 |
| Nelson Mandela convicted of plotting violent sabotage |
Back in the early eighties, it was Gandhi who was being hailed from Catholic Church pulpits as being Christ like.
I find such comparisons odious.
A holy priest is Christ like. Mother Teresa was Christ like.
Secular personalities who lead a life as far opposed to the teachings of Christ as possible, are not.
Oborne appears to suffer from journalistic amnesia as he neatly avoids any mention of why Mandela was imprisoned in the first place.
Admittedly, the sentence was a harsh one but we lock terrorists up for 30 years or more so why the hypocrisy and cant?
And terrorism is what Mandela was tried and sentenced for.
Most reports on Mandela's trial are coy as to the reasons why he was charged (with "attempted overthrow of the Government") as Wikipedia puts it.
Another media report today claims that he was jailed for his opposition to apartheid.
In fact, he was jailed for acts of violent sabotage against the state. I have not done a thorough search on the topic but my memory tells me that Nelson Mandela was part of an ANC group of activists and was apprehended whilst planting explosive charges that, had they been detonated, would have probably killed innocent men, women and children.
Of course apartheid was a terrible form of repression and, of course, the man seems to have mellowed in his later years but, he was also a signatory when abortion issues were on the agenda (see Left Footer's post HERE).
But please let us face the fact that the African National Congress was a communist inspired and led organisation with the prime aim of inflicting terror on law abiding citizens.
This is part of Mandela's statement to the court at his trial:
Mandela - a lawyer by training - told the court earlier: "I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation and oppression of my people by the whites."
He was not Christ like. But he was Bin Laden like.
I hope that his later deeds and actions will prove to be his salvation.
May he rest in peace.
Caroline Farrow also has an excellent post on the subject.
Yes, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and a supporter of terrorists.
ReplyDeleteWhen I were a lad he was a totem for lefty councils, forever naming public spaces after him, and assorted luvvies. That was off-putting, but the lefties' fault, not his. What really offended me, on his release, was his support for the IRA.
I didn't know about the abortion thing, but it's hardly a surprise. The ANC and IRA/Sinn Fein seem to be birds of a feather: gangsters.
Simon, didn't Del Boy and Rodney live in Nelson Mandela House?
DeleteNot my field, I'm afraid.
DeleteThe tide of mawkish sentiment about Mandela seems to be overwhelming everyone today. Oborne's comments are basically blasphemous.
ReplyDeleteHe introduced extremely wide killing of innocent children in utero in 1996. Its no mystery why the UN, Gates and his ilk so honoured him.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting your thoughts on Mandela. I have wondered if I am living in a parallel universe after reading some of the mainstream media's insufferable cant about the man.
ReplyDeleteMandela was as big of a fraud as "Saint" Martin Luther King. Both were communists and/or useful idiots of the communists.
ReplyDeleteCrazy times!
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the msm are saying because I avoid them like the plague - can imagine though!
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's not Mandela who's doing the blaspheming! Anyone who would equate Mandela to Bin Laden (family friend of the Bush dynasty) loses any credibility!
The above quote of Mandela does not give the impression he was a man of violence - at any rate nothing like the violence the British Empire along with other European powers meted out to the rest of the world! Even Margaret Thatcher recognised one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter! When the queen of England bowed before a memorial to the IRA founders of Irish Independence a couple of years ago, not only did she acknowledge this, but she got the warmth and friendship of the Irish people for doing so in such a public way.
Are you seriously saying that a nation has no right to defend itself from an alien power? Understandably, to you maybe the IRA is just a band of dangerous commie thugs which is what they have become. However, if you care to educate yourselves, because your education system teaches history lessons of the ills of every nation except your own British ultra-violent past, you might discover another side to the story.
For my part, if cardinals, bishops and priests of the Catholic Church collude with the introduction of abortion why should I single out Mandela?
What I do know is that a band of fellow Corkonian shop workers went on strike rather than handle produce from the evil regime Mandela deigned to take on, and he thanked them in person afterwards. He has done many good things in his life, he wasn't perfect, but let's have some dignity here and not come across as Catholic bigots! The man has died and gone before his Maker. I pray that he may rest in peace!
