25 votes

Why was Cruz memorializing a Communist?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/cruz-says-he-wa...

Ted Cruz walked out of the Mandela memorial service when Raul Castro began to speak.
Good for him. But didn't he know that Mandela was also a part of the Communist party in South Africa?
Better to have boycotted the whole affair than hobnob with Commies.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/15888-s...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SteveMT's picture

Relativism versus absolutism: There's a big difference.

Machiavelli: The end justifies the means
In other words: to make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs.

Cruz is a relativist & Mandela was a relativist. They believe the above phrases as the truth, their truth, because they both have long-term agendas. Mandela's relativism was to kill some people earlier to save more later on. The last time I checked, there is no statute of limitations for murder. Cruz's relativism is to look presidential now and use that political capital later on. Cruz attends an international event to appear presidential, and by his walking-out gesture, he just won the state of Florida. Only 49 more states to go. By contrast, Obama shakes hands with Raul Castro because he has no more elections to win (hopefully, not) and he will shake anyone's hand these days who is willing to do so rather that bow to them. Obama has bowed-down eight times as POTUS,
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/06/20/obama-bowed-eigh...
and he won't be doing that anymore for the same reason that there are no more elections to win.

REALLY do try to think, otherwise better to remain silent .....

Trying to argue Mandela is a hard core proven Marxist-communist is no different then arguing that the founding fathers of America are monarchist, for the assistance and support they successfully solicited from France.

Claiming Mandela to be a communist only shows a person’s lack of depth in critical thinking (thinking from themselves v. being fed by the media), a very un-libertarian approach. I know why it is very hard to be a neutral person and see things with a rigorous intellect - requires to much effort. So we bail out and take easier path of being opinionated without a sound foundation, it is human trait that comes readily. Who really wants to make an effort to really think?

Mandela at his core (even if he is claimed to be a card carrying communist), never practiced it as he was to independent minded to be boxed into any "isms". The proof is in the pudding, he was never even charged in court for being as such. His sworn testimony and famous speech he gave in court made it clear of his objectives.

But then again what would his detractor's know about his character, they never made an effort to understand him, darker yet there is often an agenda behind their attack.

Wait a minute

So are you going to base rigorous thought on facts?

I said that Mandela was a communist. He wrote a book on how to be a good communist. He belonged to a couple of communist organizations. He received aid from communist countries. Would you dispute this?

See my response to Steve below.........

life is much more grey and the lines less refined then we make it to be. If you understood in what the context the the document was written you would have easily seen how such evidence is meaningless.

As for him getting support from the left, any freedom loving person in his position would have done the same, as the ultimate cause he was fighting for was the freedom of his people. The west failure (champions of so called freedom)to support his cause forced him him to seek the support of the left. The reckless violence perpetrated by the Apartheid regime on a defenseless people had to be dealt with.

You should know better, what did the founding fathers of this nation themselves do? They were fighting a monarch and yet they went to the French! If one was to take your line of thinking on Mandela then the founding fathers are nothing but monarchists.

SteveMT's picture

Alternate universes over here, reality over here.

How to be a good communist
by Nelson Mandela
Text of the handwritten Manuscript:
HOW TO BE A GOOD COMMUNIST
by Nelson Mandela
http://nelsonmandela.tk/?p=5

Thanks for that link.

You exactly reinforce my point. ...........

Presenting such evidence only magnifies your lack of critical thinking. If you were to do a thesis arguing your position with such a document, you would be outright ridiculed in any academic review. It does not even meet the minimum requirement of context.

But since you already have preconceived ideas without any factual basis, anything that comes along the way to supposedly support your false premise is readily taken in as evidence, without any effort of rigorous critique.

Had you been at the very least familiar with the work of Tome Lodge or even “Long walk to Freedom”, you would have at the very least some context.

It is as if I were to argue that Thomas Jefferson is nothing but a slave owner and only a slave owner, even though he truly is. While failing to see the other qualities of the man and contributions he has made. I would be called a myopic extremist.

