“Apartheid was a Just War for Boer Survival”; Excerpts from Radical Honesty SA Amicus in Afriforum v. Malema

[Afriforum v. Malema] [Truth about Truth Commission] [Boer Volkstaat: Jus Sanguinis]

Excerpt from Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae Heads of Argument, filed in Afriforum v. Malema:

IV. JUST WAR & TRAGEDY OF ANC’S BREEDING WAR COMMONS

1. Apartheid: Crime Against Humanity; or Just War for Boer Demographic Survival?
   
2. ANC’s Liberation Struggle violated Just War (Honour) Theory Principles
   
3. No Just Cause: ANC refused to non-violently end their Breeding War
   
4. No Right Intention: Apartheid raised black Living Standards to Highest in Africa
   
5. No Proper Authority: Did Black South Africans want Black Rule?
   
6. No Proportional Force: People’s War to coerce support for ‘liberation struggle’
   
7. No Proportional Force: ANC’s Mbokodo Quatro Torture Camps
   
8. War No Last Resort: Violence a Liberating force’ on Rotting Corpse of Settler

Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae filed in Afriforum v. Malema

19 April 2011

19 April 2011: Filed with Registrar:
20 April 2011: Judge Lamont confirms receipt in Court Proceedings
PDF: Radical Honesty Amicus

IV: JUST WAR & TRAGEDY OF ANC’S BREEDING WAR COMMONS

1. Apartheid: Crime Against Humanity; or Just War for Boer Demographic Survival?
   
2. ANC’s Liberation Struggle violated Just War (Honour) Theory Principles
   
3. No Just Cause: ANC refused to non-violently end their Breeding War
   
4. No Right Intention: Apartheid raised black Living Standards to Highest in Africa
   
5. No Proper Authority: Did Black South Africans want Black Rule?
   
6. No Proportional Force: People’s War to coerce support for ‘liberation struggle’
   
7. No Proportional Force: ANC’s Mbokodo Quatro Torture Camps
   
8. War No Last Resort: Violence a Liberating force’ on Rotting Corpse of Settler

A. Apartheid: Crime Against Humanity; or Just War for Demographic Survival?

63. Applying ‘Just War’ Principles to Apartheid v. Liberation Struggle Conflict: In Just War Theory[149], Alexander Moseley, explains that the doctrine of just war only holds for cultures who practice cultural equivalent codes of military honour[150]:
    

    Historically, the just war tradition–a set of mutually agreed rules of combat—may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. That is, when an array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare. But when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, and as such they see each other as “less than human”, war conventions are rarely applied.

    
    
64. However, the ANC and TRC ignored the huge differences in cultural concepts of military honour. Instead the TRC insisted the ANC’s liberation struggle was a ‘Just War’ against the ‘crime of apartheid’. Has apartheid ever been convicted in a court of law as a ‘crime’? In 1962 Liberia and Ethiopia brought ‘crimes of apartheid’ charges against S. Africa for practicing the crime of apartheid in South West Africa[151]. South Africa delivered a written presentation of 3000 pages, called 15 expert witnesses who testified that fifty countries practiced a form of apartheid between groups, classes or races forty of them members of the UN at the time, including Ethiopia and Liberia. The petitioners refused to appear in person to testify and be cross examined, even though S. Africa offered to pay all their expenses. S. Africa was found not guilty of practicing the ‘crime of apartheid’ in Namibia.
    

    “It was specified in Article 22 of the Covenant that the "best method of giving practical effect to [the] principle" that the "well-being and development" of those peoples in former enemy colonies "not yet able to stand by themselves"… was that "the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations . . . who are willing to accept it."[152]

    
    
65. Irrespective ten years to the day of the ICJ ruling, the UN issued their Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid[153]:
    

    The Apartheid Convention was the ultimate step in the condemnation of apartheid as it not only declared that apartheid was unlawful because it violated the Charter of the United Nations, but in addition it declared apartheid to be criminal. The Apartheid Convention was adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973, by 91 votes in favour, four against (Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) and 26 abstentions. It came into force on 18 July 1976.
    
    As of August 2008, it has been ratified by 107 States. Although consideration was given in 1980 to the establishment of a special international criminal court to try persons for the crime of apartheid (E/CN.4/1426 (1981)), no such court was established.
    
    No one was prosecuted for the crime of apartheid while apartheid lasted in South Africa. And no one has since been prosecuted for the crime.

    
    
66. No Apartheid Official has ever been convicted of the ‘crime of apartheid’[154], a fact ignored by the falsify-facts ‘point at a deer and call it a horse’[155] United Nations.
    
    
67. Radical Honesty submit that ‘Crime of Apartheid’ TRC Commissioners lacked a Descartian Individualist cultural code of military honour[156] or philosophical courage[157], to impartially enquire into demographic motives and causes of Apartheid and Anti-Apartheid political violence; unable to “accept that, irrespective of the methods used, both sides performed their duties bona fide, in what they perceived to be service to their respective political masters,”[158] that “no single side in the conflict of the past has a monopoly of virtue or should bear responsibility for all the abuses that occurred”[159].

B. ANC’s ‘Liberation Struggle’ violated Just War (Honour) Theory Principles:

68. Just War Theory[160] is a derivative of International law, which deals with the justifications – theoretical or historical -- for war and how and why wars are fought. The theoretical aspect is used by military strategists and historians to determine whether a war can, or could be ethically justified, and what forms of warfare are, and are not allowed. The Just War Tradition, or historical aspect of Just War Theory dates back to the concept of Chivalry, or more specifically the codes of Military Honour conduct that have held currency with the military elite since the age of chivalry.
    
