Recently, I was thinking about the late Nelson Mandela, who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999, and was the country’s first black president in the post-apartheid era. A couple of things occurred to me that seemed a bit too esoteric at first blush to share with my readers – but then, the more I thought about it… not so much.
One was the parallel between Mandela and Barack Hussein Obama, America’s “first black president.” For one thing, Mandela’s status as the darling of the Western press from his release from prison to his death in 2013 belied a sordid past and the criminal deportment of Mandela’s political network – the African National Congress (ANC), a political party over which Mandela presided from 1991 to 1997.
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.
- “In Death, as in Life, Truth About Mandela Overlooked,”The New American, December 6, 2013
Contrary to popular belief, the ANC was a violent communist organization that employed some pretty horrific methods in its so-called pursuit of parity for blacks in South Africa – and Mandela endorsed them all. In 1986, as Western elites were setting the stage for Mandela’s triumphant ascent to power, his wife Winnie came under fire internationally for her advocacy of their surrogates’ use of “one of the most brutal murder tactics ever conceived by man [The New American]” against their fellow black political opponents. “Necklacing” involved filling an automobile tire with gasoline and putting it around a victim’s neck, then setting it ablaze and watching the poor devil shriek and writhe in agony before dying as their lungs roasted from the inside and their bubbling flesh sloughed off of their bones.
As we know, Barack Obama was literally reared among various anti-American, Islamist, and communist influences, and it is likely that murder also aided his rise to power. So, Mandela and Obama have in common having gone from little more than political gangsters to elder statesmen, with all the idiot world celebrating their dubious achievements. Obama is far more impressive in this regard, of course; While Mandela had a cabal of powerful Western elites and the press on his side, all he did was help to destroy Africa’s richest nation, while Obama almost single-handedly brought down America, the world’s greatest superpower.
That’s almost like having brought down the British Empire with a spitball (For the record, it took a bit more than that).
Obama had a far cushier ride than Mandela however, with affirmative action, House of Saud subsidies, and Fulbright scholarships (grants for foreign students in the US) that were later forgotten due to his sealed academic records. He also never went to prison.
But this not intended to be either an anti-Mandela or an anti-Obama treatise. Also contrary to popular belief (and this is the second thing to occur to me): Mandela was not sentenced to prison for opposing apartheid, as so many Westerners might answer if queried. Mandela was originally sentenced to life in prison for conspiracy to overthrow the state. Mandela made no bones about his position (to some extent because of the existence of apartheid, and to some extent due to his Marxist bent) that the government of South Africa needed to be abolished because it was an immoral government.
So, what made South Africa a nation that merited Mandela’s views? South Africa was a republic, and ostensibly remains so today. Indeed, other than the abolition of apartheid and the nation disintegrating socially and economically under Mandela’s leadership and that of black leaders who followed him, not much changed.
What made South Africa’s policies unacceptable were the actions of the people administering the government.
Aside from the fact that South Africa’s constitution was drafted with keeping the majority of black Africans politically disenfranchised in mind, that once-prosperous nation was a model republic in many aspects. The fact that one set of leaders were white and the other black becomes moot when one considers that they both wound up being manifestly corrupt, but in different ways. It was the class of people with the agenda of black oppression that drew Mandela’s ire, and that of many in the West.
Herein we have at least one justification for Mandela’s pre-imprisonment position.
We also have ample justification for just about any American charging that the government of the United States is immoral and needs to be abolished. Once again, it is not the system or structure of government that is depraved or corrupt, but like a drunk driver behind the wheel of a fine automobile, it is the people administering the system, those who have insinuated so many aspects of socialism into the representative republican system that it scarcely resembles a republic any longer.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
- U.S. Declaration of Independence
The existence of a socialist elite class that transcends political parties has become painfully evident in recent months. Even such individuals as House Speaker Paul Ryan and many other ranking Republicans have evidenced themselves to be either political whores or dedicated statists, advocating for open borders and Middle Eastern refugee resettlement in the U.S., and trade policies that are well in line with those of Barack Obama.
This has given rise not only to the insurgency in the Republican Party in America, but growing nationalism in Europe, as populations there respond to the failure of socialist policies.
Socialism is unequivocally antithetical to the Constitution and the representative republic, and the democratic process itself has been corrupted to accommodate socialistic policies. Thus, anyone claiming that our government must either be purged of the aforementioned subversive parties or abolished has solid legal standing.
So, what would likely occur if a person or persons began to espouse the overthrow of the government of the United States on the foregoing basis? Well, one need not possess precognition or a degree in political science to make a pretty good guess as to what would occur: As we can surmise from the cooperation between both parties at present, as well as that of many who profess to be conservatives in government and the press, such a person or persons would be targeted and demonized to an unprecedented degree. All of the resources of the same political machine that brought both Mandela and Obama to power would be brought to bear against them. Violent and seditious tendencies would be ascribed to them, and evidence to validate these claims would probably be fabricated in order to support them.
The constitutional basis for their assertions would be overlooked in favor of the argument that their desire to “overthrow the government” made them seditious by definition, when in fact the sedition – as already detailed – has been perpetrated by their accusers, quod erat demonstrandum. It would become the highest imperative for such a person or persons to be silenced with all due speed, and with extreme prejudice, lest their message gain momentum. If they were not dispatched with all the alacrity of a Michael Hastings or an Andrew Breitbart, they would be characterized as a latter-day Timothy McVeigh, and any legitimacy connected to them or their ideology would be permanently neutralized.
Still, having detailed this scenario, it may be that such a person or persons, communicating precisely that credo, may be the only avenue – aside from the Grace of God – toward preserving the United States of America.
Article posted with permission from Constitution.com