The Legacy of Nelson Mandela and the South African Revolution: Is America About to Fall Prey to Apartheid-Style Subjugation at the Hands of Islamic-Fascism?

Is America About to Fall Prey to Apartheid-Style Subjugation at the Hands of Islamic-Fascism?

On Thursday, December 5, 2013, Nelson Mandela, the popularly-acknowledged father of modern South Africa, passed onto the annals of Eternity from the cold, harsh realm so brutally characterized of the flesh. His greatest legacy is his decades-long struggle to subvert the minority sovereignty of the Afrikaners who through their formation of the National Party, implemented into law in 1948 the scourge of that nation where three-quarters of the population held no claim to a natural right insured by the government in accordance to the law of nature in the policy known as Apartheid. As the world mourns the passing of the charismatic enigma who was the universally-beloved Madiba in post-Apartheid South Africa, one wonders what his lasting legacy will beget to those who are to comprise of the future generations of the world's population. In attempting to correlate the struggles wrought upon South Africa by the governing minority Afrikaner white elitists with those of other areas of the civilized world, I will begin this multi-part series of commentaries by discussing how the situation in the Middle East is perceived from one perspective of the Jewish state of Israel to the other in the Islamic confederation of nation-states comprised of the Arab League and Iran; and furthermore, the reality of the rapid rise of the worldwide Nation of Islam and the prospect behind the rise of a new caliphate, and ultimate how the rest of the world will react to such a change from the status quo ante.

The Conflict Between the Islamic Confederation of the Arab League and Iran vs. the Jewish State of Israel

(Can political scientists irrefutably describe the situation amid the tensions between the Jewish majority within Israel and those of the Palestinian minority comprised primary of Muslims as being tantamount to the classical characteristics of the conditions normally descriptive of Apartheid?)

The population of Israel as of September 2013 on Rosh Hashanah stood at approximately 8,081,000. The Arab League of 22 nation-states and territories advocating the nationalist culture and policies encompassing Islamic law (Sharia) in many cases is populated by approximately 422 million people, with over half under 25 years of age. There is a gross inequity in terms of the manpower of one nationality (Arab League) over that of the other (Israel) when you consider that based upon its awesome size in both land area and population, it is essentially a confederation of nations which lean upon the legitimacy of Islam to position itself favorably against the Israeli government whom the Arab League considers to be an apparatus of infidels subverting the will of Allah and His Prophet Muhammad. The greatest mistake ever made in this scenario might have been in its initial manifestation: the forced endeavor by the United Nations, spearheaded by President Harry S. Truman in 1948, to establish a Jewish state out of deference to the massacre of millions during the Holocaust under Hitler's regime. When one considers that within 11 minutes of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 that Truman authorized the U.S. to be the first nation to recognize its sovereignty without making overtures to consulting members of the Arab states within the region who considered this act a breach upon its pan-religious sovereignty as it is to them in violation of Koranic law (again, Sharia), it was a matter of "when" and not "if" there would be the manifestation of a constant state of war between the smaller Jewish state of Israel and a Pan-Arabic alliance committed to wiping Israel off the face of the earth. For the Jews who first settled in the old Holy Land of Judaism, it traded one form of Fascism (Nazism) for another more dangerous version based upon a religious dogma in the name of jihad (Islam). When a far larger population of an ethnicity seeks to commit genocide of a whole religious ethnicity of people as the Jews of Israel based upon its own religious doctrine lending it not simply its own legitimacy for its actions, but the commandment of its supreme deity (Allah), there can be no other end than one of catastrophic implications. However, the ultimate ubiquitous threat resides within the small segment of the Israeli population of Muslims which seek to kill all who are found in violation of Allah and His Prophet Muhammad as well as the artificially demarcated territories in a constant state of flux since the boundaries are always altered between conflicts.

