Nelson Mandela, Communist

nelson_mandela

The six giant corporations that produce most of your media seem to be in agreement that Nelson Mandela is a pacifist hero of freedom and equality. You are taught that there is no higher goal than freedom, equality and pacifism in school and through books, movies, music and art.

This cultural consensus presents itself as universal, meaning shared by all people. If that is so, however, why does the media have to constantly pump this message toward you to the point of excluding others? This includes historical facts that are inconvenient.

Nelson Mandela was a Communist guerrilla. This fact should not require explaining away. It should also not be hidden. One way to hide it is to selectively fail to mention it while enthusiastically repeating other ideas. This act of omission combined with what is basically an advertising campaign amounts to concealment and in practical terms, the same thing as lying.

If you find your media is lying to you, it then makes sense to ask why. The answer appears to be that media is a product and inherently untrustworthy, and it is selling to an audience that it perceives is liberal. It may do this because most of the people who work in media, as people who like to draw attention to themselves, are solipsists.

In other words, the megaphone that you trust for truth may most commonly broadcast the products of a mental health problem (solipsism) and mislead you. This means the news is manipulated not for a better world, but for the personal pretense and conceits necessary to justify the insanity of individuals.

But we can clear this up. Was Nelson Mandela a Communist? Let’s look at Mr. Nelson Mandela’s record here:

The former South African president, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, has always denied being a member of the South African branch of the movement, which mounted an armed campaign of guerrilla resistance along with the ANC.

But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mr Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC’s campaign of armed resistance to white rule.

His book also provides fresh detail on how the ANC’s military wing had bomb-making lessons from the IRA, and intelligence training from the East German Stasi, which it used to carry out brutal interrogations of suspected “spies” at secret prison camps. – “Nelson Mandela ‘proven’ to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial,” by Colin Freeman and Jane Flanagan, The Guardian, December 8, 2012.

The following reveals the origins of the people who became the ANC through “pressure from above.” Political groups tend to form where they can find support, funding and weapons:

From its formation in 1921 as the first Marxist-Leninist party on the continent, the Communist Party struggled with the need to reconcile race and class, nationalism and socialism in its doctrine. Formed by whites but for over 30 years the only nonracial political party in South Africa, it initially appealed to the white working class. Skilled artisans and intellectuals had brought socialist thinking from Britain around the turn of the century. In 1909 a Labour Party was formed but split over the World War. Those who opposed participation and were enthusiastic about the Russian Revolution joined with several small Marxist groups to form the Communist Party of South Africa.

The party’s notorious but anti-capitalist slogan during the white mineworkers’ uprising of 1922 was “Workers of the World, Fight and Unite for a White South Africa,” (emphasis added). The strike was brutally crushed. Recognizing the hostility of white workers to it, the party turned to the African working class, conducting night schools and organizing trade unions. In 1928 almost all of its 1,750 members were Africans. Only about 150 were whites, but they continued to predominate.

Within a few years the party was shattered, hit by government repression but even more by the consequences of obedience to the Moscow-based Comintern. Despite remonstrances about the need for appealing also to the white working class, the Comintern in 1928 ordered as correct the slogan: “an independent native South African republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic with full, equal rights for all races.” The factionalism and expulsions that followed this declaration virtually decimated the party. With the rise of Hitler and Moscow’s new emphasis on organizing all-class united fronts, the party slowly revived. – “South African Liberation: The Communist Factor,” by Thomas G. Karis, Foreign Affairs, Winter 1986/87.

The ANC represented an attempt by Communist forces in South Africa to switch from a whites-oriented Communist revolution to a multicultural Communist revolution, although as time went on they had the wisdom to hides its Communist roots so that egalitarian Western “useful idiots” would support it.

Even Mandela’s defenders admit his flirtation with Communism was more than at the surface:

We know that between June and December 1961, Mandela remained in hiding in a series of safe houses arranged by SACP members, passing much of the time reading a series of classic authorities on insurgent warfare. This seems the most likely time for him to have joined the party. He already had a rough grasp of the essentials of Marxist ideas, acquired again through reading and discussions with Moses Kotane at the beginning of the 1950s. As he noted much later in his 1994 autobiography, during the 1950s, the certainties offered by “the scientific underpinnings of dialectical materialism” were for him powerfully compulsive. – “Mandela’s communism: why the details matter,” by Tom Lodge, Open Democracy, September 9, 2011.