    
69. In Chivalry without a Horse: Military Honour and the Modern Law of Armed Conflict[161] Rain Liivoja writes: “At the core of this code stood an ideal that was certainly not characteristic to the Middle Ages alone: ‘[c]hivalry was often no more, and no less, than the sentiment of honour in its medieval guise'. Thus, to speak of chivalry is to speak of a military code of honour, which already sounds far less archaic. Honour, moreover, has played a key role in military thinking over millennia, so it does not seem out of place to talk about it with reference to modern warfare… [.. ] But the basic rules of armed conflict were not invented in the late 19th century: one of their most significant sources was the medieval code of chivalry. ”
    
    
70. TRC avoid Just War/Honour Enquiry whether Boers & Africans are Culturally Similar Enemies: Clearly Boer and African cultures are anything but culturally similar, for they do not subscribe to same rules of combat[166]. For example: Africans endorse breeding wars; Boers do not. The TRC avoided any enquiry into the cultural similarity, or not, of Boer and African cultures to determine whether their application of the ANC’s ‘liberation struggle’ as a ‘Just War’ was accurate and true. However, assuming that Boer and African cultures are similar; was the ANC’s liberation struggle a ‘Just War’?
    
    
71. The principles of the just (honourable) war are (i) having just cause, (ii) being a last resort, (iii) being declared by a proper authority, (iv) possessing right intention, (v) having a reasonable chance of success, and (vi) the end being proportional to the means used.
    
    
72. Radical Honesty do not believe that the ANC’s liberation struggle was a Just War. (i) The ANC had No Just Cause; No Right Intention; No Proper Authority; Did not Declare War as a Last Resort; No Reasonable Chances of Success, and Did Not Use Proportional Force. Just Post Bellum: Subsequent to the cessation of the Apartheid conflict as a result of the ‘TRC Ceasefire negotiations’, the ANC did not choose to avoid imposing punishment on innocents and non-combatants. Finally, the ANC reneged upon its promises of Political Amnesty in cases such as Eugene de Kock, Clive Derby-Lewis, Januzs Walus, and others, whose crimes were clearly politically motivated; while endorsing amnesty for their necklacing cadres; destroying any possible trust that could have been cultivated with minorities, by honouring their agreements.

C. No Just Cause: ANC could have non-violently ended their Breeding War:

“The wombs of our women will give us victory.” -- Houari Boumediene, President of Algeria, at the United Nations, 1974

"One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory." (Boumediene was an ardent supporter of the ANC and SWAPO)

“We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an Act of War,” was the ‘Just War defence’ response by Former Judge Jason G. Brent, to an individual who disputed that the National Party could rationally conclude that white South Africans were facing extinction as a result of the ‘swart gevaar’ (ANC and Africans breeding war decisions and actions); and as a result needed to implement Apartheid for the survival of whites.

73. ANC’s Penis and Womb ‘Operation Production’ Act of War Breeding War:
    
    
74. Operation Production is a Revolutionary Thing: In We Want 60% of Anglo American, says Malema[167], City Press write:
    

    “To prevent the revolution from losing steam, Malema urged a full hall in the Ehlanzeni District Municipality building to have as many babies as possible. “Having babies is a revolutionary thing. You must reproduce!”

    
    
    
75. Operation Production: In Witchcraft and the State in South Africa[168] Johannes Harnischfeger writes:
    

    Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: “They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn't ask your mother they just said ‘come let's go.’ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our parents were afraid of them.
    
    All [young girls or women] opposing the wishes of the [ANC young cadres] were reminded, that it was every woman’s obligation to give birth to new “soldiers”, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as “operation production”. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives.”

    
    
    
76. Opposing the Wishes of the ANC Cadres Operation Production: In Racist, Sexist, Violent-Peddling, Malema Hate-Talk dangerous for the future[169], Mphutlane wa Bofelo writes:
    

    The street committee members would go on house-to-house raids, forcefully taking young people, including young girls to go on street-patrols. There were then many reports of acts of sexual abuse and rape of young girls being taken to certain hide-outs and camps and being raped. As a result of fear of the comrades and cynicism towards the apartheid police these cases were never reported.

    
    
77. In Rape victim Zuma obtains asylum in the Netherlands, Femke van Zeijl, a Dutch blog quote Fezeka Kuswayo:
    

    ‘I have been raped by comrades before. They force women to sleep with them, even now, because they have the power to do so. And no one dares to speak out. The culture of violence has never ceased to exist in the South-African ANC, even after the end of apartheid.’ – Ms. Fezeka Kuswayo

    
    
78. ANC’ Cadre’s Right to Sleep with ANC Women: In Women in the ANC and Swapo: Sexual Abuse of Young Women in the ANC Camps[170] Sam Mngqibisa shares his poem about his education to be an Mbokodo Officer, including the ‘right to sleep with all these women’:
    

    Give a young boy — 16 years old — from the ghetto of Soweto, an
    opportunity to drive a car for the first time in his life.
    This boy is from a poor working class family.
    Give him money to buy any type of liquor and good, expensive clothes.
    This boy left South Africa during the Soweto schools uprising in 1976.
    He doesn't know what is an employer.
    He never tasted employer-exploitation.
    Give him the right to sleep with all these women.
    Give him the opportunity to study in Party Schools and well-off
    military academies in Eastern Europe.
    Teach him Marxism-Leninism and tell him to defend the revolution
    against counter-revolutionaries.
    Send him to the Stasi to train him to extract information by force from
    enemy agents. He turns to be a torturer and executioner by firing
    squad.
    All these are the luxuries and the dream-come-true he never thought
    of for his lifetime...
    This Security becomes the law unto itself.

