Economic Saboteur No.1: Some Cold Hard Facts about Desmond Tutu

Economic Saboteur No.1, PDF format

Various Articles by Aida Parker

Note of Introduction by Shaun Willcock:

The reader must bear in mind that these articles by conservative South African journalist Aida Parker were written in the 1980s and 1990s.  All except the last two were written before the ANC came to power in 1994, while it was still waging a terrorist revolution against the conservative white government of the country.   The re-writing of history must be countered with the truth, and Aida Parker’s articles do just that.

Aida Parker did what she could to prevent the South African tragedy of a Mandela presidency and an ANC/SACP government.  How true the saying, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”  Here, then, is the cold, hard truth.  The articles below are reproduced chronologically from the Aida Parker Newsletter.  They are republished solely for the information which they contain, which has been largely forgotten or “revised”.  Some of these articles have been slightly edited and condensed.)

Tutu and Communism

(originally published in 1989 in The Priests Take on Pretoria: “Comrade Jesus” and the SA Revolution, an Aida Parker Newsletter Special Issue, pg.1.)

Anglican Archbishop Desmond Mpilo Tutu, fortunately now heavily discredited, is forever raising his voice against SA, but remains notably silent in the face of communism, an atheist creed which has brought misery, starvation, armed strife and death to millions of his fellow Blacks on this continent.  Worldly and cynical, Tutu has persistently involved his church, to its vast cost, with those seeking revolution in SA.  Additionally, Tutu has been in outright collusion with those seeking anti-SA sanctions and divestment: most notably with TransAfrica, the radical US Black lobby group primarily responsible for making SA a hot political issue in the US Congress.  In a 1985 fund-raising drive, TransAfrica used a personally signed “Dear Contributor” letter from Tutu.  This raised US $61 077 for TransAfrica’s anti-SA campaign, but intelligence sources insist that most of its funding comes from the KGB.  So blatant is Tutu’s political activity that State President PW Botha himself has taken the highly unusual step of publicly asking him whether he acts on behalf of the Kingdom of God or “the kingdom proposed by the ANC and the SA Communist Party.”  Speaking at St Paul’s Cathedral in London in November, 1984, Tutu said that were the Russians to come to SA, “most Blacks would welcome them as saviours.”  Later this year this Knight Templar will visit the USSR to help celebrate the foundation of the now-State controlled Russian Orthodox Church.  Perhaps while on this pilgrimage, he could request that his schedule include visits to KGB headquarters and the Gulag Archipelago, especially those psychiatric prisons where the executioners inject freedom-loving Russians with mind-destroying drugs.


Tutu Pretended to Oppose Violence

(originally published in 1989 in The Priests Take on Pretoria: “Comrade Jesus” and the SA Revolution, an Aida Parker Newsletter Special Issue, pgs.9, 31.)

In a recent issue, Special Office Brief (10.3.88), one of the oldest and most respected of the Western world’s intelligence digests, dealt at length with the SA churches, saying very few understand the real facts.  Comments included:

“The Government considers that in recent years millions of money have been poured in from abroad to encourage revolution to the aims of which such as Archbishop Tutu and many other leftist clergy have given their support while pretending to oppose violence.  All such clergy (without exception) are sympathetic towards Marxism, are anti-European in the case of all European Powers other than those associated with the Warsaw Pact military alliance.  It may well be that Tutu himself is more stupid than Marxist.  Whether that be so no one can say but he is far too dangerous for experimentation.  His religious views are of course of the Theological left.  He is also quite irresponsible.”

“The whole weight of the Atlantic Powers is being used to force South Africa into the control of the KGB-sponsored African National Congress.  In that effort the churches are active and use Archbishop Tutu to assist Russia.  He is a very stupid little man.”


State Theatre in a Cassock

(originally published in 1989 in The Aida Parker Newsletter, Issue No. 131, September 1989, pgs. 4,6.)

Despite his high, indeed grossly over-exposed, media profile and unbridled exhibitionism, massive public ignorance still enwraps Desmond Mpilo – “call me Arch” – Tutu, Archbishop of the (Anglican) Church of the Province of SA, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and darling of limousine liberals everywhere.

