Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Mandela – the useful idiot


Much of what is said about Mandela in this article, including his affiliation with the murdering godless communists, is old news, but it’s always refreshing to read someone else’s perspective on this issue.

Incidentally -- while searching for some relevant publications to present in this article, I noticed that many books portraying Mandela or the ANC Government in a negative light are fast disappearing from South African bookstores, most notably Kalahari.com, one of South Africa’s leading online stores. It is depressing to see how the South African sheeple are being fed liberal, bleeding-heart, garbage on a grand scale. The sad part is that even if you offer truth publications to these liberals, for example - like the ones written by Ann Coulter, a conservative Christian American woman, they will not touch it. The same thing is applicable to the Holy Bible - even if you offer it to them for free, they will not touch it! The 'war on perceptions' has concurred their minds, to such an extent that they’ve become addicted to junk, which is probably why the term “useful idiot” fits them so aptly.

Mandela's secret history

By Rian Malan 

16 August 2011

Rian Malan on the significance of the great statesman's covert Communist party membership

This is a story about Nelson Mandela, the world-famous "freedom fighter" and "democrat." You'll have to pardon those slightly sardonic quotes, because I'm afraid this is that kind of story: a bit iconoclastic, and likely to provoke howls of outrage from Western liberals who see Mandela as a benign black moderate who led an army of hymn-singing Uncle Toms to the promised land.

The technical term for those liberals is "useful idiot," but even I must concede that their intervention was actually quite intelligent, back in the 1950s, when this all started. In those days, good men were weak, and their apartheid adversaries invincible on all but one score: propaganda. The war of perceptions thus became the most critical of all battlefields, with the African National Congress constantly seeking to exaggerate apartheid's evils while portraying itself as "good" in a way that was universally appealing.

In the early sixties, Special Branch detectives came upon a piece of evidence that made this a bit tricky in Mandela's case - a handwritten essay titled, "How To Be A Good Communist," in which the leader of the ANC's newly-formed military wing opined that South Africa would become "a land of milk and honey" under Communist rule. We were told that Mandela was innocently toying with Marxist ideas, trying to understand their appeal, but this made little sense. Almost all his co-conspirators were Communists, wedded to a Sovietist doctrine that envisaged a two-phase ending to the SA struggle - a "national democratic revolution," followed by second revolution in which the Marxist-Leninist vanguard took power.

If Mandela wasn't in on this plot, it would have been exceptionally stupid of him to participate in it, and Mandela was not stupid. On the other hand, he had to be very careful what he said on this score. The ANC needed the support of Western liberals, and by l964, those folks had come to realize that Communist revolutions inevitably led to the outcome satirized in George Orwell's Animal Farm - a dictatorship of pigs who hogged the best things for themselves, impoverished the proletariat and murdered or imprisoned dissenters by the million.

In such a climate, one didn't want to focus attention on that hand-written "milk and honey" essay. On the contrary: one wanted the world to see Mandela as a democrat, willing to die for values that Westerners held sacred. Toward this end, Mandela and his lawyers (with a bit of help from British journalist Anthony Sampson) crafted a masterful speech for Mandela to deliver from the dock during the Rivonia trial.

"The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of African nationalism," he said. "It is true that there has been close cooperation between the ANC and the Communist Party. But cooperation in this case is merely proof of a common goal - the removal of white supremacy."

Mandela went to describe himself as a democrat in the classic Western sense, and a fervent admirer of the British and American systems of governance. "Africans just want a share in the whole of South Africa," he said. "Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent...It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

These words rang out around the world, and still echo today. Type Mandela's name into Google, and you come upon millions of essays, articles and book-length hagiographies depicting Madiba in exactly the way he presented himself in that speech: a black liberal, driven to take up arms by a white supremacist state that seemed utterly impermeable to calls for dialogue.

The Rivonia statement has become the foundational text of a semi-religious movement that seeks to canonize Mandela as the 20th century's greatest proponent of freedom and democracy. Or perhaps I should say, "bourgeois democracy," in order to distinguish between democracy of the sort practiced in Britain and America and the diseased parody encountered in Marxist-Leninist police states. Nelson Mandela never stood for that sort of democracy.

Or did he?

It takes a brave man to address that question, and lo, one such has emerged. Professor Stephen Ellis heads the African Studies Centre at the University of Leiden, and holds the Desmond Tutu chair of social sciences at the Vrije University of Amsterdam. He is also one of the great authorities on the ANC, author of Comrades Against Apartheid and a former editor of Africa Confidential, a magazine valued for its authoritative gossip about what was really going inside the anti-apartheid movement in the l980s.

Now Ellis has published a study that sheds startling new light on Mandela's early political career and the circumstances under which he launched his armed struggle against apartheid. The study contains at least one revelation that can only be described as a bombshell -- Mandela was, at least for a time, secretly a member of South Africa's Communist Party.

The strange thing about Ellis's bombshell is that South Africans appear to be deaf to its detonation. I know this because I started hyping it to fellow journalists the instant it appeared in print. To a man (or woman) they all shrugged and said, "So what? It's not really a story." This tells us something interesting about South Africans: we are at once riven with ideological obsessions and hopelessly ideologically naïve.

The blame for this rests largely on our charming and literate Communists, who go to great pains in their memoirs to disguise the true nature of their beliefs. They tell us that they stood for fairness, justice, and racial equality, and against all forms of exploitation and oppression. They'd also like us to believe that their party was outlawed in l950 because they treated blacks as friends and wanted them to enjoy the franchise. Well, yes. I suppose this was a factor, but the overriding consideration that led to the SACP's banning was something else entirely.