And despite generally leaning toward leftism, Wikipedia acknowledges what it considers harmless facts:

Umkhonto we Sizwe (abbreviated as MK, translated as “Spear of the Nation”) was the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), co-founded by Nelson Mandela, which fought against the South African government.[1] MK launched its first guerrilla attacks against government installations on 16 December 1961. It was subsequently classified as a terrorist organisation by the South African government and the United States, and banned.[2]

For a time it was headquartered in Rivonia, a suburb of Johannesburg. On 11 July 1963, 19 ANC and MK leaders, including Arthur Goldreich and Walter Sisulu, were arrested at Liliesleaf Farm, Rivonia (26°2′36″S 28°3′15″E). The farm was privately owned by Arthur Goldreich and bought with South African Communist Party and ANC funds. – “Umkhonto we Sizwe,” Wikipedia, Anonymous, retrieved December 6, 2013.

Left-leaning CNN affirms the same facts and points out Mandela’s lengthy history with the Communists:

Mandela’s close association with Marxists goes back at least to the 1940s, when he was enrolled in law school.

He began a life-long friendship with Joe Slovo, “an ardent communist,” the anti-apartheid icon wrote in his autobiography “Long Walk to Freedom.”

Mandela described Slovo as of the people, “without whom I would have accomplished very little.”

A watershed moment tightly bonded Mandela to Slovo and other communist allies.

Police gunned down 69 unarmed protesters in the town of Sharpville in March 1960. Then the government banned the communist party and the African National Congress, which fought for the freedom of black South Africans.

With Slovo and other Marxists, he co-founded the militia movement Umkhonto we Sizwe. It’s meaning: “Spear of the Nation.”

On December 16, 1961, the group carried out its first attacks on government installations and handed out leaflets announcing its existence. – “Nelson Mandela death: Examining the backlash,” by Ben Brumfield, CNN, December 6, 2013.

It is ridiculous to claim Nelson Mandela as either a pacifist or a non-Communist when he was caught, along with his fellow ANC members, in possession of a large number of Soviet Bloc arms and ammunition that was too large to have been purchased on the open market, and thus most likely came from the Soviet government.

A good summary of the history of the period:

In South Africa, it was the Soviet bloc—the same communist governments that were brutally repressing their own people—that helped the ANC fight apartheid. In the 1980s, they were joined by an American and European anti-apartheid movement willing to overlook the ANC’s communist ties because they refused to see South Africa’s freedom struggle through a Cold War lens. At a time when men like Reagan and Cheney were insisting that the most important thing about Mandela was where he stood in the standoff between Washington and Moscow, millions of citizens across the West insisted that the ANC could be Soviet-backed, communist-influenced, and still lead a movement for freedom. – “Don’t Sanitize Nelson Mandela: He’s Honored Now, But Was Hated Then,” by Peter Beinart, The Daily Beast, December 5, 2013.

Even more, Western liberals began covering up this fact early on:

We know this from any number of sources, but let’s hear it from Hilda Bernstein, who lived long enough to acquire a shrewd understanding of herself and the Communist movement of which she was a lifelong part. “Joe and Rusty were hardline Stalinists,” she said in 2004, speaking of her late husband Rusty, a Central Committee member, and Joe Slovo, the most influential Communist of his era. “Anything the Soviets did was right,” said Mrs. Bernstein. “They were very, very pro-Soviet.”

This much could be easily gleaned by reading the SACP journal, African Communist, or just sniffing the air outside the London headquarters of the African National Congress; during the struggle years (1960–1990) the SACP reeked of Soviet orthodoxy, and the ANC reeked of the SACP. As a journalist, you had to be very careful what you said about this. The civilized line was the one ceaselessly propounded in The New York Times—Nelson Mandela was basically a black liberal, and his movement was striving for universal democratic values. Anyone who disagreed was an anti-Communist crank, as Keller labels me. – “Mandela & Communism: An Exchange,” by Bill Keller, New York Review of Books, March 21, 2013.

But don’t take our word for it. Read his. Nelson Mandela’s, that is. Here’s an excerpt from his book, How to Be a Good Communist:

The goal of Communism is a classless society based on the principle: from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. The aim is to change the present world into a Communist world where there will be no exploiters and no exploited, no oppressor and oppressed, no rich and no poor. Communists fight for a world where there will be no unemployment, no poverty and starvation, disease and ignorance. In such a world there will be no capitalists, no imperialists, no fascists. There will be neither colonies nor wars.