    
    
79. Could the ANC have won their liberation struggle non-violently; by demonstrating their honourable Just War Just Cause Population Policy Intentions to end their Breeding War?: In Boer Volkstaat 10/31/16 Theses: Executive Summary[171]: TRC Fraud Population Policy Common Sense, Jus Sanguinis Petitioners write:
    

    If the ANC’s alleged motives to liberate poor black South Africans were sincere, there were other non-violent population policy options which could have resulted not only in significant socio-economic results for poor black Africans, but also in convincing Apartheid citizens and politicians of the ANC and black African’s honourable intentions to give up its cultural breeding war as a tactic of war. Had the ANC simply encouraged its followers to adopt the following principle, it would have made a huge socio-economic impact on poor S. Africans, and Apartheid supporting politicians and citizens, that black South Africans were finally adopting a culture of personal procreation and familial responsibility, which would make them eligible for the responsibility of political suffrage:
    

    “If you finish high school and keep a job without having children before marriage, you will almost certainly not be poor. Period. I have repeatedly felt the air go out of the room upon putting this to black audiences. No one of any political stripe can deny it. It is human truth on view.”
    — Excerpt from John McWhorter’s Review[172] of Professor of Law Amy Wax’s book: Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century

    
    
80. In an Audi Alteram Partem Request for Information to European Union, Netherlands, Swiss, UK et al Anti-Apartheid Movement Org's: Audi Alteram Partem Notice: Boer Volkstaat 10/31/16 Theses Petition & Briefing Paper submission to EU Stamvader/Progenitor Nations, NATO and UN Members[177]; Johnstone wrote:
    

    Request for Information from European Union Anti-Apartheid Organisations/Archives:
    
    Prior to the ANC’s M-Plan declaration of War against Apartheid: Did any EU Anti-Apartheid Organisation advise the ANC or any SA Anti-Apartheid Organisation to avoid/suspend the violent ‘liberation struggle ’campaign against the Apartheid Goverment, and to launch a non-violent cultural and political campaign to stop the African ‘swart gevaar’ breeding-war population explosion, to demonstrate the ANC’s honourable Just War Just Cause Intentions?
    
    If (a) it was abundantly clear that the major fundamental motive for establishing Apartheid was fear of the ‘swart gevaar’; (2) Apartheid Officials and citizens ‘swart gevaar’ population policy fears are not only legally and ecologically justifiable, but common sense; (3) the ANC and Anti-Apartheid movement were culturally honourably concerned with Just War practices; (4) why did the ANC not consider launching a non-violent cultural and political campaign to stop their African ‘swart gevaar’ breeding-war population explosion, to demonstrate their honourable Just War Just Cause Intentions to ‘swart gevaar’ Apartheid Officials and citizens?

D. No Right Intention: Apartheid raised black living standards to Highest in Africa:

“Most people overseas were still under the impression that the policy of separate development was aimed at keeping the Bantu down. They did not realise that the policy was aimed at uplifting them.” – R.J. Stratford, Former Opposition MP[178]

“Until I have found an alternative policy which would do greater justice to all concerned – and I cannot – I do not propose to criticise South Africa’s policy.” – Sir Carl Berendson, New Zealand Ambassador, after a two months tour of South Africa [179]

“Apartheid is conceived of by the government of South Africa as a ‘separate and parallel’ development, and to implement it the government is creating Bantu states, where complete self-government will be not only permitted but encouraged, after a period of transition. The ultimate objective will be a dual commonwealth in which the Bantustans will be constituent units… Self government is to be developed on the basis of tribal traditions, the objective being full democracy, but in the form most readily assimilated by the African…” – Clarence B. Randall, advisor to President Kennedy [180]

81. Yosef Lapide, a journalist for the Tel Aviv newspaper Ma’Ariv’s wrote:
    

    Well, the so called liberated African states are, with a few exceptions, a bad joke and an insult to human dignity. They are run by a bunch of corrupt rulers, some of whom, Like Idi Amin of Uganda, are mad according to all the rules of psychiatry. I feel unburdened when I say this; I wanted to say this all these years, and all these years I had the feeling that we fool the public when, for reasons of diplomacy, we do not tell them that the majority of black African states are one nauseating mess.
    
    The lowliest of Negroes in South Africa has more civil rights than the greatest Soviet author. The most oppressed negro in South Africa has more to eat than millions of Africans in “Liberated” countries. The people advocating “progress”, who were so worried about the rights of the majority in South Africa, have never raised their voices for the majority in Hungary or in Cuba, in Red China or in Egypt. In half a dozen states-including Ethiopia-thousands of persons die every day of hunger, while the rulers travel by Cadillac and steal food that is being sent to aid their subjects.
    
