Ayn Rand was absolutely insane.

Staying on a forum where everyone is either a Communist, atheist, or Libtard (or a combination of three) gets old. That is why I left webdip.

This is what the webdip forum is:

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/Smileys/default/trainwreck.gif

As for Mandella specifically, I am too ignorant of his biography to comment. But there is something I can say generally without ignorance.

To pile the mistakes of youth upon the already stooping shoulders of wizened age enforces a twofold disservice to any society whatsoever:

1. It discourages youths from making mistakes and thereby actually learning from them.
2. It denies the possibility that a deep and genuine change can, in fact, occur within a human being.

Without dramatic mistakes, we can never gain the experience necessary for catalysing inner change solid and profound enough to achieve greatness.

Or have we become so cynical that we imagine that great people must also be pristine and free from all 'sin' (however you define the word)? Such cynics would, I suspect, readily admit that by this standard there exist no great men at all--just charlatans of varying degrees.

If we see extreme acts of terrorism as a permanent mark of evil upon a human being (regardless of consideration for the circumstances which bring about the attitude that such acts are somehow necessary), will we not by this same reasoning also have to abandon the very notion that criminals can be rehabilitated, re-educated and eventually reincorporated?

Indeed, are we not all criminals in our own way? It would be most unfortunate if our crimes were written upon us as the chisel to the stone, whittling down our very souls, smaller and smaller with each misstep.

Joseph, there is no need to be ignorant. The internet has plenty of documented evidence to research that cuts through the media driven pro-Mandela propaganda. This evidence comes in the form of his own words and actions.

Secondly, perhaps it is true that *some* people can be rehabilitated. The first step however is to apologise for misdeeds and faults of the past. As far as i am aware in my years of reading about Mandela he has not once apologised or distanced himself from what he did which was, as a adult, not a *youth*, specifically target afrikaneer men, women and children. Neither did he distance himself from the group or marxist ideology that led this violence, indeed his association with the ANC deepened and he remained close friends with Ghdaffi and Castro. Most criminals, especially violent criminals, cannot be rehabilitated as they are criminally institutionalised and we must use caution not to be duped by false contrition. It is after all the spirit of your later comment which allows murderers and rapists back out on the streets to repeat their crimes after fooling people they have changed. In addition we cannot simply airbrush people's past out of existence when it suits. This only serves to diminish the value of victims of terrorism and violent crime.

There are signs of genuine change which, to the clear-minded and experienced, can not be feigned. I have personally met and made friends with such people. Unfortunately, there are so very few today who have clear minds.

I meant to include in "youth" the 20's and early 30's, depending on the person.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that it is inappropriate to attempt to skip the atonement step.

Let us not focus on whites fleeing South Africa. Let us talk about what is provided to Blacks in South Africa. At the end of Mandela's time in office (the moment I saw numbers was actually about half way through the Mbeki Presidency), Black South Africans actually had a lower household income and median consumption than they had enjoyed under Apartheid and were vastly more likely to be murdered or be victims of violent crime. A Black woman in South Africa was more likely to have been raped in her lifetime than to know how to read English, the language of instruction in South African schools and the language of commerce. I do not mean this to imply that Apartheid did a good job of providing basic government services to Blacks. I am saying that ANC governance then did even worse than a terribly low bar standard. Also my criticisms are with single party ANC governance not "Black governance". Competition is good. This is true of politics as in commerce.

@Tomahaha.....I do not accpet that Mandela brought down Apartheid. Helen Suzman did more in my opinion to end Aparthied than a man locked away in solitary confinement on an island for 30 years. The fact that the National Party did not kill Mandela is a moment to people like Helen Suzman. The ANC has actively tried to demonize Helen Suzman as a handmaiden of Apartheid to monopolize status as "opponents of Apartheid". Mbeki's efforts as ANC leader to make opposition to Apartheid the sole property of Soviet trained exiles like himself and marginalize the people on the ground in South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s was just sad. The SOWETO riots which had next to nothing to do with the ANC is what destroyed Apartheid and was a spontaneous response on the ground to changes in education policy. The Afrikaners wanted to stop teaching Black children English and teach them only Afrikaans.