In our own country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its policies. The aim of the S.A.C.P. is to defeat the Nationalist government and to free the people of South Africa from the evils of racial discrimination and exploitation and to build a classless or socialist society in which the land, the mines, the mills, our . . . . . . . (unreadable)

Under a Communist Party Government South Africa will become a land of milk and honey. Political, economic and social rights will cease to be enjoyed by Whites only. They will be shared equally by Whites and Non-Whites. There will be enough land and houses for all. There will be no unemployment, starvation and disease.

Workers will earn decent wages; transport will be cheap and education free. There will be no pass laws, no influx control, no Police raids for passes and poll tax, and Africans, Europeans, Coloureds and Indians will live in racial peace and perfect equality.

The victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., in the Peoples Republic of China, in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Rumania, where the living conditions of the people were in many respects similar and even worse than ours, proves that we too can achieve this important goal. – “How to Be a Good Communist,” by Nelson Mandela.

Further reading Mandela’s words, here’s his admission to being part of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the terrorist organization that attacked civilian areas like shopping centers and banks:

I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.

I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962. – “Read the most important speech Nelson Mandela ever gave,” by Max Fisher, Washington Post, December 5, 2013.

madela_communist

Here’s the paragon of racial tolerance singing “Kill the Boer,” a reference to the Dutch-descended ethnic group in South Africa:

35 Comments

  1. josef H says:

    is that a self-hating white, singing about killing whites, next to mandela??

    1. crow says:

      No, that’s a normal, well-adjusted, nice person.

  2. crow says:

    I could hardly believe my eyes when I read he was actually dead, as opposed to endless tales of would-he-wouldn’t-he be.

    I never bought the media version of his wonderful-ness, but didn’t hold it against him nearly as much as I did against the lie-mongering media.
    We will, no doubt, be told over and over, how we are all mourning his passing, but at least, now, there is an end in sight.

  3. Jose says:

    Brett,

    WOW! I did not know that Mandela was involved with the Communists? And even more surprised that he was involved in forming a armed political group!

    The MSM made him appear as a Pacifist this whole time! I tell you you can never judge a book by its cover. If i knew this back then my view of him would have been viewed differently. I do not know why i could not put two and two together! Although i did wonder who this Pacifist was able to rise to such a high post as President?

    I guarantee you that the majority of the people do not know the real truth of Nelson Mandela. Information like this is very important to know which is why i like coming to this site and read about many interesting topics!

    Keep up the great work you are doing Brett!! I greatly appreciate the knowledge being passed down!

  4. […] I have to admit that i felt the same way for that man not really knowing his background like i should i too thought of him as a great man! Until recently when i began to read articles about Mandela’s history and the things he has accomplished in his life. Unfortunately with a lot of the things he did have been positive but there are were quite a few negative things that i have read recently of him being a Communist as well as terrorist. […]

  5. […] days. His resume, depending upon who does the editing and interpretation tells of a great man or evil communist. I’d choose Option C and suggest he was both. The real question would be “At what part […]

  6. Marcus Antony says:

    dang prozak, i would have reckoned you for more of a supporter of a strong black african brother leading an african nation, on the african continent, what with all the osiris akebelahh love and such.

    1. I support making overtures to South Africans to repatriate them in the USA and/or Australia. I think Africa should be for Africans. However, given the high Useful Idiot worship of Nelson Mandela here in the West, I think it’s useful to remind everyone of what Mandela actually is: a Communist, terrorist, murderer and criminal.

      It is not my job to pick Africa’s leaders for it. This article isn’t about Mandela in Africa, but Mandela in the West, where we are fighting Communism (which is a slightly greater degree of the usual liberal babble, whether we call it leftism, liberalism, anarchism, progressivism, social democracy, liberal democracy or Socialism).

      I hope that Africa will pick up where Robert Mugabe left off, minus some of his failed policies which mirror the failures of Adolf Hitler and other far-right leaders who attempted but fell short of restoring nationalism, and own itself finally. Osiris Akkebala would make an excellent leader for all of Africa, much as Marcus Garvey would have before him. I know of a half-dozen others who would also do quite well.

      Africa for Africans.

      1. crow says:

        You think Hitler was far-right?
        Nationalist Socialism doesn’t seem to suggest right-wing.

        1. I think Hitler wanted to be a lot of things he could envision aesthetically but not structurally. He was a painter, not really a philosopher. I’m not trying to run the guy down, just stating the facts. And for the record, I’m a terrible painter, can’t draw, and can only photograph thumbs — my own.