Let’s refresh foggy memories with some details of this phony “peace prize” winner who fantasises about proletarian revolution, who dedicates himself to promoting social disorder and demolition, who is the principal advocate of anti-SA sanctions and disinvestment, who early on cast his lot in with the ANC and, inescapably, with the ANC’s alliance partner, the SA Communist Party.

Let’s deal first with sanctions.  Tutu’s name has been invoked more than any other in calling for all-out, preferably mandatory UN sanctions, against SA, a cause he has promoted sedulously and with great vigour over many years, no matter that a ruined economy must inevitably bring immense misery and hardship to his fellow Blacks.  For him, such people are simply sheep to be led to economic slaughter.

Double Standard

Now let’s scrutinise some headlines in the US press in March this year [1989]: “Archbishop Tutu Demands Halt to US Economic Sanctions/Joins Fellow Prelates in Pleas to End ‘Unjust Suffering’/Brands ‘Foreign Interference’ a Failed Policy.”  No, this is not a hoax.  Those were the actual headlines used.  The text of the official Tutu statement issued on the sanctions issue, under the headline “God’s People Have Suffered Enough,” read:

“We have been informed by various groups and organisations of the disastrous effects of the US sanctions.  These sanctions have led to the destruction of the nation’s economy, caused immense suffering on the poorest of the poor, increased unemployment and aggravated social problems…. We call on the US government, therefore, to immediately end the sanctions (imposed), so that the unjust suffering can be alleviated and so that the overwhelming domestic problems can be brought to light and addressed by the people of… as a sovereign independent nation, without external oppression and interference.”

However: the country on whose behalf he was making this emotional appeal was not, as you might suppose, South Africa, his own beleaguered homeland.  It was General Manuel Noriega’s military dictatorship in Panama.  The fact that what Tutu had to say about sanctions pole-axing Panama applied equally to SA possibly escapes him, but we doubt it.


An editorial in the Richmond News Leader commented: “…thus the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize reveals himself as a base hypocrite.  Tutu is a man of the cloth, and his double-standard on sanctions qualifies him in biblical terms as a Pharisee.”

Writing in The Washington Times, Philip Nicolaides said: “It is hard to imagine that Archbishop Tutu – a crusader for ever harsher sanctions against his own country – has not until now understood that their immediate effect is to damage the economy.  This inevitably increases unemployment, aggravates social problems and adds to the suffering of the ‘poorest of the poor’ – in South Africa, that means non-Whites.

“When confronted with this very argument, Archbishop Tutu has always countered by saying that the poor Blacks of South Africa will gladly endure increased suffering because they understand it will somehow weaken the apartheid regime and rally support to its foes.

“The question naturally arises: is there such a disparity between the two situations (Panama and South Africa) that one can reasonably argue that while it is gravely immoral to damage the Panamanian economy, damaging the South African economy is a moral imperative?  In other words, if God’s people have suffered enough in Panama, why haven’t they suffered enough in South Africa?”

Answer to the latter question, of course, is very simple.  Tutu is not in the slightest degree interested in promoting revolution in Panama: but is deeply anxious to achieve just that in SA.  All his efforts are concentrated on that one objective.  Which surely suggests that, by no means for the first time, the Nobel “Peace” Prize was hijacked by a shameless charlatan?

Eloff Probe

There are other enlightening aspects to Tutu’s career.  Before beginning his “phenomenal” ascent to the top in SA’s Anglican community, this Prince of the Church was Secretary-General of the SA Council of Churches.  Following many allegations of financial hanky-panky in the SACC, the Eloff Commission was appointed to investigate and report on this.

The report issued by the Commission, one of the most comprehensive and in-depth studies of its type ever made in this country, disclosed a variety of interesting things about the financial affairs of the SACC.  Had that report received the public attention it deserved, there is little doubt that much of the SACC’s (and Tutu’s) political train would have been derailed.

However, for reasons known only to the power brokers in Pretoria at that time, the Government failed to unveil the “real” Tutu story as disclosed by the Eloff Commission.  And our so-called “liberal” media, always remarkably averse to digging into his revolutionary, far-left ties, to disclosing just how radical Tutu really is, let the matter rest.  A pity.  SA’s recent history might have been very different had the Eloff Report gained the attention it deserved.

