Alex Jones describes Nelson Mandela as “a horrible person”, “communist mass-bomber”

Hasn't Rand spoken positively of Malcom X?

(Not offering any judgment here, other than Malcom not being a pacifist like MLK, I know precious little about him.

Malcolm X was taken in by Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam after coming out of prison. He rose in the ranks to be Elijah's right hand man. X went around preaching the N.O.I.'s racist black supremacist/liberation message. ("Whites are the devil," and all that stuff.) Eventually after traveling throughout Africa, and his pilgrimmage to Mecca, he changed his views. He was inspired by how at Mecca, Muslims were not only black, but white and every other colour. He then embraced what he called "true Islam" and went around making speeches against the establishment, in the interest of all people, black or white. Then he was assassinated.

Some quotes after his trip to Mecca:

"I believe in recognizing every human being as a human being, neither white, black, brown nor red. When you are dealing with humanity as one family, there's no question of integration or intermarriage. It's just one human being marrying another human being, or one human being living around and with another human being."
"The next day I was in my car driving along the freeway when at a red light another car pulled alongside. A white woman was driving and on the passenger's side, next to me, was a white man. "Malcolm X!" he called out-and when I looked, he stuck his hand out of his car, across at me, grinning. "Do you mind shaking hands with a white man?" Imagine that! Just as the traffic light turned green, I told him, "I don't mind shaking hands with human beings. Are you one?"
 
Last edited:
The first amendment means what it says and says what it means. Anyone who would want you deported for voicing your opinion is not interested in liberty.

The second amendment follows...and the reason it does is because the founders knew that words can be used to enact unconstitutional laws and bring in a tyrannical government!
 
Last edited:
The founding fathers of this country also killed people trying to achive their freedoms.

I believe that Mandela pled guilty to plotting bombings of railroads that killed innocent women and children. Somebody correct me if that's inaccurate.
 
I think you're jealous because you don't have a BFF. I take the man very serious. The second amendment means what it says and says what it means. Anyone who would be against the second amendment or any amendment is not interested in liberty and would think nothing of having you imprisoned exercising your right.

Is the Second Amendment the only Amendment you're aware of? There's another Amendment that protects the right to free speech. Do yourself a favour and search up the First Amendment.
 
He does take facts and re-present them in his own way. Not completely factual but not outright lies- that would be too obvious. According to him we all should have been locked up in FEMA camps years ago. He is entertaining though. His anti-establishment line is appealing to some.

And you are a source of unbiased opinion, or are you yin to Jones' yang? /rhetorical_question
 
Is the Second Amendment the only Amendment you're aware of? There's another Amendment that protects the right to free speech. Do yourself a favour and search up the First Amendment.

When those who are speaking, petition government to forcibly take away other's unalienable rights, that is no longer free speech. Traitors forfeit their rights at that point.
 

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
 
I believe that Mandela pled guilty to plotting bombings of railroads that killed innocent women and children. Somebody correct me if that's inaccurate.

I have come to the conclusion that Mandela was more of a William Wallace.

When court reconvened three weeks later, Nelson Mandela led the parade of defendants up a staircase that opened into the center of the court, where a specially constructed dock had been built. Mandela gave the clenched fist salute to supporters that had become an ANC trademark. Mandela shouted, "Amandla!" (Power), and the crowd responded with the cry, "Ngawethu!" (It shall be ours).

At his trial:

Mandela began speaking in a quiet, even voice. He continue reading for the next four hours. "I am the first accused," Mandela said, and began telling the story of his life, the reasons he joined the struggle for racial equality, and of his gradually arrived at conclusion that non-violent protest must give way to more violent approaches if the goals of a multi-racial democracy in South Africa were ever to be achieved:

At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the Government met our peaceful demands with force. This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe.

Mandela concluded his speech by announcing he was ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for his cause:

"During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

Mandela sat down. In his autobiography, he describes the scene in the Pretoria courtroom. "The silence seemed to stretch for many minutes. But in fact it lasted probably no more than thirty seconds, and then from the gallery I heard what sounded like a great sigh, a deep, collective 'ummmm,' followed by the cries of women."

The site below is very informative- I recommend reading it.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/mandelaaccount.html
 
His views on Mandela seem to be in line....who else takes that view of Mandela. Why else talk shit about him while he's on his death bed.