          Was National Socialism right wing? The classic weasel answer of “Well, Yes and No” emerges. Its socialist basis excludes it from paleoconservatism, that’s for certain. But its mix of influences, mainly the moderate German conservatives, the volkisch conservative, and greens gave it a certain spin. It was clearly occult-affiliated, which is interesting from any viewpoint. It later took on a huge influence from the fascists, although it was not a fascist movement.

          So I’d categorize it as a hybrid. However, in intent? Very much a desire to return to the kingdoms of the ancients, thus right-wing. Was it unable to realize itself? Most definitely. The poor fellows were quite confused but alas — and this ties in with things you mention, crow, about how conscious thought can ruin us — they had a clear vision i.e. visual aspect of what they wanted to create.

          I wish they’d stuck to movies. Then again, their defeat may have avoided a worse fate for Europe, so it’s hard to say.

          1. crow says:

            Thank you. I can always count on you for reasoned and reasonable discourse.
            The trouble with history is that you can never go back and understand it. It is difficult enough to understand current affairs.
            I have grudging respect for the Nazis, suspecting, as I do, that their vision was grand and courageous. Any reasonably civilized human would, however, have trouble justifying their overall behaviour in the quest to realize that vision.

            1. And you, whose words I read quite avidly, despite knowing the writer often disclaims the use of words themselves.

              A phrase comes to mind regarding the Nazis, Confederacy, fascists, etc. “We had to destroy the village to save it.”

              Such logic makes my ears hurt.

            2. Meow Mix says:

              The whole ‘Nazis and fascists were really leftwing’ thing is a bunch of bullshit cooked up by Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck, and the Libertardians. They were certainly not left and they certainly weren’t socialists. In fact, the English word ‘privatization’ was first applied to the economy of the Third Reich, where Hitler sold most of the government services to private capitalists.

              See here: http://c4ss.org/content/124

              And here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whos-a-fascist/

              “fascism was a movement that prospered on the European continent between the two world wars. It was an imitation of the left that tried to pull along the working class, but it depended mostly on bourgeois support. Its economics were corporatist in theory but in practice usually left most of the economy in private hands. Unlike the left, fascists believed in hierarchy and in the organization of the nation along organic and vocational lines. But these preferences led only to minimal change in the social structure, and except for their style and fondness for pageantry, it is hard to distinguish some fascist or quasi-fascist regimes from traditional authoritarian ones.”

              1. Interesting, although the National Socialists were not fascists.

                1. Meow Mix says:

                  Agreed. Nazis were concerned with the volk community, which transcended considerations for class, economics, or even form of governance, hence their ambivalent relationship to capitalism. The fascists were straightforward statists who conceived of society as an organic whole operating through subsidiaries and cartels, hence their rejection of class war and support of capitalists. However, since the two are often bunched together, the same arguments apply.

                  1. That’s a good quick differentiation. One reason the two are treated as the same is that they’re the only non-leftist authoritarian governments from the modern time.

      2. NotTheDude says:

        Would at least a Boer homeland in Africa be practical? They were dumped there and grew to be what they are today. I do wonder though, how such a group of black sheep would thrive beset on all sides by groups so unlike themselves.

        1. The problem is diversity itself; if there is an alien group present, it will be blamed. If it succeeds, it will suddenly be surrounded by people who want to take what it has. The only solution is for it to either maintain itself as separate through some system like apartheid, or for the other group to be in control, at which point the alien group will forever be servants who suffer a high deal of state sanctioned wealth confiscation.

          Hence, Kansas.

          1. NotTheDude says:

            I understand that. I meant them having their own state in Africa, apart from other nations. I feel that could happen if done well. I just fear it may lead to an Israel/Palestinian kind of situation, lobbing bombs at each other like angry neighbours.

            1. I think it would rapidly lead to the kind of “Balkanized” situation you describe. If two groups don’t absorb each other, they’re incompatible and will grow more so as they are forced into direct conflict. This creates an accelerating extremity.

              1. NotTheDude says:

                Maybe then can just be accepted as another nation on the continent with their own borders. They would have the same in Europe or elsewhere. Africa is big enough for one white tribe at least. Israel is not much different to that. Can Black Africans accept Europeans on a patch of African land as their nation or must they move to a place that is more ‘Boer Friendly’ such as Australia? That is my question.

                1. Can Black Africans accept Europeans on a patch of African land as their nation or must they move to a place that is more ‘Boer Friendly’ such as Australia?

                  I don’t think it can work; every ethnic group needs self rule and thus, Africans need self-rule.