It is as I have said before the Rivonia Trials (look it up, if you are not familiar – it is the minimum you should know before writing any discourse on Mandela), never charged Mandela in the context of being a “communist” saboteur. That should at the very least throw a wrench in the view supporting him being a diehard Marxist.

Bravo. Fantastic post!

Bravo. Fantastic post!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

all expense paid

round trip, oh yea daddy, see Africa, eat pudding .....

Why would Liberals ridicule

Why would Liberals ridicule Ted Cruz and then come on the DP to chastize him for eulogizing a Communist?

What would Liberals stand to gain in all their silliness and spin? How would they use such Headlines later on say ....MSNBC?

Be Your Own Media!!!

By the way, I think there is

By the way, I think there is a strong case to be made that Mandela allied with the communists because no one else offered him help. Hell, Reagan spurned Mandela and refused to acknowledge apartheid as an evil.

Once Mandela became President, he shrank the government budget deficit and kept government spending flat even in nominal terms. Hardly the makings of a marxist.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

SteveMT's picture

So Nelson had to go over to the "Dark Side," but he returned!

He retained his soul during his time on the dark side, and he did this because there was no other way ..... TO MOVE HIS AGENDA FORWARD. You are not only a medical doctor, you are also a great spin-doctor.

Nothing different from what

Nothing different from what Jefferson or Goldwater did. Jefferson compromised with the federalists to pass a Constitution. He supported slavery to get the Southern states on board. Goldwater put states' rights above individual rights of African-Americans. He suspended his pro-peace beliefs to attack communism across the world.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

SteveMT's picture

You don't see a moral difference with killing innocence.

I do. Jefferson planned the killing of British men who got in a boat to come to the States with the idea to kill us. There were no women or children on board. Mandela specifically targeted civilians. You believe that the killing of innocence is the same as Jefferson wanting British soldiers dead. There is a big difference.

Firstly, there is no evidence

Firstly, there is no evidence that Mandela specifically targeted civilians. There is not even any evidence that Mandela planned the attacks. He did not plead guilty to the acts of terrorism/disturbing the peace...you can look at your own transcripts.

The South African government merely took 153 acts of terrorism (including such acts as cutting telephone wire) committed in a five-year-span, and blamed all of them on Mandela and the other nine on trial.

While they could directly substantiate was that:

1) Mandela and his AFC members promoted communism
2) Had reached out to and received aid from the Soviet Union
3) planned to replace the South African government
4) Openly called for violent revolution (Mandela specifically saying that non-violence was no longer working).

No actual evidence that Mandela took part in or planned any attacks.

Also, Jefferson and the other founding fathers specifically targeted Loyalists...these loyalists were simply civilians.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I am confused by your comments.

Do you view communism as inherently evil or not?

Absolutism is fantastic,

Absolutism is fantastic, eh?

I think communism is a bad idea. I don't think that anyone who supports or supported it is automatically evil.

I also think segregation is a bad idea, and that slavery is inherently evil. However, that doesn't mean that anyone who supports or supported it is automatically evil.

I assume you consider Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater pure evil. After all, Jefferson endorsed slavery and Goldwater segregation. If you don't consider them evil, you must support slavery and segregation.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I did not ask if communists were evil.

I did not say Mandela or Castro were evil.

You say that slavery is evil but communism is just a "bad idea?" So what is the difference between slavery and communism?

Maybe Mandela did not go all out Mao style commie. But communism, as an idea and as a system, is such an extreme threat to freedom that I believe that it is dangerous to glorify any of its adherents.

Besides, this is America. Why should the peaceful death of any foreign leader cause our flag to fly half mast over the White House? I think there is a bigger picture here that is very disconcerting.
;

The difference to me is, that

The difference to me is, that it is possible to be young and ignorant, especially in the 60s, before really seeing the evil of communism first hand, to praise and support communism. Supporting slavery on the other hand...well, you have to be really, really ignorant to support it...and Jefferson was a man who was very familiar with the concepts of liberty and freedom. Mandela was not an economist...and again, he repeatedly said that he favored the communist belief in equality, while supporting a free market economy.

