Nelson Mandela 'proven' to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial`

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

Socialism always sneaks in under the guise of Democracy through the educational elites.

The same educational elites that have practically outsourced education to private firms? How does that work, exactly? In Britain, the trend is for schools to be built and run by private firms under the guise of 'free schools', Academies, and the like. Other private firms, largely massive corporations are 'advising' the government on school dinners, nutrition and whether it's good to have vending machines selling crappy food to kids on the premises. I heard a story on the news yesterday where a school was basically forcing parents to buy iPads as they wanted to deliver educational materials solely through this device rather than through books or other multimedia platforms.

University tuition fees come in over the last decade or so and, infamously, the present Conservative-lead government helped increase the fees to £9,000 a year in most cases.

We've also seen the present government have some kind of nervous breakdown where they think it's 1950 or something and are overhauling curriculums, exams and even the amount of time they spent in school. All those ridiculous* 'lefty' and liberal subjects like arts and humanities are being thrown on the bonfire.

Can you explain where this "socialism" is being sneaked in? I'm not seeing it at all.

*apparently

Originally posted by antonia
And in the same breathe talk about freedom. I find it very ironic some people here call Mendela bloodthirsty and then go on to advocate killing anyone who is a communist. How can you decry people who murdered in the name of communism when you seem so ready to kill in the name of your own ideology? You are no better.

It is not hypercritical to kill someone to save your own life. It’s called self preservation. You can be against murder, but that doesn’t make you a hypocrite when kill someone that breaks into your house to hurt you.

The right to self defense is a natural law.

As I said, when someone is working to deprive people of their right to life, and liberty, then, by default, they lose that very right.

When you are actively doing something that may result in a person, or group of people being deprived of their life, or liberty, then you open up yourself to rightful retaliation. Them killing you to protect themselves is a fully justifiable response.

With the atrocities that has happened after the ANC took over, I would say that the existing government was actually far too lenient. When NM was convicted, then they should have just taken him around back and promptly shot him.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

Socialism always sneaks in under the guise of Democracy through the educational elites.

The same educational elites that have practically outsourced education to private firms? How does that work, exactly?

It doesn’t mater who owns the schools. When the teacher base in a country is educated, operated, and controlled by people with communist, and socialist ideas, then all the schools in that country become indoctrination camps. It is not the institutions, it is the people that do the teaching.

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
I would expect someone with the name tranny to be more sensitive to the needless persecution of his fellow man.

Oh GOD I thought I went through this before.

There people go, reading stuff through their own myopic lens of reality.
There is a world outside of your twisted sex crazed universe.

It does not stand for Mr Transsexual! It stands for Mr Transformer! Look at the power lines in the background! How blatantly obvious does it have to be to break through that incrusted world view? Maybe is should put up a big picture of a transformer to see if people still can’t see the obvious meaning.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

The same educational elites that have practically outsourced education to private firms? How does that work, exactly?

It doesn’t mater who owns the schools.

Of course it does. Who do you think helps select the curriculum?

When the teacher base in a country is educated, operated, and controlled by people with communist, and socialist ideas, then all the schools in that country become indoctrination camps. It is not the institutions, it is the people that do the teaching.

In our ostensibly privately run commercial schools, teachers teach to a curriculum, set by the government. (PRO-TIP: Britain has never actually had a proper socialist government and the last Labour government was only 'left wing' in name, not in policy)

If teachers don't teach to the curriculum, the children fail exams, exams set by an independent private commercial firm. These firms also tend to sell teaching materials to schools to match the exams.

If children fail exams (and the problem has been the opposite, the government thinks too many kids are passing exams and there's been claims for years they must have got too easy), then the teacher and school is under scrutiny which can have all kinds of ramifications, including intervention by Ofsted (the educational ombudsman who inspects schools).

Also, there's a trend in this country now for what the government calls 'free' schools which look like they're going to be either middle-class hothouses (and won't be hotbeds of socialism or communism) or religious schools (again, not likely to be hotbeds of socialism or communism). These free schools are 'free' to interpret the curriculum in a lot more flexible way than regular 'state' schools but, again, given the people that have opted to run these privately built schools, there's no way they're going to be communist training camps.

Absolutely no way that socialist indoctrination can happen in a (British) school.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


What exactly does a curriculum and exams that cover reading, writing, arithmetic, and history, do to prevent the teachers from indoctrinating the students into a political ideology by the way they interpret the curriculum?