    Only in the sick minds of “progressives” do the babies die of starvation with a smile on their lips, because the ruler who starves them to death has a black skin.[181]

    
    
    
82. Although Verwoerd’s Apartheid “launched the greatest programme of socio-economic upliftment for non-whites that South Africa had ever seen,”[182] which raised poor blacks living standards to the highest in Africa[183], granting them greater self-determination under Afrikaners[184], than other minority black tribes in Africa enjoyed under majority black rule. This did not sit well with the OAU, who founded the OAU Liberation Committee, to assist in “forging an international consensus against apartheid.”[185] It claims it was devoted to eradicating all traces of colonialism to benefit Africans ‘self determination’; but it “rejected post-independence claims to self-determination in Biafra, Katanga, southern Sudan, Shaba and Eritrea”[186], and the Sahrawi people’s right to self determination[187]. The OAU’s collective effort to rid Africa of apartheid meant it “played an influential role in the UN to ensure an arms embargo, economic sanctions, condemnation of South Africa’s main trade partners and the non-recognition of the “homelands”.”[188] (own emphasis)
    
    
83. In 1961, then foreign minister of SA, Eric Louw presented to the UN a factual comparison of the living conditions of blacks in South Africa compared to other African states. He proved that Blacks in SA had a higher per capita income, better educational opportunities[189], far superior medical and social services and altogether a higher standard of living than anywhere in Africa. In response, the OAU engineered a motion of censure against him (first of its kind) and his speech was struck from the record. Even “The Washington Post”, who regularly criticized South Africa, noted:
    

    “Nothing that South Africa has done and nothing that its representatives said, justified the mob-like censure which the United Nations visited upon that country and its Foreign Minister, Mr Eric Louw.”

    
    
84. By 1978, “Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.”[190]
    
    
85. According to British political commentator Simon Jenkins, writing in the London Spectator, on 07 May 1994 (reprinted Aida Parker Newsletter # 208):
    

    For the Blacks.. apartheid will be …. the Great Excuse. White rule may have been nasty and brutish, but it disciplined the SA economy and made it rich. SA has for 20 years out-performed every ‘liberated’ state in Africa. Politically correct academics claim White rule held SA back by stifling Black education and advancement. I don’t believe it. Apartheid may have been crude and cruel, but it was no more than an elite entrenching its economic power. The ‘trickle-down’ worked.
    "The incomes of Blacks were well above those elsewhere on the continent, which explained the heavy migration of Blacks into SA throughout the apartheid period. As Third World economies go, SA was a thundering success. The massive redistribution of wealth promised by the ANC threatens that success. So a reason for incipient failure must be found in advance.
    
    Mr Mandela is human. He cannot admit that in African terms White rule was an economic success…... If a school is ill-equipped, a housing estate without sewerage, a mob unemployed, it will be ‘the legacy of apartheid.’ Every inequality of income, every injustice detected by trade unionist or … journalist will be put down to apartheid.
    
    Apartheid was horrible. It acknowledged, albeit crudely, the racial distinctions ordinary people acknowledge. It made the implicit explicit. There was no pretence at a melting pot. Now the explicit must be suppressed, but the legacy of racial frankness will not disappear just because legal apartheid is dead. The new SA is not a raceless community, any more than Britain is a classless one. It will still be run mostly by Whites, and Blacks will still be at the bottom of the ladder. Democracy will give a new tilt to the conflict. But all South Africans will be glad to have in their knapsack the Great Excuse. Apartheid will be a marvellous friend in need."

E. No Proper Authority: Did Black South Africans Want Black Rule?:

“The ANC is not the authentic leader of the authentic voice of the black people in South Africa. It is one of the voice yes, and secondly the ANC does not represent the majority of blacks in South Africa. Unfortunately the Western Media and media, has made it that the ANC is the sole representative of black South Africa. It isn’t, it does not represent the majority of black South Africans. If it did, then there would have been no need for the ANC to embark on violence to win the hearts of the people, because they would have already won them.” -- Rev. John Gogotya, in ANC: VIP’s of Violence documentary by Nicholas Partridge

86. The black youths who want a white president, Cheche Selepe, 16-04-1999, Mail & Guardian, p.12:
    

    … Nicholas Ngoma (17) says whites are honest and straightforward. "I believe whites have more knowledge on almost everything than blacks. Look at countries governed by whites and contrast them with African countries. I believe that African countries were better run under colonialism. … whites are more brainy than us.”…
    
    Referring to the Johannesburg Art Foundation where he is studying, Ngoma says: "I am here because of white people. I will also be attending tennis lessons at Ellis Park stadium, take extra English lessons at Barnato High and I am attending church. And all these I do because of whites. … [Blacks] are selfish and self-centred.” … The person at the organisation most responsible for finding him a home and sending him to school is white.
    
    "Look at the things that are produced by whites, such as cellphones and computers. We blacks always follow whites. Even the Bible is written by whites and we blacks just follow. You will never see a white person following our culture and traditions. I will not have any problem with a white president for South Africa.”
    From Bennet Mpehle (19): "I think whites are sort of strict. Our teachers are whites and students respect them. Whites like order and know how to rule and lead. I will be very happy if we have a white president. People tend to respect the white colour. Not to say blacks cannot lead, but we take advantage of blacks.
    
    "Whites keep promises. Do you think this school will be like this if we had a black principal? We are just new in this building but see what the whites have done. We have new computer classes and extra classes being built, not because the whites have money but because they can fund-raise and have a vision. Go to a black school with a black principal and you will see the difference."

    
    
    
87. Dr. Gedaliah Braun is an American who has taught philosophy in several African universities from 1976 to 1988, and has lived since that time in South Africa. In a Review of Dr. Brauns book Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self Deceipt: A Philosophers Hard Headed Look at the Dark Continent, Jared Taylor in American Renaissance writes:
    

    Dr. Braun draws on his years of intimacy with Africans to support two main conclusions. The first is that virtually all Africans take it for granted that whites are smarter than blacks. They haven’t the slightest illusion that they could have invented computers or built airplanes, and they recognize that blacks and whites differ in moral and psychological characteristics as well.
    