Depending upon your perspective, "freedom fighters" can be ideological demagogues who wage war to liberate its people in order to spread peace across its legions of supporters; in the case of the United States government's definition of such individuals as are descriptive of our Founding Fathers and the patriots who fought the war against Britain, they are classified by the Department of Defense as "terrorists" and "extremists." To Islamic fundamentalists, however, peace can only be achieved by the application of the sword if one does not pledge a vow to Allah's sovereignty; and yet, if this is true, does this not imply that logically-speaking, the militant organizations such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the de facto governing army Hezbollah of Lebanon are all "terrorists" and "extremists" as well based upon a religion grounded in fascist characteristics seeking to annihilate an entire religion based upon the prejudices within Koranic doctrine? When these Islamic fundamentalists who comprise of a minority of the Israeli population seek to voice their dissent against the legitimacy of a Jewish government by conducting covert operations by the use of suicide bombers and political assassinations, what do you expect the Israeli government officials to do? Would you simply have them to sit by idly while these subversives of the general will slaughter a nation of millions of Jews all because it is being conducted under the guise of social justice in the name of religious dogma? That is tantamount to what I see when I read of the lurid history of the Afrikaners, who comprise(d) of less than a quarter of the population of South Africa, did when the National Party instituted Apartheid in 1948. The rule of law should always lean in favor of those comprised of the majority of the population in both sentiment and in terms of culture and yet take care in acknowledging the rights of those in the minority, and that was not the case during Apartheid-era South Africa, nor is it the case today in Israel today when the minority sect of the population comprised of Islamic fundamentalists is slaughtering as many Jews and other ethnic and religious peoples declared by them to be infidels in violation of Sharia law as they possibly can. The Israeli citizens of 2013 are not the same social refugees who emigrated to the Holy Land in the mid-1940's upon the U.N. granting it territory; and you therefore cannot accuse them of being guilty of subverting the general will of the Pan-Arabic state as a result. The bottom line is this: What is good for the goose is most certainly good for the gander; and if you wish as a minority sect of "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" -- the choice in nomenclature is yours alone -- to commit genocide by slaughtering scores of Israeli citizens who lend their consent to the legitimacy of the common law system of the Basic Laws of Israel which are heavily-laden with religious Talmudic principles and yet it takes care in legally recognizing the Muslim sect as a religious community, it therefore is indicative of nothing more than these fundamentalists seeking to wipe out all infidels and to coalesce the nations comprising the Arab League into forming at least a region-wide hegemony governed by Sharia, known as the caliphate. The last caliphate died with the Ottoman Empire's collapse in 1924; I suspect that there may be one day another uprising to establish a new one now that the Arab Spring has been in place since December 10, 2010, since every nation which has been toppled ultimately has reverted to a government of elected officials who then stake sovereignty not on the general will of the electorate, but based of Sharia. It is interesting to me that President Obama has completely alienated the Israeli government in favor of championing the Islamic world of the Arab League and Iran. My suspicions are quickly transforming into fears.

No individual or copious demographics of diverse peoples should ever be discriminated against. But then again, just who are we stating is most guilty of the perceived discrimination with the politically-defined borders of the Jewish state of Israel? Can you blame the Jewish population of Israel for feeling paranoid when the main source of the mass attacks on the religious and ethnic majority of the population, again Jewish, are Islamic fundamentalists who comprise predominantly of ethnic Arabs? There is no confusion as to whom or what the Jewish peoples of Israel fear when it comes to the daily question of their very survival since this is, indeed, the case. Our society through the screams of civil rights activists and left-wing demagogues speaks ill of those who perpetuate stereotypes, but I have learned throughout my life that with every stereotype, there is usually a grain or more of truth behind the details; ergo, there are always two sides to every story. Furthermore, how does one embark upon discerning one Muslim from another who each reside within the confederation of the Arab League, which as you asserted is separate from the large representation of Muslims residing in the Balkan Peninsula where the secular authoritarian government under Slobodan Milošević engaged in the ethnic cleansing of the ethnic Albanian Muslims? In the Middle East, there are very close physical resemblances with slight variations from one nationality to another within the Arab League of nations of those comprised within the Arabic ethnic demographic, and nearly all of those nationalities -- Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, etc., -- which are experiencing some extreme of the Arab Spring phenomena are falling prey to the trend that so many revolutions have followed that led from one lesser form of tyranny to another that is worse. If your assertion that most Muslims adhere to the concept that Islam is a religion of peace, why then do they turn a deferential eye to the atrocities committed by those who are declared to be part of a violent fundamentalist minority who are literally following the verses within the Koran to the very letter in accordance to Sharia law? The only known form of peace through the manifestation of a society of equity for Islamic fundamentalists is through the coercion of the citizens of a nation of infidels to either convert or be forced to live in a permanent state of subjugation under Islamic domination, and therefore all are equal under the rule of Sharia, including the brutal consequences those found guilty of violating Allah's teachings will be forced to suffer. (An interesting series of Koranic verses to read can be found here, though I am sure some who read this will simply state that I am using a source with an agenda against the Islamic faith when in fact, these are actual verses from within The Koran's texts courtesy of the article on Islam and Forced Conversion article on the webpage titled The Religion of Peace.) Perhaps those who truly adhere to the peaceful principles of Islam sincerely believe it to be a religion of peace, but the jihadists who have carried out these attacks against those considered to be infidels have killed approximately 270 million over the history of the religion, and those among the declared infidel ranks in a nation have every right to fear Muslims if the peaceful ones are complicit in ignoring atrocities committed by the perceived minority which ultimately are becoming the sovereign leaders in the Islamic state of the Middle East during the Arab Spring. (See Tears of Jihad, courtesy of the webpage "Political Islam.")