Another embarrassing little secret: the events in Birmingham, Britain, earlier this year [1989] proved up to the hilt that Toot is by no means the big heat there that the Anglican hierarchy thought him to be.

Invited by the trendy Bishop of Birmingham to attend the six-day centenary celebrations starting April 23, it was believed some 40 000 paying customers would turn up to hear Tutu gabble on about the need for still more sanctions against SA.  In the event, Tutu bombed – badly.  The stands stood mainly empty, leaving the Birmingham diocese R800 000 in the red.  It will be some time before Tutu is again invited to address mass rallies in Britain, billed as “The Most Famous Anglican in the World.”


Tutu: Word of God, or Word of Marx?

(originally published in 1993 in The Aida Parker Newsletter, Issue No. 164, June 1993, pgs. 4-6.)

Anglican Archbishop Desmond Mpilo Tutu is widely depicted in the international media as a “beloved” and “heroic” spokesman for SA’s Black millions.  A big claim.  And a dubious one.  For here, indeed, you have a most curious Christian, a Christian truly with a difference [i.e. not a true Christian. – Ed].

Very, very few men have so blasted the lives, hopes and prospects of so many of their fellow Blacks as this Nobel Peace Laureate.  It is a matter of public record that Tutu claims to be a man of compassion.  Yet here we have the man who, from 1980 onwards, jetted around the world, demanding global sanctions against SA, the total isolation of this country from the world economy.

Very interesting was the psychological blackmail he used quite ruthlessly in this crusade.  When the Germans stalled at applying sanctions, fearing the suffering it would inevitably impose on disadvantaged Blacks, Tutu climbed on his high horse, saying they still carried the taint of Nazism.  In similar circumstances, he accused the Japanese of being still bound by their Nazi alliances.  He accused Maggie Thatcher of having decided that Blacks were expendable.

At home, Blacks like Dr Buthelezi who opposed sanctions were accused of being like the Jews who collaborated with the Germans, “to line their own pockets.”  Of such wicked brainwashing, Business Day editorialised: “Any German or Japanese who doubts that the way to liberation passes through the empty bellies of starving children will find that the Archbishop has employed the European holocaust to brand him as a Nazi.”

In 1988 this “noble, compassionate Christian” blessed the US sanctions bill, assuring Americans that Black South Africans, “people like myself,” preferred any hardship and deprivation to “bondage.”  Were that so, then today Tutu must indeed be the best loved man in the Black community.  For he has brought them hardship and deprivation aplenty.  On that score, and if his reading of the situation is correct, they owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude, one far beyond the dreams of malice.

Today, buckling under the accumulated pressure of sanctions and divestment, of world recession and historic drought, some 7- to 8-million South Africans, the vast majority Black, have been thrown on the scrapheap of unemployment.  It is to be hoped that none of these protest their hardship, misery and suffering for, remember, that would be the “equivalent of a Jewish collaborator with the Nazis.”

The politically correct New York Times, invariably one of Tutu’s most uncritical admirers, has claimed that the anti-SA sanctions he so fervently sought “really worked.”  They sure did.  They have led to the virtual destruction of the national economy.  According to one analyst writing in The Wall Street Journal, they have since the US Congress approved the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986, on a cumulative basis cost SA some R500- to R600-billion.

SA’s level of effective net investment is now among the lowest in the world, placing us firmly not in Third but Fourth World category.  Throughout, the big losers have been Blacks.  It is calculated that of every 100 jobs lost through sanctions and divestment, 80 were held by Blacks.

Few of the hundreds of multinationals and other companies which pulled out of SA will ever return.  And, as the economy plummeted, so too did spending on education, health, housing and general infrastructure.  It has blocked any hope of real job creation.  Worst of all, it is the collapse in the economy that has largely fuelled the country’s terrible factional violence.

Can Tutu in any way compensate for the damage he has done, restore hope and self-respect to the millions without education, without food, without jobs, living in squatter camps, vast numbers facing the prospect of never having a job again?  No, he cannot.  We are fed a vast amount of US propaganda about the aid and investment that will flow into SA once universal franchise in a unitary state is established.  Forget it.  That’s all it is.  Propaganda.  Even Ambassador Harry Schwartz is warning his friends to go easy, that the exuberant American promises are unlikely ever to be fulfilled.