    What is more, Africans are not the least offended by these realizations. Unlike whites, they do not see any inherent immorality in acknowledging racial differences. Some clever, westernized Africans have discovered—just as American blacks have—that whites are terrified at the thought of racial differences, and have learned to manipulate this terror to their own advantage. But they, too, Dr. Braun finds, can almost always be persuaded to acknowledge the inherent limitations of Africans.
    
    Dr. Braun’s second thesis follows from the first: The vast majority of South African blacks do not want black rule. They know from their own experiences with black policemen and black bureaucrats that when Africans are in positions of power they are corrupt, despotic, and oppressive. Many blacks mouth the slogans of “liberation” but have unrealistic, often ludicrous notions of what “liberation” is likely to mean. Some, when pressed, will even admit that although they know black rule would be a catastrophe for South Africa they pretend to support it because they know that is what whites expect them to do.
    
    Ultimately, as Dr. Braun recognizes, his observations illuminate the terrible flaws in the white man. Without constant urging from liberal whites, virtually all Africans would be content to put their fate in the hands of a race that they recognize as smarter and more fair-minded than their own. Dr. Braun puts it this way:
    

    “(1) Blacks cannot manage a modern industrial democratic society; (2) blacks know this and would never think of denying it were it not for white liberals insisting otherwise; (3) except for those black elites who hope to take power, black rule is in no one’s interest, especially not blacks; (4) blacks know this better than anyone and are terrified of black rule.”

    
    On what does Dr. Braun base these heretical conclusions? After several years in Africa, he began to realize that many blacks do not think the way white liberals keep telling us they do. He then systematically started asking Africans—even virtual strangers—what they thought about racial differences and whether they were in favor of black rule.
    
    Unlike most whites, who would be ashamed to ask such questions, Dr. Braun is utterly uninhibited. He discovered that most blacks are eager to talk frankly; most have never had an honest conversation with a white about race and are charmed to find one who is not blinded by the usual cliches. Just as interestingly, he quickly learned that even whites who have lived all their lives in Africa—including journalists and other liberals who claim to speak for Africans—have never had an honest conversation with a black about race.
    
    For the most part, blacks fear majority rule because they know they are much more likely to be cheated, robbed or brutalized by other blacks than by whites. Many Africans believe, in so many words, that “Whites respect one another but we don’t.” One woman put it this way: “The white man knows the difference between right and wrong and will usually do the right thing. The black man also knows the difference but will usually do the wrong thing.” It is their own experiences that confirm many blacks in their preference that their country be governed by whites.

    
    
88. Herewith follow a few excerpts from Dr. Braun’s book, Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self Deceipt: A Philosophers Hard Headed Look at the Dark Continent, about South African blacks perspectives on the issue of Black vs. White rule:
    

    Ben is a Zulu, about 60, and works at a garage where I bought a used car; he’s been working there for 26 years and is a South African citizen. Ladybrand is in South Africa, across the border from Maseru, the capital of Lesotho (pronounced ‘Lesoothoo’), a small mountainous country completely surrounded by South Africa and where I taught from 1987-88.
    
    As we drove to the border I asked what he thought about the trouble in South Africa. Did he want to see blacks take over? His answer was straightforward: No, he did not. ‘Our nation [i.e., blacks] is bad’. Why were they bad? I asked. Because they kill anyone who disagrees with them. Blacks could not run things; if they were in charge, nothing would work.
    
    Does he ever go to Soweto. Often, he says; his family lives there. What do people there think about the ANC and black rule? Well, while many used to be for the ANC, this has changed because of ‘necklacings’ and suchlike. ‘If they are trying to help the black man, why are they killing so many blacks?’ he asked several times.
    
    But then he began talking about how blacks were ‘oppressed’. I asked for examples; he said if a white man were to beat up a black employee, the police would do nothing. Suppose the boss was black and this happened under a black government? Would the police do anything then? No, he said; but at least you could fight back.
    
    In South Africa a black man would be in big trouble if he hit his white boss.
    He said that apartheid was bad, though it was changing. Before, blacks had always been separated from whites – separate toilets, entrances, queues, etc.. Everything should be the same for everyone, he said, since doing things separately meant whites didn’t like blacks.
    
    Did that mean going to the same schools? Yes, he said. But since blacks were 80% of the population, whites would have to attend schools that were 80% black. Would such schools be very good? No, he quickly agreed. But how can you expect whites, who pay for the education of whites and blacks, to send their children to bad schools? He agreed you couldn’t. If everything should be the same, shouldn’t blacks be allowed to vote? Here he agreed with what he had said earlier: he was happy with whites running things and would not want to live in a country run by blacks.
    
    By this time we were at the border post. He expressed great pleasure at our conversation and said he wished we could talk for two hours. I asked if he’d ever had such a conversation with a white man before and he said emphatically he had not, though he’d worked with them for years.
    
    The upshot was that while against apartheid, he was not in favour of blacks voting and controlling the government, nor did he necessarily think everyone should all go to the same schools. He agreed that apartheid was not ‘one single thing’; some parts might be good and others bad. It is clear that many blacks who’ve been ‘persuaded’ that apartheid is bad and that they are ‘oppressed’ would also say they do not want black rule.
    
    [....] During the month I spent in South Africa in January 1986, I took every opportunity to ask blacks what they thought about black vs. white rule (etc.). Almost without exception they said they did not want black rule and for the same reasons: the white man was cleverer and more honest.
    
    [....] The most memorable conversation was with a young woman taking a computer course in central Johannesburg.
    
