ever accused Mugabe of being the smartest person in the room. 

I wish more western leaders will listen to people like you and cut off ALL the aids and loans. That would be the best thing they ever did for that continent.

----------


## Ender

Ah yes, the wonderful altruistic British Empire- and of course, it's successor:




> *Afghanistan: British Imperialism 101*
> By Eric Margolis
> December 7, 2013
> 
> Those wondering what lies in store for Afghanistan need only look at the way the British Empire ruled Iraq in the 1920s. As Shakespeare wrote,  what is past is prologue.
> 
> Imperial Britain created the state of Iraq after World War I to secure Mesopotamias vast oil deposits that had become vital for the Royal Navy. To control this artificial nation seething with unrest, Britain imposed a puppet king, Faisal, and created a native army commanded by British officers.
> 
> Britains colonial rule was formalized by the 1930 Anglo-Iraq Treaty, a deal between puppet and master.
> ...


http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/e...native-troops/

----------


## JohnM

And finally, a "Mandela story" on lewrockwell.com.   

But not much about Mandela himself in the article!




> Nelson Mandelas Battle Against Socialism, Unionism, and Interventionism
> 
> By Thomas DiLorenzo
> 
> December 9, 2013
> 
> Workers of the world unite, keep South Africa white.
> 
> Slogan of early twentieth-century South African Labor Unions
> ...


http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/t...can-apartheid/

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## enhanced_deficit

is there any new update on this?


Related



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjbJ4koQPQ8

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *is there any new update on this?*


Nelson Mandela is still dead.

----------


## torchbearer

> Nelson Mandela is still dead.



source?

----------


## osan

> Nelson Mandela is still dead.


Thankfully.

----------