As a mainstream-media avoiding Corkonian, You won't have seen the letter from Mandela's, erstwhile er, comrade, in the South African Communist Party, Paul Trewhela (here it is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10501043/If-you-look-for-Mandelas-legacy-compare-South-Africa-with-other-countries-on-the-same-continent.html). I suppose you won't have seen this, either: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10502173/Nelson-Mandela-he-was-never-simply-the-benign-old-man.html.
DeleteAll part of the service!
Epsilon, there is no case in Catholic teaching that advocates or approves violence just because you object to an oppressive government. The IRA were wrong to adopt violence and so was the ANC and Mandela. They were planning to blow up innocent civilians, for heaven's sake. You may take up arms only if the population of your country is threatened by acts of war and, even then, there are caveats to observe.
ReplyDeleteFor thirty years from 1960, S Africa was the least oppressive regime in Africa. The Congo, Angola, Nigeria, Uganda and others were all engaged is massive acts of murder and mayhem.
The whole point of democracy is that, if you do not wish to be governed by those currently appointed, you vote them out at the first opportunity.
You are most welcome to leave comments here but please do not accuse me of bigotry.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteYou say democracy allows you to vote out who you don't want
ReplyDeleteWhere in the South African regime did the indigenous population have an opportunity to vote?
17th March 1992. The general referendum. But that was restricted to the white population. Job done though.
Delete!
DeleteThanks very much for the link Richard. I've found the outpouring of sentimentality most disconcerting.
ReplyDeleteThis is what a post-Christian society looks like. I wonder whether all the saccharin is concealing an innate fear of death?
Quite so, blondpidge; it's no accident (as the Marxists used to say) that this saccharin about the glories of Mandela coexists with, and is championed by, the anti-capital-punishment rent-a-mob. Deep down, that rent-a-mob doesn't just want to abolish the death penalty. It wants to abolish death.
Delete"Back in the early eighties, it was Ghandi who was being hailed from Catholic Church pulpits as being Christ like."
ReplyDeleteunfortunately that didn't end in the eighties, or the ninties, or the naughties...
Back in the 1980s the Tele could legitimately call itself a civilised newspaper. It now might well be the dirtiest, most nihilistic example of printed agitprop which any English-speaking country can show; and there is no more justification for allowing it to continue existing than there would be for reviving News of the World (which at least never pretended to do more than titillate pagan proles, whereas the Tele is widely rumoured to have some intellectual content).
ReplyDeleteRecently I remarked, in the combox for a Tele article demanding the abolition of all censorship - you know, the usual adolescent drivelling from some childless Hampstead meterosexual - that I opposed the publishing and disseminating of child pornography. You might think that this opposition would be a reasonable, and indeed widespread, attitude to possess. Not at the Tele it isn't! Within 15 minutes, my comment criticising kiddie porn had been deleted.
Undeterred by this, I posted a second comment, pointing out that my original remarks had violated no rules of spelling, no rules of grammar, and no defamation laws; that, in this, they made a notable contrast with the sub-anthropoid grunting from the combox's resident chavs which did get permitted online; and that since the Tele's censors obviously were fond enough of kiddie porn to suppress even the mildest criticism of it, I hoped for their sake that they were not tempting outraged local parents by living near a school. Bingo! Another 10 minutes and this second comment got deleted as well.
Just as well that Nelson Mandela wasn't a paedophile. I shudder to think of the hosannas we'd be getting from the Tele's resident grubs if he were.
One dares not even use the Tele's pages as lavatory paper, for fear of contracting typhoid. If the Cabinet's so-called Conservatives had a solitary testicle among them they would close the Tele down for the treasonous, cultural-Marxist rag that it now is. But since they're too gutless even to abolish the BBC, alias the Buggering Bolsheviks' Comintern ...
Good little article from Jill Stanek (a Protestant, and a very good woman too. I wish more Catholics were like her) who has written what I think Mandela deserves: http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/can-nelson-mandela-have-an-otherwise-great-legacy-despite-being-pro-abortio
ReplyDelete