At the Yalta Conference of l945, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin assured the Western powers that all the countries his forces occupied at the end of World War 2 would be allowed to determine their own destinies via free elections. With his international image in mind, Stalin instructed commissars in the occupied territories to observe the outward forms of "bourgeois democracy." Towards this end, liberals and social democrats were lured into broad fronts in which all key decisions were secretly made by tiny Communist minorities, with the backing of the Soviet's secret police apparatus.

These Communist conspirators then staged spurious elections that brought Soviet puppet regimes to power throughout Eastern Europe, usually with majorities implausibly close to 100 percent. Historians concede that Tito of Yugoslavia was genuinely popular, but elsewhere, the rule of Soviet proxies was imposed by deceit and enforced by tyranny. Tens of thousands of class enemies were executed, millions imprisoned, all vestiges of freedom eradicated.

The problem with Communist parties, including the South African one, is that they blindly supported this Soviet outrage, and seemed intent on pulling similar moves everywhere. If Joe Slovo and Rusty Bernstein were still alive, they'd stoutly deny such charges, but they'd be lying. We know this because Rusty's wife Hilda lived long enough to acquire a shrewd understanding of herself and the Communist movement of which she was a life-long part. "Joe and Rusty were hardline Stalinists," she said in a 2004 interview. "Anything the Soviets did was right. They were very, very pro-Soviet."

It is important to note that Mrs. Bernstein was by no means suggesting that her husband or Joe were evil men. On the contrary: they were religious zealots who genuinely believed that the Soviets had discovered the cure for all human misery.

"I've often thought about this," she said. "They wanted something bigger than themselves, something to believe in. People are always seeking for the meaning of life and if you're not religious, what is it? To us, working together in a movement that had rules and attitudes and comradeship gave important meaning to our lives."

In short, being a Communist was much like being a Christian. One studied the sacred texts of Marx and Engels, engaged in polemics as a form of prayer and ruthlessly suppressed all doubts, including one's own. Mrs. Bernstein says she was adept at this until l956, when Kruschev revealed the appalling extent of his predecessor Stalin's atrocities (he murdered around 16 million people, either by having them shot for thought crimes or starving them to death with mad policies). Her husband dismissed these reports as "lies and capitalist propaganda," but Hilda's bones told her it was all true.

"We had a fight," she said, "a battle that went on into the small hours of the morning. I wanted to leave, but we had three dependent children, and there wasn't any possible way in which we could have separated economically and so on. So we stayed together, and I accommodated myself by refusing to talk about it any more."

And so it came to pass that Hilda Bernstein, the secret doubter, had a ringside seat for the epochal events of the late fifties and early sixties, a time when her husband Rusty was one of South Africa's most senior Communists, and one of Mandela's closest allies moreover.

It was in this capacity that she learned of Madiba's secret membership in the Communist sect. "Mandela denies that he was ever a member of the party," she said, "but I can tell you that he was a member of the party for a period."

When this interview appeared on the website of the O'Malley archive, it caused a brief frisson among old Cold Warriors, especially when former SACP central committee member Brian Bunting verified Hilda's account. The interview also caught the eye of the aforementioned Professor Ellis, a lifelong student of the byzantine inner workings of SACP. He notes that the SACP of the early sixties was of necessity a pathologically secretive organization, a network of cells with little or no knowledge of each other and no official membership records.

"SACP members were formally required to keep their membership secret," says Ellis. "In principle, only the members of each four or five-person cell knew each other. One person reported to the next higher level, and so on. But there was also a special category of ultra-secret members who were not required to join a cell and whom even very senior party members might not know about." With this in mind, Ellis proceeded very cautiously before publishing anything about Mandela's apparent role in the Communist conspiracy.

One item in his files was an old police report claiming that two arrested Communists had identified Mandela as an SACP member.  A similar admission appeared in the minutes of a 1982 SACP meeting. The final breakthrough came when Russian researcher Irina Filitova interviewed veteran conspirator Joe Matthews, who confirmed that Mandela served on the party's innermost central committee alongside him. "In the light of this evidence," Ellis concludes, "it seems most likely that Nelson Mandela joined the party in the late l950s or in 1960, and that he was co-opted onto the Central Committee in the latter year, the same year as Joe Matthews."

Even as I write this I sense that I am losing the average South African. I can almost see you shrugging and saying, "So? This still isn't a story." But it is a story, and here's why: if Ellis's evidence is correct, the fatal decision to launch a war against apartheid had nothing to do with the ANC. It was a decision taken unilaterally by the Communist Party, and then imposed on ANC president Albert Luthuli by a prominent African nationalist who was secretly a member of the Communist underground. His name: Nelson Mandela.

It seems fair to say that black South Africans have entertained thoughts of armed revolt since the day Jan van Riebeeck landed in Table Bay. It is therefore clear, as Ellis stresses in his landmark paper, that no political party held a patent on the term armed struggle. The Pan-Africanist Congress was dead keen on it, and elements in the ANC thought it was inevitable from the early fifties onwards.

The difference between those organizations and the Communist Party is that peaceful change via the ballot box was never really on the Communist agenda, because that sort of change invariably left the capitalist edifice standing. "Classes do not commit suicide," said Joe Slovo, a dutiful acolyte of Vladimir Lenin. Enemies of the working class had to be undermined, subverted, and conclusively defeated before the socialist millennium could begin.

There was a time when this socialist millennium did not seem particularly attractive to South Africa's so-called "bourgeois nationalists," Marxist code for Africans who would have been perfectly happy to defeat the Boers in a bourgeois democratic election and then help themselves to a fairer share of the nation's riches. Communists did not approve of "bourgeois nationalists," and vice versa, which is one reason why Nelson Mandela spent the l940s breaking up Communist rallies with his fists.