Less Than Divine

Much of the onus for all this rests squarely on Tutu.  One asks: On whose behalf and on whose authority did he speak when pushing for the destruction of the SA economy?  Cynics suggest that the inspiration was somewhat less than divine.  A hungry man, a man who can’t get a job to support himself or his family, is apt to listen to talk of revolution.  The SA Communist Party understands the politics of unemployment very well.  The more misery they can generate, the higher the chances of success for chaos and revolution.  That’s why they were so obsessed in destroying the economic infrastructure.  Black suffering was the key and motive behind successful sanctions.  Did Tutu fully understand this?  Was he just a marionette used by the SACP puppeteers?  Or, as one British paper suggested, was it a grotesque case of personal hatreds and mindless vengefulness?  Whatever, it smacks very strongly of the old days when he rode the Soweto trains as a card sharp, when he was known to his peers as “Professor” because of his skill at cheating at cards (Star, 6.9.86).

Also, don’t forget that Tutu’s father was a Xhosa: and this could be another replay of events in 1856, when the entire Xhosa economy as it was then was totally destroyed, this when a young seer, Nongquase, instructed that all cattle had to be slaughtered, all grain destroyed, this as a preliminary to driving the White men into the sea.  That very nearly finished off the Xhosa nation for good.  Now, it seems, they are at it again.


Has Tutu ever acknowledged the consequences of what he has done?  That, by calling for such massive punitive action against the SA economy, he perpetrated a crime far worse than apartheid?  Does he understand, even now, that political freedom in an economic and social wasteland is both futile and pointless?  And another question: Why was this destructive little man never charged with economic sabotage, surely one of the most serious crimes possible against the State?

Equally to the point, how much of this hardship and suffering he has imposed on fellow Blacks do he and his share?  As far as we know, none.  Highly privileged, immensely prosperous, for Tutu – like Mandela, Ramaphosa, Thabo Mbeki and the rest – the revolution has really paid off.  He continues to live the good life without discomfort or sacrifice.  He continues to occupy his palatial church-owned official residence in the White Bishopscourt area of Cape Town.  He has his limousine, his first-class air travel, a life which one German correspondent described as “the life of any of the great princes of old.”

There are many other questions to be asked about his real motivations and goals for SA.  Not so long ago, he went on record as saying that “…it was not possible to believe in God and at the same time subscribe to Communist Party views.”  However, he can be remarkably obscure about his real political affiliations.  All the evidence is that his heart rests with the ultra far left.

While en route to Oslo for the Nobel festivities in 1985, he declared in the pulpit of St Paul’s that “Blacks in SA would prefer a Soviet type of communism to apartheid.”  He has on a number of occasions confirmed that he is a “socialist,” that he has “contempt” for capitalism.  Maybe.  But he clearly maintains a see-no-evil attitude towards communism.

When he visited Red China in August 1986 he declared that China would “provide a very good model for developing countries” and told reporters that Western leaders had done “nothing” to change his view that “the West can go to hell.”  Asked about the status of religious freedom in Communist China, he replied: “We were very heartened by the evidence we found of a very robust and very virile church life.”  Asked about the many priests and missionaries jailed as “counter-revolutionaries,” he said he was “not aware” of that fact.

“Show” Services

On February 2, 1987, The International Herald Tribune listed Mozambique as “the worst country in the world (in which) to live.”  In June that year Tutu visited Mozambique and, back in Johannesburg, stated: “I have just returned from yet another very happy and very good visit to a foreign country.  The church life is vibrant and congregations are enormous.  The church is growing.  Marxism seems to have stimulated the church.”  While in Mozambique Tutu laid a wreath at the grave of Moses Mabhida, a former Secretary-General of the SACP.

In 1979 legislation was passed [in Mozambique] declaring all religious buildings and their contents to be State property.  Children under 18 were forbidden to attend church.  Tutu did not reply when it was suggested to him that he might have been taken for a ride, that he had been bluffed with “show” services.