    At first she expressed a noted hostility towards whites, saying she hated white people. All whites? I asked. No, just the Boers (Afrikaners). All Boers? No, just those who hated blacks. So what appeared an extreme view turned out to be quite reasonable: hating those you think hate you.
    
    Nevertheless, there was this antagonism towards whites and so I said to her, ‘You must be anxious to see an end to white rule’. Her answer? ‘No way!’ She didn’t want black rule? Not at all. Why not? Her answer, almost word for word: ‘The white man knows the difference between right and wrong and will usually do the right thing. The black man also knows the difference but will usually do the wrong thing!’. And as I heard these words I knew I would not soon forget them.
    
    [....] I had a conversation (September 1989) with a black woman who was supposed to work for me on a Wednesday and only showed up two days later. Wednesday, she says – a (white) election day – was a ‘stayaway’: if the ‘comrades’ saw you coming from town you would be beaten. Was it true that women were made to walk naked down the street? Yes, she said; they could also cut off your ear, and say ‘Give this to your master; you don’t listen to me!’.
    
    These people, she said, wanted freedom in town (‘white’ Johannesburg), but in the townships they beat anyone who ‘disobeyed’. In other words, they want to be treated (by whites) as whites treat each other – under the rule of law – but quickly forget about these ‘freedoms’ where they hold sway.
    
    So why is everyone saying blacks want black rule? Well, she said, they would like to ‘share’ it. But once these thugs get a taste of power they will want it all. She laughed; ‘of course’. Then why does everyone keep saying that blacks want a black government? It was the same fear, she said, that makes them afraid to violate the stay-away.
    
    I asked if she’d ever had such a conversation with any white man before. She laughed again. ‘No, no.’ Nor would she have it with blacks. The media reports millions of blacks protesting (white) elections because they couldn’t vote, when the reality – as the media must know – is that they are simply terrorized.

F. No Proportional Force: People’s War Terror for Liberation Struggle:

“Thus for example, in 1985 the ANC urged the people to identify collaborators and enemy agents and deal with them… informants, policemen, special branch police… living and working among our people must be eliminated… police who are roaming the streets… must be turned in targets… police must be killed even when they are at their homes irrespective of whether they are in uniform or not.” -- Spotlight. No. 1. March 1990. SAIRR

“Whatever the people decide to use to eliminate those enemy elements is their decision. If they decide to use necklacing, we support it.” -- ANC Secretary General Alfred Nzo, interview with London Times, 14 September 1986

The people themselves will be their own liberators; liberation will not be endowed to them by anyone. Therefore a movement has to attain the complete unity of the masses, revolutionize them and launch a PEOPLE’S WAR. [..] We contend that effective political struggle can only be attained by a system of mass mobilisation coupled with armed revolutionary struggle on the basis of a People’s War. [..] People’s war as we understand it, is a revolutionary war of the entire oppressed people and takes the form of guerrilla warfare. This can most effectively be done by mobilising the masses in the country-side and encircling the cities, isolating them and gradually corroding the power of the city-based fascist rulers. [..] Many arguments, no doubt, will still be presented in attempts to block the unity of our people. Our fundamental principle upon which a United Front should be formed is a measure of agreement on what constitutes People’s War, and how it should be waged. We hold that all schools of thought which are neither willing to capitulate to nor compromise with imperialism in general, and white domination in the domestic scene, can be accommodated within the unified strategy of People’s War. -- On Unity and People’s War[193], Africanist News & Views, January 1973

89. A Freedom Can Be Won: Call to the South African People, From the Augmented Meeting of the Central Committee of the SACP, as reproduced in The African Communist states clarifies People’s War, as follows:
    

    We shall take weapons from the enemy and make our own weapons: petrol bombs, hand grenades, the simple weapons of the freedom fighter.
    
    We have only a handful of trained men at our disposal?
    
    Those few will train thousands. Our skills in the art of war will improve with experience. We shall not aim to meet his troops head on, that is not the way of the freedom fighter. We shall meet them by the methods of guerilla war: Hit and run.
    
    We shall hit him by surprise, when he least expects it. When he looks for us we shall not be there. In such a huge country as South Africa, our men will be hard to find. By the time his planes arrive to bomb the guerilla fighters, they will have melted into the countryside. They will have merged into the people, to whom they belong and of whom they are a part.
    
    For the guerilla wears no uniform. His strength is that of the people. Always and everywhere, our freedom fighters are among the masses, voicing their demands and defending them against the enemy, his soldiers and police.
    
    This is not a war that is fought on the battlefields only. It is fought in the factories and on the land. As the clashes grow in number and size, the workers will refuse to work for the oppressor. They will strike and sabotage his production of weapons and supplies. The people of the countryside will become more militant and courageous. They will take themselves the land for which they hunger, and arm their own freedom fighters to defend it.
    
    The roads will be bombed and the railways destroyed; by the people in the surrounding areas. As the enemy's lines are extended, his strength will be sapped. Already white South African troops are being sent to Zimbabwe, to Mozambique, to Angola. They are patrolling our long borders.
    
    The higher rises the tide of struggle the more they will be dispersed; the more our superiority of numbers will assert itself.
    
    This is how it has happened in other areas of people's war: Vietnam, in Algeria, in Mozambique, Angola and Guinea.