And of course Nelson Mandela inherited leadership of the ANC from the Zulu leader who mentored him. To call him Moses is overblown. He was a man in a line of other men who led a group of Black South Africans opposed to Apartheid. He was not Gandhi calling into being a mass movement.

Additionally, Mugabe was almost universally praised in the same terms for his first 20 years in power. The stuff we talk about in Zimbabwe started in 1999 and 2000 when Mugabe had been in control since the late 1970s. Mugabe replacing Ian Smith was the first "crisis" of Margret Thatcher's term in the UK. Also, Egypt's current regime presumably begins with Nasser overthrowing Farouk in 1952 or removing his infant son in 1953 or the Suez Crisis of 1956, the thing which you point to are decades after these events. They all track to Nasser explicitly refusing to allow the existence of any legitimate civil institutions outside of his party and state structures much as the ANC has but the collapsing of society came long afterwards.

@ManMoutain.....Nelson did divorce Winnie so to claim that he never distanced himself from violent and criminal types is not entirely accurate. Again, I would suggest leaving aside ANC behavior towards Whites and look just at their long record of murderous violence against Black political rivals. South Africa was the stage for a near civil war in the 1980s and it was not the ANC against the White Apartheid regime but the attempts by the ANC to systematically murder their Black political rivals in the Inkatha Freedom Party. The ANC set up vigilante courts in the Townships ostensibly to "secede" from the Apartheid state and provide "Black justice" as a Black pseudo-state, but they frequently used these "courts" to purge to populace and engage in witch hunts and show trials in search of Black political opposition. The ANC actively tried to declare these "local courts" as equivalent to actual judiciary of the formal state. These "courts" frequently do not record testimony, and proceedings are conducted in the African languages to prevent White lawyers from participating. These are behaviors directed explicitly at Blacks. The ANC has no problems with the New National Party. The Democratic Party which tries to create a multiracial ideological party on a liberal base is attacked as being "White" and there fore "inauthentic" but the real targets are potential candidate parties for status as the "Black alternative" to the ANC.

It seems strange to articulate, but South Africa needs the South African Communist Party and the Trade Union Alliance to break fully free from the ANC and actively fight for liberalism and democracy.

@sbyvl.....Please refrain from trying to agree with me. Constantly calling everyone "either a Communist, atheist, or Libtard (or a combination of three)" does in fact gets old.

@Mapu....."that selfish crazy bitch Ayn Rand" is in fact too liberal. That is precisely what her problem is. She starts from the point of John Bright and carries the arguments out to an absurdist extreme. As for tone, see above.

People holding ridiculous ideologies gets old after a while.

Presumably, you believe yourself to possess adequate faculties of reason to refute ridiculous beliefs and assertions of others without resorting to name calling.

I also possess adequate faculties of reason to identify ideologies.

I am unfamiliar with the "Libtard" ideology. I'm also not sure that I would classify atheism as an ideology.

Then you obviously are a libtard. And you're right. Atheism isn't an ideology. It's a mental illness.

By the way, a more appropriate title for this thread would be RIH Nelson Mandela
(Rot in Hell)

Good comments above, gopher. The point is people need to look deeper at the entire south africa/mandela/apartheid story. The blind veneration and idolatry we are witnessing makes us no better than north korea when Kim died.

Many atheists don't believe in god and leave it at that. Others are very ideologically driven and use their militancy for political purposes. As with anyone who is single minded toward an ideal which involves total control of others (vdip aside lol), and a self-righteousness to carry it out, these people are not just mentally ill but can be very dangerous.

Excuse me? WTF sbyvl.....presumably, you don't need an explanation on that one. I made exactly two statements: i) "I am unfamiliar with the "Libtard" ideology."; ii) "I'm also not sure that I would classify atheism as an ideology." You then agreed with the second statements. Therefore, either you are asserting that I am "obviously" a "libtard" because I claim to be unfamiliar with your claimed ideological paradigm or you are yourself such a person by the standards of your own judgment. I am assuming that this is an aspersion to be cast from your perspective. In case of sarcasm, asserting atheism to be an ideology is to assert that theism is an ideology.

Explanation: Liberals are usually unaware of the term "libtard", whereas everyone else usually is.

Atheism is a mental illness, either way you look at it.

@sbyvl....I think I speak for most of humanity in acknowledging my unfamiliarity with your internal vernacular.