In the early fifties, however, the SACP realized that cooperating with the nationalists was likely to hasten the fall of the Boers, thus creating conditions conducive to a more rapid advance towards true socialism. At more or less the same time, nationalists like Mandela realized that the Communists could bring several desirables to the party. Around half of them were white. They had cars, houses, telephones, organizational skills and access to funding. Soon, Communists were supporting the ANC's legal campaigns and recruiting ANC members into their own underground party.

As Ellis observes, this strategy did not enjoy the approval of the high priests of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary science, who were located in Moscow. It was a home-grown initiative, devised as a means of amplifying the influence of a tiny body of true believers. (At the time, the SACP had barely 500 members.) The SACP was thus delighted to discover, at a 1960 conference in Moscow, that these high priests were now thinking along similar lines. The imperial powers were pulling out of Africa, and alliances with previously detestable nationalists provided a way for tiny bands of Communist intellectuals to stay in the game, and perhaps wind up in control of a few key ex-colonies.

Out of this emerged the SACP's new revolutionary doctrine, which has always reminded me of the hoary old fable in which a scorpion convinces a frog to carry it across a river. The frog (or bourgeois nationalist) does all the work, staging a "democratic national revolution" that topples the imperial or colonial power. The scorpion (representing the Communist cause) goes along for the ride, only to sting the frog to death just as it reaches the far bank. The punchline of the original remains entirely apposite: scorpions do such things because that is their nature.

Something else happened in l960, something very important. The catalyst was the PAC, a movement of hardline African nationalists who'd broken away from the ANC the previous year on the grounds that it was "dominated by white Communists" whose ultimate loyalties were open to question (see above). In April, l960, the PAC staged a nationwide protest against the hated pass laws. In Sharpeville, police opened fire on a crowd of PAC supporters, killing an estimated 69. The resulting outburst of rage shook the apartheid government to its core, and led to the outright banning of both the PAC and ANC.

From afar, it seemed that the mood in South Africa had at last turned revolutionary, which is presumably why Joe Matthews and Michael Harmel of the SACP were given a stellar reception when they turned up in Beijing a few months later to canvass support for armed struggle.

According to Ellis, the Chinese had previously been sceptical of such plans, but now, the SACP delegates were considered so important that Chairman Mao himself took time to meet them. They were accorded a similar honour in Moscow, where they apparently stayed in Stalin's former dacha while conducting top-secret talks with senior Soviet officials.

The precise outcome of these discussions remains uncertain, but Ellis presumes that Matthews and Harmel came away with pledges of support, because the SACP now moved swiftly forward, adopting a policy of armed struggle at a conference in Johannesburg "towards the end of 1960."

It now became necessary for the SACP to convince the ANC to join its initiative. White Communists couldn't act in this regard, because they weren't allowed to join the racially exclusive ANC or take part in its deliberations. The task thus fell to black ANC leaders who wore two hats - which is to say, were members of both the ANC and the SACP.  In some cases, this joint ANC-SACP affiliation was open and well-known, at least to those in the underground. In others, it was secret. The most important of these secret members was the charismatic Nelson Mandela.

On the day the SACP took its fateful decision, Mandela was a defendant in the Treason Trial, a marathon affair that had been dragging on since l956. The rest of South Africa was extremely tense, but inside Judge Rumpff's courtroom, the atmosphere was oddly congenial, considering that Mandela and his co-accused were on trial for high treason, and that the three judges were officials of a white supremacist regime that Mandela frequently characterized as "Nazi."

In theory, the gap between the white judges and the mostly black accused was unbridgeable, but these men had been staring at one another across the courtroom for years, sparring, joking, taking each other's measure and acquiring a measure of mutual respect.

All the accused were out on bail, but when they were re-detained during the post-Sharpeville State of Emergency, Judge Bekker's wife came to their aid, running errands on their behalf and carrying messages to their families. Judge Kennedy was so impressed by the pro-ANC testimony of Professor ZK Matthews that he came down from the bench and shook Matthews' hand, saying, "I hope we meet again under better circumstances." Judge Rumpff was a grumpy old Afrikaner and a reputed Broederbonder, but even he seemed to be softening.

On March 23, l961, Rumpff took the unprecedented step of interrupting the defence's closing argument, saying, in effect, we don't really need to hear this. Some of the accused took this to mean that the judges had decided to disregard the evidence and hang them - the predictable totalitarian outcome. They were wrong. A week later, Rumpff asked the accused to rise, and pronounced every one of them innocent.

This was a dumbfounding outcome, given the enormous resources the apartheid state had devoted to the treason case. Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd was in the habit of telling the world that most blacks supported the principle of separate development, and that only a handful of misguided troublemakers opposed it. Rumpff's judgement annihilated that argument. In rejecting the state's case, he had in effect ruled that the ANC's cause was just, its grievances legitimate, and its strategy of non-violent defiance acceptable in the eyes of reasonable men.

This outcome hugely strengthened the hand of ANC president Albert Luthuli, a devout Christian who continued to believe that peaceful change was possible in South Africa. After the Sharpeville shootings, his stance was bitterly criticized by ANC radicals, who thought the time for talking was over. Rumpff's verdict suggested otherwise. It showed that South Africa was still a land of law, with judges willing to hand down decisions that infuriated the ruling party.

South Africa also had a relatively free press, a vigorous democracy (albeit for whites only) and, as Mandela acknowledges in Long Walk To Freedom, a police force that still conformed to British norms, with due process respected and torture at this stage unheard-of. Some observers saw Rumpff's verdict as a watershed of sorts, a development that could easily have led to further liberalization.