    
    
90. Dr. Anthea Jeffery is Head of Special Research at the SA Institute of Race Relations. She holds law degrees from the University of the Witwatersrand and Cambridge, and a doctorate in human rights law from the University of London. Her previous books include The Natal Story: Sixteen years of conflict and The Truth about the Truth Commission. Both books have been acclaimed for their meticulous and objective approach, and for breaking new ground on important and contentious issues. At the launch of People’s War: New Light on the Struggle, she introduced People’s War as follows:
    

    ‘One way of understanding people’s war is to look back at events in the Eastern Cape in 1985, for that was where the people’s war first escalated. In that year, there were prolonged school boycotts which many pupils disliked but nevertheless joined because of intimidation. There were also major consumer boycotts, which again had some support but were also unpopular because they required people to pay much higher prices in spaza shops. In addition, there was a three-day stayaway in March, which Azapo and the powerful Fosatu unions opposed because the stoppage would put jobs and pay at risk. But participation in the stayaway was nevertheless virtually total: partly out of support for the anti-apartheid cause, but mainly out of fear. Said Fosatu (the forerunner of Cosatu): ‘Our members will not go to work, not because they support the stayaway in principle, but because we know that violence will be the order of the day. Our members won’t go to work because they are intimidated.’
    
    Twelve people were killed during the stayaway, adding to the fear. However, it was the rising incidence of necklace executions that sparked real terror. Necklace killings reportedly began with the murder of a black councillor in Uitenhage near Port Elizabeth in March. This councillor, the notorious Tamsanqa Kinikini, was trapped, together with his two sons, by a mob inflamed by recent police shootings at Langa, in which 20 people had died. Kinikini’s elder son tried to escape but was caught by the crowd and hacked and burnt to death. Moments before the mob took hold of Kinikini, the councillor took out his gun and shot his other son dead to save him from the same fate. Then the crowd dragged Kinikini away and hacked and burnt him to death.
    
    [..] Fifteen years have passed since South Africans were being shot or hacked or burned to death in political conflict; and the memory of the trauma has faded. Some 20 500 people were nevertheless killed between 1984 and 1994. The conventional wisdom is that they died at the hands of a state-backed Third Force, but the more accurate explanation is that they died as a result of the people’s war the ANC unleashed. As the people's war accelerated from September 1984, intimidation and political killings rapidly accelerated. At the same time, a remarkably effective propaganda campaign put the blame for violence on the National Party government and its alleged Inkatha surrogate. Sympathy for the ANC soared, while its rivals suffered crippling losses in credibility and support. By 1993 the ANC was able to dominate the negotiating process, as well as to control the (undefeated) South African police and army and bend them to its will. By mid-1994 it had trounced its rivals and taken over government.
    
    Since 1994, many books have been written on South Africa's political transition, but none deals adequately with the people's war. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission should have covered this, but largely overlooked it. This title shows the extraordinary success of people’s war in giving the ANC a virtual monopoly on power. It also shows, in part at least, the great cost at which this was achieved. Apart from the killings, the terror, and the destruction that marked the period from 1984 to 1994, the people’s war set in motion forces that cannot easily be reversed. For violence cannot be turned off ‘like a tap’, as the ANC suggested, and neither can anarchy easily be converted into order.

    
    
91. In South Africa: The War of Blacks on Blacks, Time Magazine’s John Greenwald wrote:
    

    The term is familiar by now, but the "necklace" is so benign a description that it barely hints at the horror of one of the world's most savage forms of execution. This is how it happens. In the townships of South Africa, militant black youths first capture a victim. Next they chop off his hands or tie them behind his back with barbed wire. Finally they place a gasoline-filled tire over the terrified victim's head and shoulders and set it ablaze. The melting rubber clings like tar to the victim's flesh, while flames and searing fumes enshroud him. Within minutes the execution is over. By the time the police arrive, the charred body is usually burned past recognition. Horrified family members, who may be forced to watch the killing, are often too intimidated to identify the murderers.
    
    [..] The most dangerous group is the militant youths known as the "comrades," who have been responsible for much of the killing in the townships. Ranging in age from about 14 to 22, they are typically poor, uneducated and overflowing with rage. In their fierce battle to gain control of communities like Soweto, they have become the chief users of necklaces, the executioners who make the night a time of terror for the black populace. Barbara Harker, training manager in Johannesburg for the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders, has studied the comrades. She concluded that the poverty and hopelessness of life in the townships make them impulsive and largely incapable of compromise. The primary object of their wrath is anyone suspected of collaborating with the government. The victim's "crime" can be trivial or wholly nonexistent. Even payment of rent for government-owned housing can be a capital offense.
    
    [..] So intimidating have the comrades become that in many parts of South Africa they can terrify township residents simply by holding up boxes of matches. When they are not carrying out spontaneous attacks, they may hold kangaroo "people's courts" that are designed to intimidate the public. In a typical court session, young toughs drag the accused forward, inform him or * her of the charges and then pronounce and execute the sentence. The outcome is never in doubt.

    
    
92. In Witchcraft and the State in South Africa[198], German social science researcher, Johannes Harnischfeger details not only the ANC’s population production of cannon fodder ‘breeding war’, but also how many ANC ‘cadres’ embraced what he refers to as ‘occult politics’, i.e. Witchhunt politics:
    

    The Youth Rebellion in South Africa
    
    In South Africa the persecution of witches is also connected to local quarrels about influence and political power.
    
    But here it is not a privileged elite, in alliance with the state and traditional healers, who controls the persecution of witches. The initiative has rather been taken, since the mid-80ies, by younger people: activists of the anti-apartheid movement, members of the ANC Youth League, pupils — and students — councils. From their point of view the elimination of witches was part of the black emancipation movement. The victims though were mostly elderly women in their sixties, who succumbed helplessly to their persecutors — usually young men between 16 and 25 years old.[4]
    
    The conflict between the generations can only be understood, considering that the revolt against the apartheid regime had from its very beginning the characteristics of a youth rebellion. (Bundy 1987:310)
    
    It was not only directed against white representatives of the system, but also against the authority of their own parents, who were accused of having arranged themselves with the regime out of fear or opportunism.
    
