Necklacing: Placing a tire around someone's neck, filling it with gasoline and setting it ablaze.
Only a Stalinesque "useful idiot" would offer any amount of praise on that piece of satanic trash.
"THE ONLY GOOD COMMUNIST IS A DEAD COMMUNIST"
Posted on 12/27/2021 2:27:31 AM PST by Kaslin
Bishop Desmond Tutu, the South African bishop known for his fight to end apartheid is being universally lauded. I do not share that sentiment. While I will certainly acknowledge that he was a warrior against one of the great evils of his time, I believe that, on the scales of goodness, he squandered that moral virtue by being an ardent advocate of anti-Semitism and an enemy to Israel.
Over the years, I’ve found philo-Semitism and anti-Semitism to be very good yardsticks of both nations and people. Regarding the former, it’s no coincidence that, throughout history, those nations that thrive are, for their time and place, philo-Semitic, while those that fail are anti-Semitic. One can say that this is God’s will or one can note that free societies benefit all citizens and part of a free society is that it leaves its Jews alone. You don’t have to love Jews, you just have to leave them be. Totalitarian societies, on the other hand, the ones that oppress their people, invariably hate their Jews and use them as a scapegoat to distract the masses from the horrors of the regime.
When it comes to anti-Semitism, the same turns out to be true: Totalitarian individuals hate Jews; freedom-oriented people don’t. I happen to believe that this is because the Torah stands for absolute moral truths, justice, and a reckoning in the afterlife. Totalitarians oppose all those things.
This doesn’t mean that individual Jews are all moral, just, or will be rewarded in the afterlife. There have been and still are a lot of Jews who are bad people. Still, symbolically, those core virtues are Jewish ideas and leftists back away from them like slugs from salt or vampires from the cross.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Tutu was a proponent of the tire necklace.
I am not taking a position on His Grace. I am taking a position on this man's idiocy. First, the Jews are not the only Semitic people in the world and so philo-Semitism is not a distinguishing thing. Second, the man's mind swings on a hinge. It's either pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish, and there is a lot else at play in the world.
That Tutu was anti-Semitic is not a good look if that is true.
And I support Israel's right to democratic self-determination and right to self-defense. Strongly.
But I am not going to read what is written by a person who engages in one-dimensional reasoning when the world plays 17 degree chess.
We should have been natural allies with Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh, but instead, we decided to support the continuation of colonialism. We had a hard time decided to like countries that just wanted to go their own way and fell into a huge area in choosing Pakistan over India because Nehru wanted to go a 3rd way in the world.
If containing atheistic communism is a primary goal, I suspect any Islamic state is a more reliable ally than a socialist Hindu state. India wanted to play both sides off against each other, and they’ve paid a price for that. The non-aligned states they led offer little at this point; instead they export workers to the West. In the meantime, they have to maintain ageing Soviet-bloc weapons while replacing them with newer US-made technology. Historically and culturally, we have no real relationship with India except that both are former British colonies with only a common language.
As I understand it, our support of the French was primarily to contain communism; supporting colonialism was just part of the deal.
The Soviets forced de-colonialization to happen way before it should have, it should have been gradually phased in. But they way it was done, Britain and France just basically said, “Ok, good luck with all that”, and left.
Britain prepared their colonies for independence much better than other colonizers (and I’m no fan of Britain); they usually left the civil service fully in the hands of the natives, so they functioned better than other former colonies after the Europeans left. They also didn’t get involved in prolonged wars to hold onto them; while they had the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya and the Malaya and Aden “emergencies”, it was understood that they were leaving, and they kept positive relations with the former colonies via the Commonwealth.
France and Portugal left their former colonies in much worse shape (after fighting wars to keep them), and most of those new countries are still shitholes today. Who visits Angola or Algeria today?
I don’t believe any colonial power wanted to “gradually phase in” independence; Britain just understood that after WWII they could never hold onto them. The Third world had watched an Asian power humble Britain, France, and Holland, and there were weapons EVERYWHERE.
And Ho turned communist because we supported French colonialism.
He turned communist because nobody else (including us) would help against the French; he was communist before we ever got involved (even in “the French War”). Prior to that, we helped him fight the Japanese.
Necklacing: Placing a tire around someone's neck, filling it with gasoline and setting it ablaze.
Only a Stalinesque "useful idiot" would offer any amount of praise on that piece of satanic trash.
"THE ONLY GOOD COMMUNIST IS A DEAD COMMUNIST"
I am am with you and could care less that Tutu had kicked the bucket.
RE: Was South Africa better off BT (Before Tutu)?
Or is South Africa better off now, AT?
_________________
Heck, South Africa was already bad and becoming worse DT ( During Tutu ).
A guy who was second in importance only to Nelson Mandela in the destruction of a functioning first world country ON the African continent WITH a large majority of black Africans into the disaster it is today (a "warrior against one of the great evils of his time") doesn't deserve to be disparaged for ruining his country, but rather for his views on foreign policy?
Let’s just say that I had PLENTY of reason for expecting him to be TERRIBLE. I’m not sure of the context of that image, but as a point of fact, Mandela was NOT part of the South African Communist Party. (And he doesn’t look thrilled with the banner behind him.) It was not until 2004 that the ANC identified as Social Democratic Party, and during the Mandela rule, the ANC was frequently called a neo-liberal (what Americans call conservative; free-market) party.
My best guess is that image is the product of some of the negotiations which led to the SACP agreeing not to split the black vote by running candidates against Mandela.
Given the 90% poverty rate and the complete disenfranchisement of the 80%+ of the population, it takes massive balls to call Apartheid South Africa “a functioning, first-world country.”
Nice try, commie propagandist.
I always though Tutu was a wolf in clerics clothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.