@"everyone else".....Is "libtard" a universally used term that all are aware of in normal conversation?

I've never heard of it in conversation. Let alone had it defined to me.

The only person I've heard use the term is sbyvl.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Mandela Leaves Divided Legacy in Africa
Former South African President's Ties With Despots Drew Critics

By HEIDI VOGT CONNECT
Updated Dec. 6, 2013 8:11 p.m. ET

In this Oct. 29, 1997 file photo, Nelson Mandela and Moammar Gadhafi salute the crowd as they arrive at the congress center in Zuwarah, Libya. Associated Press

NAIROBI, Kenya—In death, Nelson Mandela symbolized Africa's struggle for freedom and aspirations for democracy. In life, things were more complicated.

Nelson Mandela was a member of the African National Congress party when he was elected South Africa's president in 1994. After his death, the ANC faces a struggling economy, a splintered identity and life without its symbolic leader. (Photo: Getty)

Mr. Mandela's release from prison in 1990 transformed South Africa and helped inspire a wave of democratic revolutions across the continent: More than 30 African countries shucked dictatorship for multiparty elections in the decade that followed.

But Mr. Mandela was a pragmatic politician as well as an inspirational leader. He worked with despots in neighboring countries even as he laid the groundwork for South African democracy.

After Mandela
Nelson Mandela's political successors.

"He had to push democracy in a sort of undemocratic neighborhood," said William Gumede, a South African author of several books on the country's leadership. "These dictators are in power and sometimes you may need to have a nuanced response. For Mandela, these were the sort of things he had to always debate with himself and his advisers."

As leaders commemorated the passing of Nelson Mandela, street celebrations of his life sprung up in cities around the world. However, some see Mandela's legacy in less glowing terms. The Foreign Bureau tracks the top world news stories of the day.

Presidents across Africa issued tributes after Mr. Mandela died Thursday night, and countries such as Kenya, Nigeria and Congo declared three days of mourning. At African Union headquarters in Ethiopia, all flags were flying at half-staff on Friday.

Mr. Mandela fought for the liberation of his people from South African apartheid and became his country's first democratically elected black president. While many of the African leaders around him, such as Robert Mugabe in neighboring Zimbabwe, clung to power for decades, he chose to step down after just one term, cementing his moral sway on the continent.

"What he embodies—simple living, respecting constitutional term limits, and rigid respect for the rule of law—that becomes the standard by which Africans judge their leaders," said John Campbell, who was a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in South Africa when Mr. Mandela came to power. "What you hear now in Africa is: 'Will so-and-so be a Mugabe, or will he be a Mandela?'"

After rejoicing over his release from prison in 1990, some democracy activists were dismayed that Mr. Mandela courted rich strongman such as Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi and Nigeria's Gen. Sani Abacha.

Col. Gadhafi, overthrown and killed during Libya's Arab Spring uprising in 2011, would remain a strong backer of Mr. Mandela's African National Congress. In turn, Col. Gadhafi counted on the ruling party's support for his push to create a "U.S. of Africa," or central government for the continent.

In 1997, then-President Mandela flew to Libya to present Col. Gadhafi with South Africa's highest award for a foreigner, the Order of Good Hope. The public statements included no mention of widespread discrimination in Libya against its own black African population.

As president, Mr. Mandela had to balance his allegiance to democratic principles with loyalty to other countries such as Angola and Nigeria that, like Libya, had backed him during his nearly three decades in prison.

Nigerian activists spent much of 1995 asking Mr. Mandela to speak out against the pending execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa, the environmental activist who protested frequent oil spills in the country. He had become a cause célèbre for the same Nigerian intellectuals who had helped impose crippling oil sanctions on South Africa's apartheid regime.

Mr. Saro-Wiwa had been convicted of inciting the murder of four pro-regime chiefs, but he and many allies in the human-rights community insisted he had been framed. Mr. Mandela declined to intervene publicly and Mr. Saro-Wiwa was hanged later that year.

"We felt he'd failed us," Mr. Saro-Wiwa's son, Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., said in June. "I think maybe we expected too much from him," said the son, now a spokesman for Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan.

But it was also Mr. Mandela who successfully pushed for the group of former British colonies known as the Commonwealth to suspend Nigeria after the executions, cutting it off from technical assistance and meetings and events. The move was seen as brave abroad but may have lost him friends on the continent.