Nelson Mandela was totally disinterested. In Long Walk To Freedom, he writes that he went underground within hours of Rumpff's verdict. Officially, his mission was to organize popular support for a national convention, but Ellis thinks this unlikely. "A close analysis of the campaign for a national convention concludes that this initiative was primarily intended to provide proponents of armed struggle with a paper trail that would justify their forthcoming change of policy," he writes.

In other words, the SACP was angling to regain the moral high ground. It knew that the verdict had come as a surprise to international observers, who were left wondering if Verwoerd's regime was indeed as evil as it was held to be. But the SACP also knew that Verwoerd could be relied on to reject any call for a national convention, thus restoring his reputation as an intransigent racist. As Ellis notes, this would allow the party to present the coming declaration of war "in the best possible light for public and international consumption."

The second leg of Mandela's underground mission was of course to convince ANC president Albert Luthuli to follow the lead the Communists had taken. Luthuli was not a pacifist per se, but he believed that non-violent options remained viable. Like many others in the ANC and even the SACP, he also believed it would be folly of the highest order to take up arms at a point when the ANC was still struggling to organize effective protests.

Luthuli and Mandela had it out in June l961, at a tumultuous meeting of the ANC's national executive in Tongaat, Natal. The debate raged through the night, but when the sun rose, Mandela was triumphant; the ANC had authorized him to launch Umkhonto we Sizwe, and to start making preparations for war against the apartheid state.

This is Mandela's version - or more accurately, one of his versions. In Long Walk, he acknowledges that the outcome of his clash with Luthuli was actually very messy. "The policy of the ANC would still be that of non-violence," he writes, and the new military organization was required to be "entirely separate from the ANC." Luthuli himself remained committed to non-violence until his death six years later.

Reading between the lines, Mandela seems to be suggesting that Luthuli was willing to turn a blind eye to his military adventure, provided it did not damage the mother organization. Durban Communist Rowley Arenstein rejected this out hand. "Luthuli was simply brushed aside," he said. "Adoption of armed struggle by the ANC was the act of a Johannesburg SACP clique, a hijacking."

Arenstein was subsequently purged from the party. Mandela returned to Johannesburg to plan his sabotage campaign, heedless of the counsel of men with clearer heads. "If you throw a stone into the window of a man's house," said SACP general secretary Moses Kotane, "you must be prepared for him to come out and chase you. The backlash will be fantastic. The police will go mad."

The first MK bombs went off on December 16, 1961. The rest is history.

This is the first in a series of two articles.
(Sourced from: www.politicsweb.co.za)

This article was published with the assistance of the Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für die Freiheit (FNF). The views presented in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of FNF.





15 comments :

Mike Smith said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

Excellent and brilliant article. I saved this as a reference. As you say, it might be old news, but in my opinion one learns something new everytime. I learned quite a few new things from this article. Thanks for sharing TIA.

Macaw said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

Thanks TIA, once again, a great article.

eduard said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

Bring out a sticker that can be stuck on car bumpers and lamp poles with : "GOD hates communism". Although this is not hate speech, because it directed towards a ideology and not to a person or group, there will of course be a massive uproar.

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

Against the international background of heavy Jewish involvement in Communism, did the South African experience show any parallels? Perhaps the best way to gain an insight into this topic is to quote from four books, three of which are by Jewish authors.
BOOK ONE
A History of Communism in South Africa by Dr Henry R Pike (published by Christian Mission International of South Africa, Germiston, South Africa (1985, 1988).
A large number of Jews have worked to promote Communism in South Africa, as Pike’s book indicates. Many of these Jews were involved in the organization of trade unions, particularly black trade unions. Some of the names mentioned by Pike are A Z Berman ‘a noted Marxist’ who headed the Industrial Socialist League in Cape Town; the communist writer David Shub, Solly Sachs, secretary of the Garment Workers Union and expelled from and then readmitted to the South African Communist Party, Bennie Weinbren who directed the Non-European Trade Union Federation, Issy Diamond, Abraham Levy, Hymie Levin, Issie Wolfson, Julius Lewin, Louis Joffe, Dr Max Joffe, Molly (Zelikowitz) Wolton, Lazar Bach, Rebecca (Notlowitz) Bunting, Fanny Klenerman, Michael Harmel, Sam Kahn, Katy Kagan, Eli Weinberg, Yetta Barenblatt, Hymie Barsel, Leon and Norman Levy, Lionel Forman, Jacqueline and Rowley Arenstein, Errol and Dorothy Shanley, Monty Berman, Bertram Hirson and Neville Rubin.
Dr Pike (p 212-3) quotes from a South African Government Gazette Extraordinary (vol VI 16 Nov 1962 pp 2-28) which listed ‘persons who have been office-bearers, officers, members or active supporters of the Communist Party of South Africa’. The list included 66 ‘clearly identifiable as Jews’, 61 ‘white non-Jews’ and two uncertain. At the time, the South African population was approximately 3 million whites, while the South African Jewish population was 110 000 (World Almanac 1958 p270). So there was approximately one Jew for every 26 white non-Jews in the country. If there had been an equal distribution of Communist involvement between non-Jewish whites and Jews, the Jewish membership of the Communist Party should have been one-twenty-sixth the white Gentile representation. Instead, we find slightly more Jews as members. In other words, Jews were almost thirty times more likely to become members of the Communist Party than were white Gentiles. If Jews with non-Jewish names were also counted, the ratio would be likely to have been considerably higher.
In theory this could be explained away as simple Jewish concern for the welfare of the underdog, the lowest classes, and in the South African context, evidence of Jewish sympathies across racial barriers, or non-racism. In testing such a hypothesis to see whether this is indeed the case, we can look at another instance. Such concerns have been notoriously, and very conspicuously, almost totally absent in the protracted conflict in the Middle East. There, international Jewish support has been overwhelmingly and steadfastly in favor of the Jewish Israelis, and not of the Palestinians who have lost their country, and in thousands of cases their lives, to the violent settlers from Eastern Europe and America. After all, the entire territory was under Palestinian political control until 1947. The Jewish population of the area in 1917 was a mere 7% of the 700 000 inhabitants. The other 93% were Arabs. In 1947 the United Nations under tremendous US pressure gave the Zionists, who owned only about 6% of the land, 56% of the territory of Palestine. Since then, there has been a steady take-over of the remaining territory by force, violence, warfare, bribery and stealth.