In 1989, after attending rallies at which SACP [SA Communist Party] flags carrying the Hammer-and-Sickle were prominent, he made the curious statement that “there is nothing wrong with the communist flag flying… we do not have the Cross up front… because the Muslim, the Jew, the Hindu would be upset.” But not, it seems, if they were led by the “Red flag flying high.”  It is singular that there has been so little Western comment on Tutu’s expressed penchant for communism/socialism.

As the chief clerical praisemaker to the revolution, with his pronouncements in favour of revolutionary violence – surely the exact antithesis of the true Christian message – can Tutu any longer claim to be a true, authentic Christian?  There is an urgent need to ask Tutu, along with the SACC’s Frank Chikane, in what respects they reject Marxism/socialism?  We also should ask whether they have in fact been preaching The Word of God, or The Word of Marx?


Tutu: Economic Saboteur No.1

(originally published in 1997 in The Aida Parker Newsletter, Issue No. 212, November/December 1997, pgs. 7-8.)

It is well that certain ecclesiastics are not required to present an annual report to shareholders.  All too often they would be found to have issued a false prospectus and doctored accounts, to have traded at a ruinous loss, to have bankrupted those who trusted and followed them.  None fits more comfortably into that category than TRC [Truth and Reconciliation] chairman and SA’s bumbling Psychologist-in-Chief, Desmond Mpilo Tutu.  Understanding of our plight is not to be gained in silence about one of the SA revolution’s main players.

Witnessing this extraordinary Anglican high priest lionised, one could expect a capacity to walk on water.  However, murder is not the only crime against civilians in a civil war.  A supporter of the ANC from 1960, Tutu was in the early 1980s selected by that organisation and its Marxist mentors to head up a new campaign designed to smash the SA economy, this via sanctions, boycotts, embargoes, disinvestment and a thousand other cuts to the body politic.

Whatever his much ballyhooed moral splendour, the little cock sparrow Tutu, garrulous, a publicity hound par excellence, with a high-pitched squeaky voice, seemed at first an odd choice as front man for such a high-profile global effort.  Still, as it proved, he did possess some great credentials for the job.

Throughout his career and to this very day, this Black chauvinist has revelled in confrontational politics.  He is a polished actor and a master of double-talk.  Above all, he was a man prepared to play politics at the cost of human suffering.  Avid for international recognition, itching to draw the spotlight to himself, he eagerly accepted his new brief.

So began Tutu’s “Holy War” against his own people and his own country.  To his American groupies, he soon became “Mr Sanctions,” the prime force behind the worldwide push for economic action against SA.  No matter that, successful, his wildly destructive sabotage campaign would ultimately plunge millions of his fellow Blacks into unemployment, misery and dire poverty.  Mr Sanctions was quick to assure the world that Blacks were willing to make sacrifices he himself would never share.  Nobody today knows just how many millions of Blacks suffer untold hardship, their lives blighted, their children born without hope, because of Tutu’s determination to annihilate the SA economy.

As we wrote when the TRC was first instituted, by all logic Tutu should be appearing as No 1 Respondent.  For this man now to sit in judgement on Big Business must be the greatest irony, and biggest laugh, in Christendom.

In total, he has more victims on his conscience than any security policeman, Army officer and any other hauled for humiliation before his shabby, discredited commission.  Have we heard any apology, any expression of shame or regret from him?  Not a chance.

I suggest that it is not Big Business which needs to sit on the Stool of Repentance.  It is Tutu himself.  He still talks of SA’s “awful past.”  It would be of more immediate importance if he talked of what one very much fears will be our “awful future,” one which he did so much to help construct.


Tutu’s “Truth” Report: A Fraud and a Hoax

(originally published in 1998 in The Aida Parker Newsletter, Issue No. 223, November/December 1998, pgs.2-6.)

(Tutu was placed in charge of the highly contentious, widely discredited “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” [TRC] in South Africa in the late 1990s under ANC rule, a witch hunt against South Africa’s previous white leaders.  As such he presided as a modern Inquisitor General.)

