Skip to content

modest formal wears for lds and mormon




"By a political party is meant an organized grouping of individuals for the attainment of a political goal

Our great error as people, is , that we put an idolatrous trust in free institutions; as if these, by same magic power, must secure our rights, however we enslave to evil passions.

We need to learn that forms of liberty are not its essence; that whilst the letter of a free institution is preserved, its spirit may be lost; that even its wises provisions and most guarded powers may be made weapons of tyranny.

In a country called free, a majority may become a faction, and a proscribed authority may be insulted, robbed and oppressed. Under elective governments, a dominant party may become as truly a usurper, and as treasonably conspire against the state, as an individual who forces his way by arms to the throne". modest formal wears for lds and mormon

"A man would not be a man if he was alone in the world than a hand would be a hand without the rest of the body".

"To say, of course, that parties are natural is not to say that they are perfect.

They suffer from all the evils of group separatism. The distort the issues that they create.

They produce divisions in the electorate which very superficially represent the way in which opinion is in fact distributed.

They secure, at best, an incomplete and compromising loyalty. The falsify the perspective of the issues they create.

They build about persons allegiance which should go to ideas.

They build upon the unconscious and they force the judgment of man into the service of the prejudice. Yet, when the last criticism of party has been made, the service they render to a democratic State are inestimable.

They prevent popular vagaries from driving their way to the statute-book.

They are the most solid obstacle we have against the Caesarism"

"First it was the Nationalist Party'

"Our mighty beloved ANC government perpetuate the same antagonism to us".

"Who own South Africa"?

Looking at from outside, it appears to mean an emotional solidarity of common interest with little foundation in critical or purposeful thinking.

Psychologically, the concept is muddled and vague and apparently describes a drawing together of those who "belong" by some act of irrational volition, as though there were no mutual antagonisms.

Politically, it contains more of sentiment than of realism. Does it mean having the same ideology? In that event, it would mean those who think alike and would be a mere variation of birds of a feather flock together.

There is within it an implicit distinction between "community" and the society" The one is intimate and exclusive, "belonging together"; the other is open and inclusive, "working together" the action for a common purpose becoming the binding factor.

The community has commonality of language, outlook.

The society is a form of working together in which a theory of organized relationships and of rationality have gained pre-dominance as the motivating agents

The means are rationally determined by the ends, as in seeking prosperity, economic advance and the betterment of the individual by the improvement of the Whole.

This gives a glimpse of the deeper level on which the two major political partied divide as well as of the differences in which those divisions are rooted.

It explains, in a preliminary and general way, why the division is only ostensibly on racial and linguistic lines.

Through it we can plainly seen that although the conflict between Black and White aspirations remain real, the clash is not caused by some essential incompatibility, by history nor by arrogance on the one side and obscurantism on the other. It arises from the difference in the order of values.

A slightly fuddled awareness of this underlying truth has let to suggestions that the difference are of such a nature that the triumph of one side would inevitably mean the obliterations of the other.

As a Pan Africanist we know the existing conflict are not only power struggle which can be resolved by coalition or coalescence, but is a "struggle to the death".

This country's sectional political struggle is not and never will be decisive. So the question is "to which South Africa is seeking an answer is not which party shall rule.

It is: what type of social relationship shall be the dominant in the organization of a political regime-"That is the overriding question.

Purely technical political formulas such as republic or monarchy, federal or centralized government, bicameral or unicameral legislatures, apartheid or racial federation are minor issues.

If racial separation were carried to the point of physical and geographical partition, the relationship between the separate entities would still have to be decided, although it would then no longer be entirely in the hands of one side.

Clearly the struggle of South Africa has been to the death also misinterprets the nature of our difference and the character of our respective organizations.

If the basis of Nationalist was changed from political principle to that of "belonging together", the results would not be an order but a hodgepodge.

The concepts founded on "volk; and volkswill" are not genuinely political and are, indeed, politically suspect. Their basis are indefinable an unknowable.

Who owns AFRICA?