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

Perhaps you might think Dr Pike is just ‘anti-Semitic’ and his approach is biased. But have a look at the next author:

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

BOOK TWO
Jews and Zionism: the South African Experience (1910-67), by Dr Gideon Shimoni (Oxford University Press, 1980). This book appears to have been written for a Jewish readership. Two extended quotes from the book will serve as a summary of the situation some decades ago.
[Dr Shimoni was born in South Africa to parents from Lithuania, but settled in Israel where he lectured at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and where he gained post-graduate degrees in Jewish history. While bitterly contemptuous of South Africa under the apartheid system, Dr Shimoni in effect identifies with the concept of geographically based ethnic groupings that was the basis of the South African system. This kind of irony, not to say hypocrisy, is typical of Jews opposed to ‘racism’ in Europe, the US or South Africa.]
Dr Shimoni writes of ‘..the extraordinary salience of Jewish individuals in the white opposition to the regime of apartheid. Throughout this period Jewish names kept appearing in every facet of the struggle: amongst reformist liberals; in the radical Communist opposition; in the courts, whether as defendants or as counsel for the defense; in the lists of bannings and amongst those who fled the country to evade arrest. Their prominence was particularly marked in the course of the Treason Trial which occupied an important place in the news media throughout the second half of the 1950’s. This trial began in December 1956, when 156 people were arrested on charges of treason in the form of a conspiracy to overthrow the state by violence and to replace it with a state based on Communism. Twenty-three of those arrested were Whites, more than half of them Jews. They included Yetta Barenblatt, Hymie Barsel, Lionel (Rusty) Bernstein, Leon Levy, Norman Levy, Sydney Shall, Joe Slovo, Ruth (First) Slovo, Sonia Bunting, Lionel Forman, Isaac Horvitch, Ben Turok, Jacqueline Arenstein, Errol Shanley, Dorothy Shanley. To top it all, at one stage in the trial the defense counsel was led by Israel Maisels, while the prosecutor was none other than Oswald Pirow. The juxtaposition was striking: Maisels, the prominent Jewish communal leader, defending those accused of trying to overthrow White supremacy; Pirow, the extreme Afrikaner Nationalist and former Nazi sympathizer, defending White supremacy.’ (pp. 227-8).
‘In this extended five-year period between the emergence of violent opposition and its effective suppression, the prominent involvement of individual Jews was in the public eye more than ever before. This was even more so than in the dramatic circumstances of the ‘Rivonia arrests’. On 11 July 1963 the police raided the home of Arthur Goldreich in Rivonia near Johannesburg, where it captured, by surprise, the leadership cadre of the Umkonto we Sizwe underground. Seventeen people were arrested.. Five of those arrested were Whites, all of them Jews. They were: Arthur Goldreich, Lionel Bernstein, Hilliard Festenstein, Dennis Goldberg and Bob Hepple.. [There was an] overwhelming impression that Jews were in the forefront of the White radicals who were trying to overthrow the system of White supremacy in South Africa. When the secret African Resistance Movement (ARM) was crushed during 1964, it again became evident that many Jews were involved. One of its founders was identified as Monty Berman.. others were Adrian Leftwich and Bertram (Baruch) Hirson. Among those who were associated with ARM were Neville Rubin and Michael Schneider [and ] others implicated were Frederick and Rhoda Prager, Raymond Eisenstein and Hugh Lewin..’ (pp. 232-3).

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

Dr Shimoni records with obvious distaste the wording of an Afrikaans letter in a newspaper criticizing this fundamentally hypocritical proclivity of Jews: ‘They (the Jews) themselves are the most exclusive apartheid people, yet they exert themselves here for integration.’ While Jews themselves have shown no intention to integrate or merge with the African masses, they have been hyper-critical of mainstream whites who are reluctant to follow this route, criticizing churches with segregationist policies, while their synagogues have remained ethnically 100% Jewish.