                  The problem also is that a prosperous society like South Africa attracted native workers to places where they previously did not inhabit.

                  Either way, it puts both groups in competition with the other, creating alienation in addition to the question of who rules.

          2. You are basically correct about “diversity” in the sense of forced social mixing, it normally leads to ethnic chaos. However, you have to keep in mind that “apartheid” in terms of how it was historically practiced does not mean merely “separation”, but actually a combination of separation and domination of one racial group over another. A system of separation that wouldn’t result in discontent would have to avoid domination, and truly the best way to do this is to provide the different groups with homogeneous and autonomous self-governing regions in which to live. Until that happens, how could South Africans not continue to be dissatisfied?

            Good job exposing Mandela as a Communist, by the way. I was aware of the fact, but not many people see the evidence.

            1. You didn’t understand what I wrote.

              “The problem is diversity itself; if there is an alien group present, it will be blamed. If it succeeds, it will suddenly be surrounded by people who want to take what it has. The only solution is for it to either maintain itself as separate through some system like apartheid, or for the other group to be in control, at which point the alien group will forever be servants who suffer a high deal of state sanctioned wealth confiscation.

              Hence, Kansas.”

              The last two words are what is being endorsed; the prior paragraph is a discussion of possible options if that direction (Kansas) is not taken.

  7. jack tracz says:

    Anyone friendly with Castro and Ghaddafi is not a good person also ask Mandela how those former communists countries are 1,000 better then with Mandela’s Communist buddies

  8. […] days. His resume, depending upon who does the editing and interpretation tells of a great man or evil communist. I’d choose Option C and suggest he was both. The real question would be “At what part of his […]

  9. […] bitter exchanges with the Party and I have no love for their Stalinism. There have been a series of predictable attacks of Mandela since the revelation, indicating perhaps why these facts were hidden for so […]

  10. NotTheDude says:

    I hold that if the Nazis had just stuck to Germany within her borders, been fair and supportive to Jews living there whilst showing the benefits of Israel, most of what they might have done would be a great boon and example to the rest of Europe and the World. Much of what they did was misguided and sick but so was the Harrying of the North in my own land, almost a thousand years ago. Many died and suffered in that and that was to lay low a system of government and much of a way of life that had thrived for hundreds of years. Time now makes the Normans look like the righteous side, what with their castles and Central Parliament. Savaging a decent folk to make your lives better is unjustifiable but we cannot deny the Nazis good points.

    1. Astute observations. Had the Nazis been less genocidal, it’s possible the world would have stood behind them and helped them eliminate the real threat of Communism, which turned out to be more murderous and dangerous in a “world on brink of nuclear conflict for fifty years” kind of way.

      1. NotTheDude says:

        Put like that, Communism is much more of a threat than Nazism. Where are the modern thriving Nazi states, teaming with scapegoating Ubermensch? It is too blatant an ideology to last long. But Communism is the shape shifter. It cunningly nests in the nooks of society to be kindled anew as its embryonic form, Leftism, to grow in the name of ‘fairness and equality’.

        1. That’s a really good point. In my view, liberalism itself is the enemy; Communism is one of its forms and is differentiated only by a matter of degree. In substance, it’s not much different than mainstream leftism. Liberalism also is not its own entity, but a form of Crowdism, which is the individualist notion that establishing a collective to enforce individualism somehow alleviates the necessity of paying attention to reality and its methods. This is one reason liberalism is so tenacious. If it is persecuted, it simply reverts to an earlier ancestor, hides within the opposition, and then rebirths itself once the threat is over.

          I don’t see Crowdism as ever being “eradicated,” since it’s a mental pitfall like any other. All human societies have struggled with delusion and hubris, and Crowdism is just one of its many eternal forms. A strong culture, values system and heritage is about the only bulwark against this plague possible, plus having people of genius active in society who can wage war against the unrealistic mentation it requires.

          1. NotTheDude says:

            That is the truth.

  11. LoreTek says:

    “From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs” : “No exploiters and no exploited, no oppressor and oppressed”

    as,

    Rain : Sunshine

    (These “word problems” or “analogies” or “ratios” were also curiously taken out of standardization acceptance tests I mean SAT’s. Obviously, being able to learn when two things other than numbers don’t compute would not really work out for the whole, thing, they are going for.)

    Also, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25311513. Apparently when a Conservative dies she gets death parties, but when a Communist dies he becomes a “giant of history”.

    With such failures of reason as above, it’s no wonder “we’re not quite there” Obamacare, is still not quite there.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.783 seconds