Forcing the teacher to teach a child that "such and such" happened in history does not have any affect on how that teacher frames that lesson in history. There is many ways they can frame the lesson that will still result in the child getting the answer right on the exam.

The only way you can know that your child won’t get indoctrinated in a “free school” is if you know the teacher that teaches you child. And you know that they are going to give lessons framed in a way that is not biased.

Indoctrination is not the information, and facts, it is the foundation that supports that information, and facts.

I thought the ANC were always considered a Marxist movement, who focused as much on the destabilization and removal of rival black anti-apartheid movements (like Black Consciousness or the Inkatha Freedom Party), or internal dissent (with gulag camps like Quatro).

Stemming from a largely irrelevant terrorist group in the 1970s, they apparently learnt the art of "a people's war" from a delegation to Vietnam in the late 1970s.
newhistory.co.za...

Well, how interesting that the US finally removed them from their list of terrorist organizations in 2008, and until then they needed a special waiver to enter the US:

US President George W Bush has signed a bill removing Nelson Mandela and South African leaders from the US terror watch list, officials say. Mr Mandela and ANC party members will now be able to visit the US without a waiver from the secretary of state. The African National Congress (ANC) was designated as a terrorist organisation by South Africa's old apartheid regime. A US senator said the new legislation was a step towards removing the "shame of dishonouring this great leader". 'Rather embarrassing' Under the legislation, members of the ANC could travel to the United Nations headquarters in New York but not to Washington DC or other parts of the United States.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I wonder if people like Winnie Mandela would be admitted, with her murder (including child murder) and fraud convictions and allegations.

I think she really summarized the ANC struggle in SA in the 1980s when she openly called for "necklacing" people and anyone who didn't toe the line.

Mandela's reputation was damaged by her rhetoric, the most noteworthy example of this being a speech she gave in Munsieville on 13 April 1986, where she endorsed the practice of necklacing (burning people alive using tyres and petrol) in the struggle to end apartheid. She said, "with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country."

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not sure why Wikipedia calls it "rhetoric", because that's exactly what they did, and even today they will openly claim to make areas "ungovernable".

reply to post by adjensen


I'm working on recorded deaths from capitalism list, I'll get back to you.

reply to post by Mr Tranny

What exactly does a curriculum and exams that cover reading, writing, arithmetic, and history, do to prevent the teachers from indoctrinating the students into a political ideology by the way they interpret the curriculum?

All public schools in the USA are pro-capitalism. I dunno how many times I've heard "high school graduates make more money" as an incentive to get kids to not drop out. Then on top of that being told the only incentive to go to college is because "college graduates make more money".

The whole purpose of high school is to prep you for the capitalist workforce.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

It is not hypercritical to kill someone to save your own life.

Someone's belief isn't going to hurt you, their actions will. Merely being a Communist does not make one more apt to kill than anyone else. I've met plenty of Commies in my life. They were decent people, some a bit odd, but hey, it takes all kinds to make a world. You might want to dial the paranoia factor down a bit.

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
The whole purpose of high school is to prep you for the capitalist workforce.

Even if that were true, which it obviously isn't, I say that, as we live in a capitalist economy, that's probably a pretty good idea, as opposed to the "sit on your butt and collect resources from the government, who take them from people who don't sit on their butts" alternative.

You're no doubt aware of Soviet Article 58, right? The law that made laziness a death penalty offense?

reply to post by adjensen

I say that, as we live in a capitalist economy, that's probably a pretty good idea

No, that's the whole problem.

as opposed to the "sit on your butt and collect resources from the government, who take them from people who don't sit on their butts" alternative.

Only someone so brainwashed would think that is the alternative.

You're no doubt aware of Soviet Article 58, right? The law that made laziness a death penalty offense?

What is the relevance of this? The soviets were not communist if that is what you're trying to say. They were state capitalist.

Originally posted by ShotGunRum

as opposed to the "sit on your butt and collect resources from the government, who take them from people who don't sit on their butts" alternative.

Only someone so brainwashed would think that is the alternative.

You don't believe that it's AN alternative? One that serves government?

You're no doubt aware of Soviet Article 58, right? The law that made laziness a death penalty offense?

What is the relevance of this? The soviets were not communist if that is what you're trying to say. They were state capitalist.