Whatever you say about Mandela and communism, you can say about Jefferson and slavery...except that Jefferson was an "all out" slaver like Mao was an all-out commie. So I assume you think that all $2 bills should be destroyed, and anyone who praises Jefferson is being very dangerous.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

SteveMT's picture

You also would be a good advocate for the devil.

Jefferson and Goldwater never killed anyone to my knowledge. Mandela did kill, like the other totalitarians have killed. You brush this aside without a second thought. You would argue that the devil is not always bad. He was my friend sometimes so that doesn't make him all bad either. Chairman Mao helped people sometimes also. He was not pure evil, correct? Absolutism versus relativism. Your can justify anything with thinking like that.

Mandela did not personally

Mandela did not personally kill anyone as far as I know. He just planned attacks. Just like Jefferson planned attacks under the revolution. Goldwater advocated the use of the nuclear bomb against vietnam, and did fight in WWII (though I do not know if he killed anybody).

In any case, Jefferson especially supported some completely horrendous policies. That doesn't detract from all the good he has done. Goldwater supported segregation on the basis of states' rights. Yet both are considered heroes around here.

If you think that Mandela is comparable to Mao and the devil, then you must agree that Jefferson and Goldwater are also comparable to the devil. So anyone who defends any of those people must be an advocate of evil.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

SteveMT's picture

So why is Charles Manson in jail? He killed no one.

He just planned the attacks. You are very selective in your comparisons.

I enjoy these insightful comparisons,

but to fully engage them let's also compare their goals, their intent. If we are to judge, let's take it a bit further. Beyond sorting out who killed and who merely abetted, let's take into account the integrity of their aims.

We are inherently selective in our comparisons.

oh, by the way
...FREE CHARLES! ;D

SteveMT's picture

Both Manson and Mandela were terrorists.

Their goals were very similar. Their intent was to terrorize THE CIVILIAN POPULATION. However, Mandela's goals were on a country-wide scale and Manson's goals was more localized, although he would have expanded his operation if he had had the means and the time to do so. Both never directly killed anyone, but they both gave the orders for their minions to kill. Manson's gang used guns and knives while Mandela liked bombs. They both targeted innocents. If Manson is released, perhaps he will also become someone to venerate and respect, like Mandela. We've got to give Charlie a chance to do the right thing. He did far less killing than Mandela. Hey, how about Charlie Manson for president! He may be an extremely good debater, and we already know all about his world-renowned charisma. I've seen that he also has a special way with the ladies, who will certainly be needed to win an election.

Your selective comparison is

Your selective comparison is well stated.

SteveMT's picture

You know that John, and I know that, but they don't.

I guess they have selective reading skill abilities when making a 'selective comparison' that fits.

Cause he's a dang muppet, that's why!

http://www.dailypaul.com/301185/is-us-senator-ted-cruz-a-muppet

I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by pandas starving hysterical naked

-Allen Ginsberg

Nelson Manela is communisims

cleverest make over.

Why did Ron Paul praise a

Why did Ron Paul praise a racist slavist (Jefferson)?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Ted Cruz only went to the

Ted Cruz only went to the memorial service so that he could get media attention for walking out when Raul Castro spoke. There's nothing more too it... It was nothing but a "look at me I have integrity" play for the media. The irony there is pretty blatant. Ted Cruz is a con-man. He's just another stupid Republican that wants to regulate your social life (gay marriage), what you put into your body (he shows no signs of wanting to end the drug war), doesn't speak out on NSA spying and seems to be pretty hawkish when it comes to Iran and war in general. So the guy is really against Obamacare... Great! So is every Republican... The guy is a demagogue preacher-type politician. He's not to be trusted. He's in this for nothing more than personal ambition.