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

BOOK THREE
Cutting Through the Mountain: Interviews with South African Activists Edited by Immanuel Suttner (Viking-Penguin, England and USA 1997).
This book also appears to have been written for a Jewish readership. It is a thick expensively bound book of over 600 pages, financially supported by the Liberty Life Foundation created by the Jewish mega-capitalist Donald Gordon. Suttner says ‘a disproportionate number of individual Jews played a part in transforming South Africa into a more just society. There are two streams: those who fought ‘within the system’ as jurists, members of parliament, via the media, or in civil society, and those who entered ‘illegal’ organizations which were socialist, communist or mass-based in character.’ (p.2) He says the book ‘welcomes (these Jews) back not only as worthy South Africans, socialists, communists or liberals, but as worthy Jews’ (p.3). Some of the ‘remarkable people’ (page vii) who are heroes of the book include:
Taffy Adler who was involved in the 1970s and '80s in the 'formation and consolidation of the black trade union movement'. His father was a Lithuanian Jew who emigrated to South Africa in 1926 and who 'was tremendously loyal to Stalin and Russian communism' right up to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. His uncle, Michael Harmel, became general secretary of the South African Communist Party.
Ray Alexander (Rachel Alexandrowich) arrived in South Africa from Latvia and joined the SA Communist Party five days later. She played a leading role in the organization of trade unions. She was married to Jack Simons, a 'devoted communist' and lecturer at the University of Cape Town.
Pauline Podbrey (Podbrez) born in Lithuania came to South Africa at the age of eleven. She joined the Communist Youth League, run by Max Joffe, and the related Labor League of Youth, run by Hilda Bernstein. Of the Communist Party she says 'the majority of the members were Jewish…looking back on it now, it seems as if everybody was Jewish.' (*p52). She married a prominent Indian trade unionist and Communist Party leader, resulting in her mother being ostracized by the South African Jewish community, although it has been and still is normal practice for this community to depict white non-Jews as despicable prejudiced racists.
Joe Slovo born in Lithuania, came to South Africa where he joined the Young Communist League at the age of sixteen. He became a central member of the Communist Party of South Africa and a 'hard-line Stalinist', becoming general secretary in 1986. He concentrated on building up Umkhonto we Sizwe, the ‘armed wing’ of the ANC (African National Congress), becoming its chief of staff and head strategist in the campaign of bombings directed at civilian targets and other acts of terror. He only abandoned his commitment to Stalinism and Soviet-style communism when the Soviet bloc started falling apart in the late 1980s and it became necessary to do so. A key strategist representing the ANC in the negotiations with De Klerk’s government in the hand over of power, he became a minister in Mandela's Cabinet when the ANC came to power in 1994.
He died of cancer a few years later. His daughter published an autobiographical book describing her father’s affair with a Jewish Communist friend’s wife and his utter refusal to acknowledge the son born of this relationship.
Gill Marcus, the daughter of parents involved with the Communist Party, a long-time member of the Party and of the ANC, is now a Deputy Governor of the South African Reserve Bank after being a member of the first Mandela Cabinet. Ronnie Kasrils became a central figure in the South African Communist Party and head of military intelligence of the ANC's military wing. He became Deputy Minister of Defense in the Mandela government, and is now Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry.

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

Eventually the Oppenheimer family, with financial support from Rothschild interests, controlled not only the largest gold mines in the country but also the world diamond cartel De Beers and a very large part of the South African economy, as well as the English language newspaper monopoly. De Beers in recent decades has been often implicated in trading in ‘blood-diamonds’ from war zones in Africa. (The international diamond trade in New York and Amsterdam is also largely Jewish-controlled.) The Oppenheimer press cartel normally depicted white efforts in South Africa to find political self-determination, including the apartheid policy of parallel or separate development, as totally and utterly reprehensible and unacceptable. At the same time the cartel ensured that the Israeli State did not come in for parallel criticism for its incomparably inhumane and violent oppression of the native Palestinians. The Jews have found it useful to their ethnic agenda to exacerbate tensions between white and black in South Africa, with the clear objective of subverting the apartheid idea of ethnic self-determination for a situation in which non-Jewish whites would be subject to unfettered black political and social control. Since this goal has been achieved, Jews have been emigrating in large numbers, primarily to the United States. Although scornful of white non-Jews for racism during the apartheid era, none of these Jewish emigrants are known to have moved to any African country. As Immanuel Suttner says ‘The Jewish community.. will likely continue to shrink through emigration, and those Jews who choose to stay in South Africa, and choose to involve themselves fully in South Africa’s unfolding story, face a difficult period of redefining their role and finding a niche in which they believe they are relevant and useful.’ (Cutting Through the Mountain p.4).
Why are Jews prominent as political activists in all western countries, but definitely not on behalf of the Palestinians, as fifty years of history have shown? Why were US Congressmen Stephen J. Solarz and Howard Wolpe, instrumental in securing financial sanctions against the South African apartheid regime, but ‘unwavering in their commitments to Israel’ (ex-Congressman Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Insttutions Confront Israel’s Lobby (1985) p70-71). Are hidden tribal-racial agendas a factor in "liberal" American universities and, above all, in politics?

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

sorry this goes before the last comment
BOOK FOUR
Traitors’ End: The Rise and Fall of the Communist Movement in Southern Africa by Nathaniel Weyl (Arlington House, USA, 1970).
‘For the most part, the Jews had come to South Africa from Lithuania at the turn of the century.. They had been popular at first, but by the mid-1930’s this was no longer the case. The Jews had become heavily urbanized. In Johannesburg, they constituted 17 per cent of the population and were sufficiently conspicuous so that the metropolis was sometimes referred to, not as Jo’burg, but as Jewburg. They aroused envy and some rancor during the years of depression because they controlled a large part of the business of Johannesburg and other cities.. Anti-Semitism was fed by the economic discontent.. A perhaps more important ingredient was the prominence of South African Jews in finance, mining and the other economic command posts of the nation, on the one hand, and in revolutionary and racial reform movements on the other. From the outset, the Jews had been prominent in the Communist Party and its various fronts. They were equally conspicuous in the various movements that sought to break down the barriers separating the White from the non-White population. South African anti-Semitic propaganda.. depicted the Jew as a deracinated element who sought to destroy White civilization and nationalism with the twin weapons of Communism and international finance. Given the visible prominence of Jews in both areas, this doctrine fell on receptive ears.’
The famous Rivonia Trial of the 1960’s resulted from a raid on a farm near Johannesburg in which many of the top leadership of the Communist party were detained. The White defendants were virtually all Jews, including Dennis Goldberg, ‘a civil engineer who served as commander in a Communist camp that trained young guerrillas’, and Lionel ‘Rusty’ Bernstein, the only prisoner to be acquitted. A Johannesburg architect, Bernstein ‘admitted to having been a Communist for 25 years, but successfully alleged that he had left the party, without, however, changing his revolutionary convictions.’ (Weyl pp 122-3). Amongst those implicated during the trial were the Jews Joe Slovo and his wife Ruth First, Bob Hepple and Michael Harmel. ‘Operation Mayibuye [a plan for guerrilla warfare, armed invasion of South Africa and Communist conquest of the country] was drafted by Arthur Goldreich, perhaps the most important of the men captured by the South African Police at Rivonia. Goldreich managed to bribe his way out of prison.. During the trial, Goldreich was referred to by Nelson Mandela and other defendants as a military expert who served as an officer in the Israeli war for independence.. Goldreich’s plan was modeled on the guerrilla strategy of the Chinese Communists.. Goldreich’s notebook shows constant preoccupation with the practical details of revolutionary war. He goes into the types of explosives and fuses needed and their characteristics…’ (Weyl pp124, 127-8).

