The Mandela Hoax
by Aida Parker
(Published in The Aida Parker Newsletter, Issue No. 168, October/November 1993. This was just months before Nelson Mandela swept to victory as president of SA, after years of intimidation and murder and terrorism committed by his ANC, and a massively rigged election)
If ever we needed proof that the world is suffering from some form of collective dementia, the (shared) award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Nelson Mandela is it. Oh, yes. We fully accept that this was a natural, coming as it did from the Scandinavians who, along with the Americans, have laboured long and hard to force revolutionary socialism on SA. They, Norway and Sweden alike, have invested hundreds of millions in the ANC/SACP: inevitably, they wanted to make sure their investment paid off… that, come next May, their candidate would become SA’s first Black President.
Like many others among his international admirers, the liberals in Oslo obviously did not want to be troubled with any of the less admirable facts about their hero. But this is our future we are talking about, so it behoves us to study the ANC’s No 1 very carefully indeed, to take some of the stern realities about the one-sided worship into sober account.
Persistent Folk Hero
Mandela is presented to the world as a “man of reconciliation,” as “essentially moderate,” a man of “special discernment,” a “courageous freedom fighter.” He has been variously compared to Moses, George Washington, Martin Luther King: even, by the fatuous Jesse Jackson, to Jesus Christ. Well, is he the historic figure so widely advertised?
Okay. We do agree that Mandela, one of the most persistent folk heroes of our time, projects pretty well, far better indeed than his White co-Laureate. Sartorially, he is impeccable. Personable and glib, he undoubtedly has style. A consummate actor, he has like many other former African terrorist leaders before him assumed the grand air of an old-style British gentleman. The Americans, not exactly kings of social discernment, invariably depict him as “tall and stately,” of “patrician bearing.” Maybe he is: until you look into his machine gun eyes.
In a world hungry for heroes, few men in all history have been so mythologised, myth heaped on myth. Still, at some time in our lives we have to look into a cold mirror and see the hard facts. It is time that someone called Mandela’s bluff, that we take note of the alarming facts… facts which our Scandinavian friends chose to ignore when awarding what is hyped as “one of the world’s highest honours.”
Mandela long ago made some very serious mistakes: tactical mistakes, and never mind the morality. First and most important was his early decision to ally the ANC with the tiny, Stalinist, unrepresentative and dogmatic SA Communist Party, a move guaranteed sooner or later to sink this country into self-destruction. The SACP’s goal has never been democracy or human rights. It has always sought to exploit Black nationalism in order to create revolution in SA. Joe Slovo knows that, and said so in Luanda in 1985: that the Marxist/Leninist revolution could “only be won under the banner of the ANC.”
Led by the Nose
Mandela has consistently denied that he is, or ever was, a card-carrying member of the SACP. However, if he has not accepted SACP membership, then all we can say is that he has served them very satisfactorily. The ANC – and Mandela – have been led by the nose by the SACP for decades. So incestuous is the relationship that even the New York Times has on occasion suggested that the ANC is no more than a Communist front. To this day, as is proved by its dominance on the ANC National Executive, the SACP continues to be the guiding force behind the ANC.
Mandela’s support for the SACP has been explicit. He has made no bones whatsoever about the interlock between the two organisations. In his first speech after his release from Pollsmoor, he described his old friend and comrade-at-arms, Comrade Joe [Slovo], as “one of our finest patriots.”
Second major blunder was the espousal of violence, a seriously bad idea, regardless of the morality of terrorism. Nelson Mandela is not a man who has ever believed in peaceful solutions. He believes, and has always believed, in violent nationalism. He has always believed in, and sought, the forcible overthrow of the SA state through terror-imposed revolution.
The ANC’s dedication to violence is an unsavoury fact that the media, here and overseas, prefer to ignore, an omission that, as is only too plainly demonstrated today, has done the people of SA a most cruel disservice. Throughout this present period of extreme violence, it has been ANC strategy to mobilise the township youth. Only recently Mandela advised these violent young thugs: “If you want guns, join MK [Mkhonto we Sizwe, the ANC’s armed wing].” With his foolish, frequently reiterated and utterly irresponsible statements about “the armed struggle,” Mandela must accept a large portion of the blame for the genocidal violence of the past four years. Surely all this effectively destroys his carefully cultivated posture as a “moderate”?