Mr. Mandela also fostered a friendship with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, who provided arms to his African National Congress during the 1960s when it was an outlawed political party.

"Mandela was an extraordinary man," said Carlos Alberto Montaner, a Cuban based in Miami. "You can't judge him by the friends he had. You have to judge him by the incredible things he did. He went into prison as an angry Lenin, and came out as a sensible and peaceful Gandhi."

His fellow revolutionary in neighboring Zimbabwe, Mr. Mugabe, now 89, won re-election in July after a constitutional overhaul made him eligible for two more five-year terms. Mr. Mugabe has been running the country since Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980. Mr. Mugabe's security forces are widely feared after years of intimidation and violence and during his rule, Zimbabwe has gone from the breadbasket of Africa to a country with chronic food shortages and hyperinflation.

Nelson Mandela, in His Own Words
Nelson Mandela's thoughts about death, courage, oppression and more.

If I had my time over I would do the again. So would any man who dares call himself a man.

—(1962) Read more quotes

In Uganda, parliament in 2005 removed a two-term limit to allow President Yoweri Museveni to run again. In power since 1986, he has been elected to another two five-year terms since the limit was lifted. Human rights campaigners have repeatedly accused his regime of rampant corruption and of torturing dissidents. Mr. Museveni has always rejected the allegations.

"It is now coming to three decades and our president isn't even thinking of retiring," said Wafula Ogutu, an opposition lawmaker.

In a measure of how rare Mr. Mandela's political career was in Africa, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation—which awards a prize to former African heads of state who have stepped down and promoted democracy in their countries—has struggled to find worthy candidates for the award of more than $5 million. It has given it out in only three of the seven years it has existed.

South Africa's ambassador to Kenya, Ratubatsi Super Moloi, said that when he heard Mr. Mandela had died, he wondered how confident the man himself was in his legacy.

"When he died, was he sure that there were people who will continue with the ideals that he suffered for?" Mr. Moloi said on Kenyan television.

Four-thousand miles from Johannesburg, one of Africa's most celebrated singers sobbed on live television as he talked about the late civil-rights hero.

In the 1980s, during Mr. Mandela's imprisonment, Senegalese singer Youssou N'Dour recorded "Nelson Mandela," one of many songs that rallied people for his release. Years later, Mr. Mandela pulled the singer aside to thank him for the record.

"He was the image of the dignity in Africa," said Mr. N'Dour, who named one of his sons Nelson Mandela. "He represented the most beautiful side of Africa, which we just lost."

—Drew Hinshaw in Abuja, Nigeria, Nicholas Bariyo in Kampala, Uganda, and José DeCódoba in Mexico City contributed to this article.

Write to Heidi Vogt at heidi.vogt@wsj.com

I think that there have been some valid criticism of Nelson Mandela made here, and while I agree with some of them and think that he's getting a pass on a lot of it, I appreciated this perspective as well:

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/gingrich-vs-the-right-on-apartheid-what-would-you-have-done/282138/

"I think this is a fairly noteworthy statement from Newt Gingrich on Mandela's passing that should get some airing. Gingrich is addressing the rather disgraceful response to Mandela's passing that we've seen in some quarters:

Some of the people who are most opposed to oppression from Washington attack Mandela when he was opposed to oppression in his own country.
After years of preaching non-violence, using the political system, making his case as a defendant in court, Mandela resorted to violence against a government that was ruthless and violent in its suppression of free speech.

As Americans we celebrate the farmers at Lexington and Concord who used force to oppose British tyranny. We praise George Washington for spending eight years in the field fighting the British Army’s dictatorial assault on our freedom.

Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote and the Continental Congress adopted that “all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Doesn’t this apply to Nelson Mandela and his people?

Some conservatives say, ah, but he was a communist.

Actually Mandela was raised in a Methodist school, was a devout Christian, turned to communism in desperation only after South Africa was taken over by an extraordinarily racist government determined to eliminate all rights for blacks.

I would ask of his critics: where were some of these conservatives as allies against tyranny? Where were the masses of conservatives opposing Apartheid? In a desperate struggle against an overpowering government, you accept the allies you have just as Washington was grateful for a French monarchy helping him defeat the British.