Conclusion: A Dire Warning for Future Generations of Desperate Citizens Seeking to Subvert the Legitimacy their Current Tyrants in Order to Replace It with One Not Guaranteed to Not Be Worse than the Predecessors

If a national identity of peoples are to fight a revolution on the grounds of liberty, equality, and fraternity, what does one predicate the premises behind what that equality is to entail? Does it mean that all people are equal under the rule of law as pertaining to what the Islamic fundamentalists believe to be achieved not through the voluntary consent of the governed, but rather through the deceptive art of murana or forcible coercion? In Revolutionary France (1789-99), the mantra used to rally the masses to subvert the Bourbon monarchy was one of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" for all the French people, and the movement was initiated by a relatively benign method in comparison to what would come later of a mob of sans culottes storming the Bastille prison where debtors and political prisoners were jailed. The revolution evolved into a virtual collective anarchy upon one coup d'tat in Maxmillien Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety who initiated the infamous Reign of Terror (1793-95) which led to the deaths of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of French citizens and partisan revolutionaries alike yet another, which also derived its legitimacy from the mythical power of a finite entity sans the essential supernatural or metaphysical qualities to unite the people under a set of moral standards by which the population could generally agree as its uniformity amid a cultural norm. It happened again in 1795 with the rise of the Directory, which executed the previous despotic governing body (again, the Committee of Public Safety and Robespierre) when it condemned those oligarchs to the guillotine just as deposed victims had done so with the Bourbon family in 1793. In the end, a feudalistic system which begat inequities between the three Estates under the divine right of kings transferred into two subsequent ones which were predicated upon atheist principles, only to conclude in 1799 when the obscure Corsican general Napoleon Bonaparte seized power by throwing his own coup d'tat and establishing his hegemony over most of continental Europe by spreading the ideals of the French Revolution, while consolidating an imperial monarchy which restored aspects of the deposed Ancien Régime. In summation, the French Revolution was a ten year roller coaster ride from one form of imperial monarchy to another one founded upon the coup of 18 Brumaire which installed the Consulate and, in essence, manifested a French society governed by a military dictator (again, Napoleon Bonaparte) under the new Constitution of the Year VIII that was approved in a plebiscite held the following January, with 99.94 percent officially listed as voting "yes" -- which no doubt was fraudulently manipulated. Napoleon was bent upon dominating the peoples of the European continent and spread his self-manifestation of legitimacy by a conquest for empire. To make it appear as if his power was derived in accordance to divine right, the irony is that there was no democracy of a to truly lend nor deny him consent other than the coercion to cede their sovereignty to Napoleon I, the new Emperor of the French Empire, whose legitimacy was acquired by political intrigue as he summoned Pope Pius VII to his coronation in 1804 in what became a rather bizarre ceremony where Napoleon seized the crown from the pontiff and placed it upon his own head. Power is intoxicating, no matter the source of the hegemons' claim(s) legitimacy. 

What do all of these tumultuous conflicts have in common? Well, nearly every revolution which has ever been fought for and won throughout the past 238 years has been spearheaded most aggressively by a loud minority whose bellicose cries and saber-rattling led to the conquest of the old order and the implementation of a new one which was nearly always more brutal and totalitarian or authoritarian in nature. The leftist revolutions in Russia, China, and others under the concept the U.S. termed to be the "Domino Theory" of Communism's global spread were conducted by a small faction of political ideologues classified as members of an intellectual elite who believed that they were so enlightened as to know what was best for the general welfare of the public better than did the actual citizens, and their ideas of absolute equity under the rule of law -- and it was always absolute equity they promised -- appealed to the uneducated, unenlightened masses. When the people would finally rally behind these enigmatic, charismatic demagogues upon their movement gaining strength, the tide of populist sentiment crushed the opposition of the old imperialist guard, and in its wake would transfer its consent over to a new government promising to create a Utopian society of peace achieved through all being equal under the rule of the new oligarchy, this one being the intellectual elitist/ideologues who issued the guarantees for liberation. Unfortunately, Lord Acton was all too correct when he stated that "absolute power corrupts absolute," and no matter what the source of legitimacy is in how a politician stakes claim to its legitimacy, the truth, however inconvenient when an educated elitist attempts to intellectualize how to solve a social conundrum, can always be manipulated in order to serve the best interests of the rulers in power at the detriment nearly always of the people. Rousseau stated that might does not always make right, but if that is the case, what is right to those who have shanghaied the general will of the people into lending popular consent to the new ruling apparatus in power is ultimately always right in its absolutism over all regardless of what is truly just since in the world of politics, the ends will always be justified by the means per Machiavellian principles of wielding power in terms of what for them is politically expedient since the people who fought the revolution to accord them their consent to the rulers' legitimacy to govern will have tacitly agreed to these measures through their social contract; ergo, they are contractually bound to adhere to the terms of their acquired freedom from the previous masters, according to Rousseau. And as Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in followers in the world, the dilemma then becomes as to how the world will reconcile this emerging colossus of faith should the popularly-acknowledged minority of the religion, the fundamentalist-jihadists, continue to serve as the face of an entire religion in which the fear of its violent history is to be both legitimate and justifiable in terms of the threats posed to the peace and stability of the status quo ante.

In the case of a desperate people seeking liberation from a despotic governing apparatus, the prevailing wisdom should always be the following: a people should always take great care amid caution in considering to whom it chooses to lend its consent, for if the subjugated peoples are too desperate, the figure who offers to liberate them if they should choose to support it in return for the abdication of their sovereignty as a collective of individuals living according to one of a long- established standard of universal mores will do so at the cost of their own dignity, salvation, but ultimately, the stilling of the heartbeat of a once harmonious social conscience since their old core beliefs will no longer be legally acceptable and the liberty for which they fought to attain will have been a mirage amid the blood on their hands and the deception will have begat their self-inflicted doom due to their naïveté.