Millions of young Blacks have been led to believe that the only way forward is through violence. Deny this as he may, Mandela has sent an emphatic message to “the masses” – primarily young, Black and angry – that revolutionary violence remains an acceptable means to an end. Compassion or feeling for the human condition have seldom if ever played any role in his actions. Stripped of its emotive language, the “armed struggle” was a licence for anarchy. Moreover, through violent intimidation, the ANC has told Blacks that either they support the ANC – or die. A strange “conciliator,” indeed.
Has Mandela now become a disciple of peace and non-violence? Evidence suggests that if he has, his message of peace still comes through an AK-47. In published statements made after the announcement of the Peace Prize, the ANC went on record as saying that Mandela “has in the past contributed generously to the ANC military wing, MK,” and “might give a substantial amount of his share of the R3,1 million to MK.” So much for Oslo!
Mandela’s famed “walk to freedom” from Pollsmoor Prison was an ill omen of things to come. In his first post-imprisonment speech in Cape Town on February 11, 1990, he not only lauded the policy of violence, but once again embraced the SACP. In typically confused fashion, he followed this up with the remarkable statement that “there is not a single political organisation in this country, inside or outside Parliament, which can even compare with the ANC in its commitment to peace.” He reiterated this highly ambiguous statement at a press conference the next day. He was allowed to get away with it. So great is the propaganda wall built around him that no one dared challenge him. His “untouchable” status seems to render him immune to any serious criticism.
Reinforcing the mantle of martyrdom, he is monotonously described as a “political prisoner,” the inference being that here was an innocent man railroaded by a “racist” government. As recently as May this year the London Independent had this to say: “Nelson Mandela is a noble man… imprisoned for 27 years for his dedication to the cause of Black majority rule in South Africa.” The writer surely knew that to be an out-and-out lie. Mandela himself claims to have been a “political prisoner,” convicted on “technical violations.” Another lie.
Mandela was not a political prisoner, or a prisoner of conscience. He was a convicted saboteur. No human rights organisation was ever prepared to list him as a political prisoner. In a letter to the Finnish newspaper, Helsingen Sanomat, 13.9.85, Amnesty International pointed out that, as Mandela “had participated in planning acts of sabotage and violence… he could no longer fulfil the criteria for the classification of political prisoner. At the end of his trial, Mandela delivered a speech. He said that… he had concluded that the only choice for change in South Africa was through violence.”
While men of violence are not these days considered with any particular revulsion, not even by the sponsors of the Nobel Peace Prize, the facts show Mandela to be neither a saint nor a political genius, but a terrorist tactician with a great number of provenly unworkable and dangerous ideas.
His imprisonment was neither a human rights issue nor an injustice. There was no question of trumped-up charges. He was not detained for his political views. He was sentenced, in open court and after a scrupulously fair hearing, in which it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he had helped initiate and been intimately involved in plans to launch violent revolution in SA.
Many have lamented Mandela’s “wasted years” in prison, from 1964 to 1990. Conveniently forgotten is that he was first offered “freedom in exile” by John Vorster as far back as 1976: the proposal that he be released to the Transkei, then led by Kaiser Matanzima, his brother-in-law. Mandela refused. Later, he refused to be traded to the Marxist MPLA in Angola, in exchange for a SADF [SA Defence Force] major captured in the Cabinda enclave.
Of his 27 years in prison, therefore, he was in effect for 14 of these jailing himself. Said PW Botha, who was known to be eager to get him out: “The moment he renounces violence and undertakes to come to the conference table in a friendly and peaceful way, he will be out of jail.” But that was not the way Mandela wanted it. Throughout his years inside, he emphasised his dedication to violence, refused to reject it as a political instrument.
In January 1985 Lord Nicholas Bethell, vice-chairman of the European Parliament’s Human Rights Committee, became the first foreigner authorised to visit Mandela. He quoted him: “Personally, I still support the armed struggle. I am a socialist…”