I think it's important to note that Gingrich's position here is not particularly new. This is not an attempt to rewrite history, or claim someone in death whom Gingrich opposed in life. Newt Gingrich was among a cadre of conservatives who opposed the mainstream conservative stance on apartheid and ultimately helped override Reagan's unconscionable veto of sanctions. At the time, Gingrich was allied with a group of young conservatives including Vin Weber looking to challenge Republican orthodoxy on South Africa. "South Africa has been able to depend on conservatives to treat them with benign neglect," said Weber. "We served notice that, with the emerging generation of conservative leadership, that is not going to be the case."

Something else: There's a video attached to the post in which Gingrich gives his thoughts on Mandela's passing. When Gingrich compliments Mandela on his presidency he doesn't do so within the context of alleged African pathologies, but within the context of countries throughout the world. It's a textbook lessons in "How not to be racist," which is to say it is a textbook lesson in how to talk about Nelson Mandela as though he were a human being. "

My criticisms were explicitly about his presidency. I also got into the habit of bringing up Mandela's shortcoming when finding myself frequently alone in defending Boris Yeltsin.

@Ruff. I don't think anyone here is defending apartheid, I don't think it isn't even the issue. What is the issue is the hysteria surrounding Mandela given his documented history.

A key difference between the likes of Washington and Mandela is that Washington didn't advocate the indiscriminant murder of innocents, particularly children. His war was against the crown and the soldiers in uniform who came for him in battle. Mandela didn't care who he targeted, black or white, young or old, in order to achieve his objectives. The 119 charges against him prove this.

Mandela was a communist, he never ever renounced his communist leanings, he never even apologised for those he murdered.

If he were sooo communist, then why did he not rule as a communist when he came to power? He was quite democratic, yes maybe at one time but he did change, his actions proved so. and charges? charges that were dropped do not mean he was guilty of any now do they? Yes, no doubt he was guilty of some, he was a freedom fighter against apartheid. He was no saint, but he was a hero to his people and he was the right man for the job and he held together a very fractured nation. Bringing up what he did or may have done decades ago while ignoring the later part of his years is foolish. Those who wish to crown Mandella a saint are also foolish, he had a checkered past to say the least. But this big downer on him...grow up!

I have never criticized him as being Communist. I criticized him precisely for not being democratic. He ruled a one party state which has demonstrated a definite authoritarian streak in its governance virtually from the beginning. Putin in as we speak crushing the last bits of an independent media as he creates the new Russia Today television network. South Africa has never had an media independence post-Apartheid. Even Putin is less blatant about putting party functionaries into the visible top positions within the state controlled media. The ANC openly attacks opposition parties as being traitors to the state in ways that would make Putin blush.

Let us leave aside Mandela's pre-imprisonment past and speak only of what he did as a practical matter after release. What kind of a political system did he create when handed near absolute power. Power for good or ill which Yeltsin never enjoyed. That he was perhaps a Communist is only relevant in the degree to which he viewed the purpose of party structure along Communists lines.....revolutionary vanguards, etc.

Commies have always given themselves the right to "move on" from their atrocities whenever it suited. How many times have we heard the refraid it wasn't "true communism" despite the slaughter of millions. They don't really give that same forgiveness to their opponents however. We all know for example how ex-nazis were hounded into their nineties. It all part of the strategy of being as nebulous as possible. And yes, mandela was very much a part of it, right till the end.

no he wasn't!
please enlighten us how he ruled as a communist and how he was communist right to the very end.

Mandela did repeatedly state that Botha should be left alone and that he had tried to navigate a reasonable course in a tough situation and had set the stage for de Klerk. I do not think that the desire see ex-Nazis "hounded into their nineties," is a singular trait of the Communists.

There are m any differences between Washington. I'm not equating the two by any means. I'm saying that there are valid comparisons, and there are, most specifically when he could have called himself a king, and walked away after a short term in power while embracing his political rivals in his government. I'm not defending the terrorist actions of the ANC or suggesting that he should not have been imprisoned in the first place. I'm also suggesting that he turned to the communists for help rather than for political agenda. He wasn't perfect, and the hype over him is racially tinged for sure. But the man's elevation to the pantheon of world leaders is because of how he handled power once he had it, and that is worthy of notice and celebration