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

then this
‘On December 16, 1966, the United Nations branded Rhodesia "a threat to international peace". President Johnson’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, immediately pledged United States support for sanctions against Rhodesia "in order to drive home to the illegal regime (of Ian Smith) that the international community will not tolerate the existence of a discriminatory system based on minority rule in defiance of the United Nations and its principles." Ambassador Goldberg’s logic was extraordinary, to say the least. Over half of the 122 UN member states had governments not based upon majority rule As for the United Nations statement that Rhodesia threatened international peace, the statement simply reversed the facts of the matter. Rhodesia was exposed to attacks by guerrillas, armed, financed, trained and abetted by Black African member states of the United Nations in flagrant defiance of the UN Charter.. Ambassador Goldberg had shown on previous occasions that, where racial issues were involved, he practiced a double standard of morality in favor of Black demands.. Ambassador Goldberg was not alone in his fanatical hostility to White rule in Africa..’ (Weyl pp 162-3).
Jews in South Africa in the main and those mentioned above in particular have all been pushing for a majoritarian government in which population numbers effectively mean that whites have no say over their own affairs. The new ANC-dominated South Africa is proclaimed to be a ‘democracy’, although a leading political scientist, Professor Hermann Giliomee has described the election system as a simple ethnic census. Whites, for example, have no effective power over the government as far as their own interests, such as schooling for their children or their language rights are concerned. The Constitutional Court, supposedly the custodian of these rights, has an over-representation of Jews who have shown little sympathy for white non-Jewish rights. Even the traditionally English South African game of cricket is being transformed - the Jewish former director of the cricket board, Dr Ali Bacher, did everything in his power to turn cricket in the country into a black-dominated sport.
There are various kinds of hypocrisy at work here. Authors such as Immanuel Suttner perhaps unwittingly communicate their clear belief that Jews are morally better than South African whites, because of their political stance. This in itself is not only racist but also not true. We can study the attitude of South African Jews to Middle Eastern issues to see whether they really do display a genuine moral superiority. Until a few years ago South African Jews gave more per capita to Israel than any other Jewish community in the world, including that of America (Suttner p. 420).

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

When Ronnie Kasrils, a leader of the ANC’s armed campaign against apartheid South Africa, returned home after 27 years in exile, he was lionized by a local Jewish establishment belatedly eager to associate itself with the struggle. His picture was put in the Jewish Museum in Cape Town and his name in the Book of Honor. The Jewish community basked in his reflected glory’ (Fair Lady 22 May 2002 p.37). South Africa’s Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris officiated at the funeral of Joe Slovo, calling Slovo ‘a better Jew than most’ (ibid p.39). Who was Slovo? He was general secretary of the Communist Party of South Africa and chief of staff of the armed terrorist wing of the ANC (African National Congress). When Kasrils, in an awkward position because of his cabinet post in the ANC government which includes several very influential Moslems, became one of a very small number of Jews to speak out against Israeli policies against the Palestinian people in Palestine, his name became mud. He signed a petition along with 286 other Jews to the effect that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians does not have their blessing. The South African Zionist Federation quickly organized a rival petition in support of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, and collected 11500 signatures. Helen Suzman, the veteran anti-Apartheid Jewish member of the South African parliament and consequently the recipient of numerous international honors and awards, ‘believes that everything Israel has done has been retaliatory’ (ibid p39) in spite of the fact that the Israelis, with support from Jews elswhere particularly in the US and its government, have been able to take over Palestine with absolute impunity, disregarding with absolute and violent contempt the lawful human and property rights of the Palestinians. This hypocrisy is very common, not to say dominant, in the Zionist community which forms the overwhelmingly dominant part of South African Jewry.
No candid discussion of the issues raised above was permitted to take place in South Africa before the fall of white rule owing to the ownership pattern of the newspaper cartel. There has been much talk of a ‘Jewish Capitalist-Communist nexus’ - we have to recognize that monopoly capital has an affinity with Communism. According to Antony Sutton (Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution) international bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution. In 1917, Trotsky and 200 revolutionaries were literally transferred from New York's Lower East Side to St. Petersburg to foment the revolution in Russia. Jews are internationally synonymous with hyper-capitalism or monopoly-capitalism, where ever-greater financial power is continually being sought, and there is the impression that the hunger behind this urge is insatiable. Media control is an important part of this program, because criticism must be stifled at all costs. These powerful people are ever-seeking to instruct or coerce non-Jewish people of European ancestry in the direction of non-discrimination, but always supporting their own country with its fundamental racial discrimination whereby Palestinians born in Jerusalem have no rights, while even atheistic Jews born in Milwaukee or Miami have full citizenship rights in Israel.