The only reason that they ditched abject communism by adopting Lenin's NEP in 1921 was because communism was an absolute, utter failure, and the only way to avoid another revolution was to allow for some degree of peasant acceptance of the system was to afford them some minor capitalism.

In other words, communism failed, and the only thing that kept the Soviets going was taking on aspects of capitalism and utter brutality, including the induced peasant famines that killed millions. Odd that the same thing happened in China, Eastern Europe and Cuba, eh?

reply to post by adjensen

You don't believe that it's AN alternative? One that serves government?

No. Workers owning the means of the production would be the alternative.

The only reason that they ditched abject communism by adopting Lenin's NEP in 1921 was because communism was an absolute, utter failure,

They never had communism, it was an oligarchy.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
So what if he was (Communist)?

Communist regimes killed between 85 million to 100 million people in the 20th century, all in the name of protecting the people.

Mass killings under Communist regimes

By way of comparison, the Nazis exterminated perhaps 17 million.

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

edit on 9-12-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

Are you serious ?

from your link:

Within the Soviet Union, forced changes in agricultural policies (collectivization) and droughts caused the Soviet famine of 1932–1933.[156][dead link][157][158][159] The famine was most severe in the Ukrainian SSR, where it is often referenced as the Holodomor. A significant portion of the famine victims (3–3.5 million) were Ukrainians while the total number of victims in the Soviet Union is estimated to be 6 – 8 millions.

so commies caused droughts ?

but then again, your posts and conclusions are always laughable.
So lets play your game, how many deaths is capitalism responsible for ? Let us start with USA nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki and move on from there shall we ? How many countries have capitalist countries invaded just to exploit their resources ? How many deaths have been caused by such invasions ?

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
reply to post by adjensen

 

You don't believe that it's AN alternative? One that serves government?

No. Workers owning the means of the production would be the alternative.

And how, pray tell, do said workers obtain said ownership?

The only reason that they ditched abject communism by adopting Lenin's NEP in 1921 was because communism was an absolute, utter failure,

They never had communism, it was an oligarchy.

Wrong. Prior to the NEP, Lenin's Soviet Union was communist. Post-NEP, it was pseudo-communist, with the state confiscating private property when it suited its needs. It is obviously in the best interests of proponents of communism to claim otherwise, but the evidence of the 20th Century is that communism is only sustainable at the point of a gun.

Originally posted by Raxoxane
That's neither here nor there for me-if he wanted to,with one heartfelt and sincere speech,this "great statesmen" and Nobel peace prize winner-could stop the genocide against white South African farmers.A plea from Madiba could stop the violence and murder,the grotesque atrocities.Yet,he's made no effort to bring peace or an end to genocide,though he is in a position to do so.THAT is my concern.and great dissapointment in the man.He's had a lot of time +opportunities to seriously address this critical issue-and failed to do so.Maybe not such a demi-God,after all.

And THIS is my reservation about believing the story of Nelson Mandela; the white South African government suddenly cares about the rights and welfare of Black people, so they release Mandela and he's elected president. That right there was already suspect enough. Then during his run as president of the country, he changes...nothing? Blacks still have no rights and the worst environmental, social and economic conditions, yet he had power to fix all that? What, his administration didn't have the power to remove or re-acquaint anyone from the previous white ruled administration?
I'll get all cooky in the head and say that during Mandela's 30+ years of imprisonment, he was worked on, BAD. I think the South African rulers employed the aid of the CIA in order to make sure that the Mandela that went in would not be the same Mandela coming out. They just needed a visual figurehead to distract everyone and think that here we have a ruler for his people, but he does nothing. You see how smart and generous whites are?

Originally posted by ArtooDetoo

Within the Soviet Union, forced changes in agricultural policies (collectivization) and droughts caused the Soviet famine of 1932–1933.[156][dead link][157][158][159] The famine was most severe in the Ukrainian SSR, where it is often referenced as the Holodomor. A significant portion of the famine victims (3–3.5 million) were Ukrainians while the total number of victims in the Soviet Union is estimated to be 6 – 8 millions.

so commies caused droughts ?

Where did you learn to read?

It says "forced changes in agricultural policies AND droughts caused the famine". It doesn't say that the Soviets caused the droughts.

On the other hand, if you knew anything about climate and agriculture, you'd know that humans CAN be one of the causes of drought.