Alex Jones wants ratings and site views thats why his doing he has done nothing for the 9/11 truth movement other then making a fool of himself during the CNN interview.
 
I think some of you on here should give this a read:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/yeah-mandela-was-a-communist-so/

Mandela was no saint, but his views evolved over his lifetime and he is a huge reason South Africa was able to transition without falling into an all out civil war. He may have taken support and aligned himself with communists in his more militant revolutionary stage, but a lot of this had to do with the fact that the two supposed bastions of freedom and liberalism (the U.S. and the U.K.) so vehemently supported the Apartheid status quo (while also supporting the regimes of Pinochet, The Shah of Iran, and other hardcore scumbags). There is much more nuance to Mandela’s views spanning his lifetime then a simple cold war-esque label of “communist” can explain. It’s like some of you are stuck on ideological platitudes and not recognizing the complexity of human beings and their politics. Not everything can fit into a nice little box/label.

The fact is that the USSR by and large supported anti-colonial struggles in Africa, Asia, South America, and The Middle East during the Cold War and the Western powers by and large did not. Was this altruistic? Of course not. It was all about spreading Soviet hegemony, but don’t act like many of these anti-colonial/liberation movements had very many options for support from the U.S. or other “liberal democracies”. The U.S. positioned itself almost exclusively on the side of multi-national business interests, often in places where the native population were exploited and abused by their puppets. Do some honest research before you make ill-informed judgements.

And I’m amazed at how lightly people who claim to stand for “liberty” and “freedom” take the Apartheid system. It was government sanctioned second class citizenship, and yet people on here (supposed "classical liberals” and “libertarians”) seem to be sugar-coating how morally unjust it really was.

Should the black majority of South Africa just have accepted their status and bowed to their masters? Do their rights not count as much because they aren’t “civilized” enough to have them? Is it morally o.k. to colonize less developed peoples as long as “free markets” are at the center of your message? Can “free markets” even exist when an entire race has no equal rights to participate in those markets? These are questions some of you might want to ponder.
 
Last edited:
This is a must watch. Really lays out all the facts about this guy. No wonder he's worshiped by the mainstream media like a god-

 
When those who are speaking, petition government to forcibly take away other's unalienable rights, that is no longer free speech. Traitors forfeit their rights at that point.

Freedom is Slavery now, eh? "Remember, you're free to speak only if you agree with what I believe." Is the message you're saying. That is not liberty.
 
I think some of you on here should give this a read:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/yeah-mandela-was-a-communist-so/

Mandela was no saint, but his views evolved over his lifetime and he is a huge reason South Africa was able to transition without falling into an all out civil war. He may have taken support and aligned himself with communists in his more militant revolutionary stage, but a lot of this had to do with the fact that the two supposed bastions of freedom and liberalism (the U.S. and the U.K.) so vehemently supported the Apartheid status quo (while also supporting the regimes of Pinochet, The Shah of Iran, and other hardcore scumbags). There is much more nuance to Mandela’s views spanning his lifetime then a simple cold war-esque label of “communist” can explain. It’s like some of you are stuck on ideological platitudes and not recognizing the complexity of human beings and their politics. Not everything can fit into a nice little box/label.

The fact is that the USSR by and large supported anti-colonial struggles in Africa, Asia, South America, and The Middle East during the Cold War and the Western powers by and large did not. Was this altruistic? Of course not. It was all about spreading Soviet hegemony, but don’t act like many of these anti-colonial/liberation movements had very many options for support from the U.S. or other “liberal democracies”. The U.S. positioned itself almost exclusively on the side of multi-national business interests, often in places where the native population were exploited and abused by their puppets. Do some honest research before you make ill-informed judgements.

And I’m amazed at how lightly people who claim to stand for “liberty” and “freedom” take the Apartheid system. It was government sanctioned second class citizenship, and yet people on here (supposed "classical liberals” and “libertarians”) seem to be sugar-coating how morally unjust it really was.

Should the black majority of South Africa just have accepted their status and bowed to their masters? Do their rights not count as much because they aren’t “civilized” enough to have them? Is it morally o.k. to colonize less developed peoples as long as “free markets” are at the center of your message? Can “free markets” even exist when an entire race has no equal rights to participate in those markets? These are questions some of you might want to ponder.


Winner Winner chicken dinner.
 
Back
Top