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

The large reserves of gold, diamonds and other natural wealth attracted Jews in large numbers from Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Russia. The discovery of gold in the Boer republic of the Transvaal turned out to be tragically unfortunate for the Boers. According to J A Hobson, an English liberal-socialist thinker and correspondent who reported on the Boer War, ‘a little ring of international financiers’, mainly Jews, led Britain into the war for their own selfish capitalist interests. (Hobson, The War in South Africa – its causes and effects (New York, Macmillan, 1900, pp194, 184, 190). Boer farms and towns were burnt to the ground. Boer women and children were herded into concentration camps, where 26 000 died through epidemics and unsanitary conditions. But the Jews gained a wonderful ascendancy in the gold and diamond industry, with leading names including Barney Barnato, Solly Joel and Lionel Phillips. Eventually the Oppenheimer family, with financial support from Rothschild interests, controlled not only the largest gold mines in the country but also the world diamond cartel De Beers and a very large part of the South African economy, as well as the English language newspaper monopoly. De Beers in recent decades has been often implicated in trading in ‘blood-diamonds’ from war zones in Africa. (The international diamond trade in New York and Amsterdam is also largely Jewish-controlled.) The Oppenheimer press cartel normally depicted white efforts in South Africa to find political self-determination, including the apartheid policy of parallel or separate development, as totally and utterly reprehensible and unacceptable. At the same time the cartel ensured that the Israeli State did not come in for parallel criticism for its incomparably inhumane and violent oppression of the native Palestinians. The Jews have found it useful to their ethnic agenda to exacerbate tensions between white and black in South Africa, with the clear objective of subverting the apartheid idea of ethnic self-determination for a situation in which non-Jewish whites would be subject to unfettered black political and social control. Since this goal has been achieved, Jews have been emigrating in large numbers, primarily to the United States. Although scornful of white non-Jews for racism during the apartheid era, none of these Jewish emigrants are known to have moved to any African country. As Immanuel Suttner says ‘The Jewish community.. will likely continue to shrink through emigration, and those Jews who choose to stay in South Africa, and choose to involve themselves fully in South Africa’s unfolding story, face a difficult period of redefining their role and finding a niche in which they believe they are relevant and useful.’ (Cutting Through the Mountain p.4).
Why are Jews prominent as political activists in all western countries, but definitely not on behalf of the Palestinians, as fifty years of history have shown? Why were US Congressmen Stephen J. Solarz and Howard Wolpe, instrumental in securing financial sanctions against the South African apartheid regime, but ‘unwavering in their commitments to Israel’ (ex-Congressman Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Insttutions Confront Israel’s Lobby (1985) p70-71). Are hidden tribal-racial agendas a factor in "liberal" American universities and, above all, in politics?

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

apologies about the mix up , hope it helps

Anonymous said... .....Click here to refresh this blog

Recalling a conversation in 1918, Trotsky wrote:2

My next visit to Moscow took place after the [temporary] fall of Ekaterinburg [to anti-Communist forces]. Speaking with Sverdlov, I asked in passing: "Oh yes, and where is the Tsar?"
"Finished," he replied. "He has been shot."
"And where is the family?"
"The family along with him."
"All of them?," I asked, apparently with a trace of surprise.
"All of them," replied Sverdlov. "What about it?" He was waiting to see my reaction. I made no reply.
"And who made the decision?," I asked.
"We decided it here. Ilyich [Lenin] believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally around, especially under the present difficult circumstances."
I asked no further questions and considered the matter closed.


notes
From an April 1935 entry in "Trotsky's Diary in Exile." Quoted in: Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1990), pp. 770, 787.; Robert K. Massie, Nicholas and Alexandra (New York: 1976), pp. 496-497.; E. Radzinksy, The Last Tsar (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 325-326.; Ronald W. Clark, Lenin (New York: 1988), pp. 349-350.

Latest 5 Featured Posts:

Operation Vula, its Secret Safari, and Zuma’s band of comrades - Dec. 2013
During 1986 the ANC launched an underground operation called Operation Vula. A lesser-known fact is that it continued to operate after Nelson Mandela's release in February 1990, and for three years after his speech in August 1990 when he reiterated the total commitment of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe and the SACP to the Groote Schuur Minute.

Heritage Day Photographs (Voortrekker Monument) - Sept. 2013
This posting includes a few photographs taken on Heritage Day 2013. The posting introduces an unusual but beautiful new structure called QUO VADIS? (with the question mark) which I’m sure many readers have never heard of.

The Yellow-Bucket Marula Tree: A Mystery Solved! - Oct. 2013
I came across a rather strange phenomenon one day while travelling along the R561 route between Tolwe and Baltimore in the Limpopo province of South Africa. A small yellow bucket was attached high-up in a branch of a Marula tree, hence the name of this posting. It’s a real funny story which I’m sure most readers will enjoy - as much as I enjoyed compiling the article  - (with illustrations).

Pretoria’s Monument for Victims of Terrorism - July 2013
Many people (including myself) had almost forgotten about a noteworthy monument in Pretoria that stood at the entrance of the old Munitoria building on the corner of Van der Walt and Vermeulen Streets (now renamed Lilian Ngoyi and Madiba Streets). When the Munitoria building was demolished on 7 July 2013 nobody could tell me whether the monument was still standing or not, so I decided to go look for myself.

Remembering The Battle of Delville Wood - July 2013
14 July marks a day when the South African 1st Infantry Brigade got engaged in the 1916 (WW1) Battle of the Somme, in France. The battle was one of the largest of World War I, in which more than a million men were wounded or killed, making it one of humanity's bloodiest battles. One specific encounter during this battle, known as The Battle of Delville Wood, is of particular importance to South Africa. The posting includes a comprehensive article (with pictures) compiled and written by Petros Kondos.


Blog Feeds - Sister Blogs:

African Countries (Alphabetical list):
(The links will redirect to the Amazon.com page dealing with the specific country.)




JKLS AFRICA



Browse Books By Category