Droughts occur when a long period of abnormally dry weather leads to a severe water shortage. Droughts are also often caused by the activity of humans and can have devastating effects.
Human activities causing drought

Human activities that can help trigger droughts include:

Widespread cutting down of trees for fuel reduces the soil’s ability to hold water - drying out the ground, triggering desertification and leading to drought.

Constructing a dam on a large river may help provide electricity and water to irrigate farmland near the reservoir. However, it may also cause drought downstream by severely reducing the flow of water. (Source)

So lets play your game, how many deaths is capitalism responsible for ? Let us start with USA nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki and move on from there shall we ?

Why were the nuclear attacks on Japan a result of the United States having a capitalist economy?

reply to post by adjensen


The problem you're having is thinking communism is what happened in Russia.

Russia was never communist. Lenin was not a communist, he was a con-man. The Bolsheviks did not ever intend to implement a communist economy, they simply used a twisted version of "Marxism" in order to fool the people into supporting them. Their only goal was to take state power for themselves, which they did, and is why their economy was state-capitalist not communist.

Communism and socialism were workers movements for worker ownership.

The real communists/socialists apposed the Bolsheviks...

Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks were a series of rebellions and uprisings against the Bolsheviks led or supported by left wing groups including Socialist Revolutionaries, Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and anarchists. Some were in support of the White Movement while some tried to be an independent force. The uprisings started in 1918 and continued through the Russian Civil War and after until 1922. In response the Bolsheviks increasingly abandoned attempts to get these groups to join the government and suppressed them with force...

Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks

Ya'll need to get your thinking out of the cold war. Communism was demonized for two reasons, one to keep people from embracing it, and as an excuse for spending more of your money on arms. When "communism" ended in Russia they needed another excuse to keep up the arms spending, so we got "terrorism".

"As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people." 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908

It didn't remain a thing of the people, it was appropriated and twisted by those who seek power instead of liberty for all.

reply to post by ANOK


So, how do we get from here to this worker's paradise of yours? Lenin's version of communism was due to the lack of the intermediary capitalist stage, jumping from feudalism directly to communism, but make no mistake about it, that was what was intended.

But, if you wish to re-imagine a world that excises the real world examples of the Soviet Union, China and all the rest, fine. How do you propose that the workers in the United States, say, become owners of the means of production? I know how Marx thought that should happen, as I've read him, do you?

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
All public schools in the USA are pro-capitalism.

Keep telling yourself that man…..

As one of those people that had to suffer through the insane asylum known as public school, I have a different opinion.

When I was going through, they was already starting to drop the idea of teaching self reliance and the skill sets needed to function in the modern world. I was in one of the last classes to actually get a half way coherent education. The curriculum changes that happened after I went through was leaving students and teachers scratching their heads.

Some of the older teachers bucked the system to a degree and continued to use some of the older text books because they said the new ones they had got in stock for the class were "worthless as tits on a boar hog” as one teacher so bluntly said it to the class. The newer teachers that were starting to filter in were half bat $#@$ crazy.

As I have grown older, the reason they changed to the new curriculum makes sense to me now.

It was when the education system changed from a place to be educated, to a place to be indoctrinated.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by ANOK

 

So, how do we get from here to this worker's paradise of yours?

Why do people make comments like this?

Lenin's version of communism was due to the lack of the intermediary capitalist stage, jumping from feudalism directly to communism, but make no mistake about it, that was what was intended.

Nothing that came out of Lenin's mouth was truth. Do you no realise that people lie? Especially when they are sociopaths who want power and control?

But, if you wish to re-imagine a world that excises the real world examples of the Soviet Union, China and all the rest, fine. How do you propose that the workers in the United States, say, become owners of the means of production? I know how Marx thought that should happen, as I've read him, do you?

Not re-imagining anything. There is the history taught to you by the mainstream, school, TV, etc., then there is the real truth that you have to go out and find for yourself. I am giving you years of finding out for myself.

If you pay attention to the quotes and links I provide you should see what I'm saying is supported by actual events and people who were there. Everything I say is supported by historical evidence.

For example this quote from my last post...

"As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people." 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908

Notice the date, 1908, before there were any so called "communist" countries. At a time when socialism was still a movement of the people, not despotic totalitarian governments. Peter Kropotkin was a Russian anarcho-communist author, scientist and philosopher.