At its inception, it was stated that the TRC’s prime function was to seek racial reconciliation and unity between Black and White.  Unfortunately, the TRC instead became a racial witch hunt: as Business Day commented, not so much a Reconciliation Commission as a Humiliation Commission.

In the event, hundreds of men named in the document – mainly Afrikaners from the old security forces – have had their lives for ever ruined: identified in this major, if gravely flawed, report as guilty of involvement in murder, torture and other atrocities.

What, by its barely concealed manipulation of the process from start to finish, immediately discredited SA’s TRC process was that here the ANC/SACP alliance became prosecutor, judge and jury: “victor’s justice.”  The endless hearings became a fairy tale of White villains and Black heroes.  As the SA Institute of Race Relations’ CEO John Kane-Berman told Rapport, 11.3.97: “The one side is pardoned of all blame.  The other side is demonised.”

Even in the best of circumstances it would be hard for Afrikaners – White, male-dominated and puritanical – to have gained fair trial from their sworn enemies.  In many ways a great people, and remarkable nation builders, their time was out of joint.  Their misfortune was that they stood in the path of all three of the great post-war political forces: anti-colonialism, the atheistic Soviet push for world hegemony, the anti-self-determination of the New World Order.

Their very presence – architects of the most advanced, most viable state on this continent – was a living rebuke to African despots wallowing in the trough of their own corruption.  Finally, that implacable enemy of Western civilisation, the US State Department, decided that all of Southern Africa would be better off backward and Marxist.

There was nothing for it.  The Afrikaners had to be destroyed.  Under US pressure, they were ruthlessly negotiated out of all power.  And, in the end, the TRC was used as their coup de grace.

Inevitably, Tutu (an icon of the anti-Afrikaner struggle) and his hand-picked fellow commissioners soon lost track of their real objective.  We very soon found we had on our hands a revenge commission, being used as a whip to cower Whites, in particular the Afrikaners.  Over the next few years, we were to witness a stunning display of one-sidedness, partiality and prejudice from commissioners whose business was redistribution.

What we got was not a cool, independent, academic post mortem on apartheid, taking the good with the bad, a report that should have been of untold importance to future historians, but rather Archbishop Tutu’s version of the truth.  In this caricature, White people are mindlessly brutal, Blacks mild and forgiving victims.

In an incredibly ill-informed comment, the London Financial Times, 31.10.98, observed that Tutu was “not a political priest.  He made clear that his Christian values transcended party loyalties, even to the ANC, and ordered Anglican priests not to belong to political parties.”  Trash.  Tutu was an exponent of liberation theology from the word go, an ANC apparatchik of many years standing and, as it turned out, an expert at feathering his own nest.  He was especially selected by the late Trevor Huddleston for training as a Black Power priest because he was grasping and clever.  He has throughout been a loyal and dedicated servant of the ANC, an undisputed pillar of the “liberation struggle.”  Scanning certain of the darker paragraphs from his voluminous files, we find him telling The Sunday Times, 29.12.85: “Look, I support the ANC… I support them to the hilt.”  His fitness for sitting on any investigation into human rights must be considered moot.

Surely in any civilised society one of the greatest human rights is protection of the right of bread-winners to keep their jobs.  Yet, as the ANC’s global ambassador for anti-SA sanctions, Tutu’s greatest success came in 1986 when the US Congress legislated the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, just short of an outright declaration of war on SA.  This was to cost millions of Blacks (but not Tutu, who by now could count his millions in dollars) their jobs, robbing them of all hope, forcing them into desperation and crime.

The final report, produced after 31 months of hearings and investigations, including material from some 21000 witnesses, is skewed, superficial, partial and prejudiced.  What we have here is the “victor’s” effort at restructuring history.  Reading the report soon makes plain this was the TRC’s fixed intent.

Republished January 2022

Aida Parker was a highly articulate, knowledgeable, conservative South African journalist, whose Aida Parker Newsletter was read around the world before she passed away in 2002.  Her excellent writings should not be forgotten.  The articles above were taken from various issues of The Aida Parker Newsletter, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, South Africa.  Consent was granted for the use of this material, providing acknowledgment was made of the name of the copyright holder: Aida Parker Newsletter (Pty) Ltd. 

Bible Based Ministries