    After decades of silence and collaboration only the younger generation, prepared for complete disobedience, could claim a leading role in the liberation struggle.
    Starting in Soweto and other black metropolitan centers, the revolutionary message was carried into the rural areas, and especially in the homelands it was eagerly picked up. Each form of authority had been declining here. While many adults, especially the men, where working as migrant laborers on white farms or in the mines, the children and adolescents were raised by single mothers or grandparents.
    
    In Lebowa for example 72% of the total population were less than 20 years old. (Niehaus 1999:242)
    
    [..] In the past the respect of chiefs and elders had been based on their ability to protect the community from internal and external enemies. The young rebels now claimed to play exactly this role by taking up the persecution of witches. (Stadler 1996:88) Maybe their decision was also based on the calculation, that party politics and revolutionary slogans would not be sufficient for mobilizing the population. Witchhunts on the other hand seemed to be a common cause for which one could expect broad-based support. (Niehaus 1993:527)
    
    [..] Even when it came to militant action, such as the execution of witches, the adults were urged to participate. Parents of activists for example had to carry rocks, with which the victims were stoned. (Minnaar 1992:24) And young women, who otherwise rarely took part in political operations, were forced to collect firewood. (Delius 1996:198) Some reports tell of young people forced to pour gasoline down their mother’s throats, having to put tires around their necks and set them afire with their own hands. (Delius 1996:197) Like this the initiators of the violence clearly wanted to prevent a vicious circle of blood revenge: sons, who executed their mothers, cannot hold others responsible for homicide.
    
    [..] The report of the governmental commission for example argues: “many of the accusations of witchcraft had nothing to do with witchcraft (...) the revolutionary forces chose witchcraft and ritual killing to destabilise these communities”.... Even when it came to militant action, such as the execution of witches, the adults were urged to participate. Parents of activists for example had to carry rocks, with which the victims were stoned. (Minnaar 1992:24) And young women, who otherwise rarely took part in political operations, were forced to collect firewood. (Delius 1996:198) Some reports tell of young people forced to pour gasoline down their mother’s throats, having to put tires around their necks and set them afire with their own hands. (Delius 1996:197)
    
    [..] But the attempt to overcome the nightmare of fear, hate and envy was doomed to fail, because the activists did not fight the belief in witches, but the witches themselves.
    
    [..] The reaction by leading ANC politicians, when commenting on the anarchic violence of the youths, was ambivalent. In the beginning of 1990, immediately after the legalization of radical oppositional parties, Winnie Mandela and Chris Hani travelled through the crisis areas in Transvaal and praised the rebels for making the homelands ungovernable. (Minnar 19992:50) The militancy of the young activists opened the ANC functionaries‘ path to power.

    
    
93. ANC: VIP’s of Violence is a British documentary made in 1987. It briefly documents how liberation movements had turned into terrorist organisations focussed on violent terrorist bombings, to attract national or international media attention to their causes. It documents how the terrorist organisations used similar slogans. Many of their atrocities -- including necklacing atrocities -- are conducted with deliberate intent to attract media attention. Here follows excerpts of the transcript:

ANC: VIP's of Violence [01/03] [02/03] [03/03]

Nicholas Partridge, Presenter: “For the media, the more sensational the event, the more certain of high ratings. It makes no difference if the event was created simply to attract media attention. By such means extremist groups are able to publicize their causes, before world audiences. While more moderate groups are largely ignored. One of the growing number of countries plagued by terrorist atrocities, is South Africa. There the organisation principally responsible is the African National Congress. Its present leader is Oliver Tambo.

Rev. John Gogotya: “The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a non-violent strategy, that did not say ‘Burn, baby Burn’. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.

Partridge: “The Rev. and Dr. John Gogotya is Director of a black self help organisation of 260,000 members. I asked him about the ANC’s role.”

Gogotya: “The ANC is not the authentic leader of the authentic voice of the black people in South Africa. It is one of the voice yes, and secondly the ANC does not represent the majority of blacks in South Africa. Unfortunately the Western Media and media, has made it that the ANC is the sole representative of black South Africa. It isn’t, it does not represent the majority of black South Africans. If it did, then there would have been no need for the ANC to embark on violence to win the hearts of the people, because they would have already won them.”

Partridge: “What is the true nature of this organisation? I asked Craig Williamson, a former South African Intelligence Officer, who spent ten years as a member of the South African Communist Party, working closely with the ANC, many of whose leaders, he came to know personally.”

Williamson: “The answer is that the ANC is a terrorist organisation, an international terrorist organisation, exactly the same as the IRA, the PLO, the Red Brigade, and the Baader Meinhof Gang. It is an organisation made up of people such as the Joe Slovo’s of the world , people who have been trained in the Soviet Union as international terrorists. Trained to carry out the most horrendous act of violence that I have ever seen in my life.

Kim Beazly, former leader of the Australian Labor Party: “The comrades are probably a minority, but a very determined and ruthless minority. And they have decided by terrorism to impose their will on the black community. And in fact they have done so.

Gogotya: “The ANC strategy was to intimidate black moderate leaders. When the riots started and the violence escalated in the townships, the people who were targeted were all professional blacks, teachers, doctors, lawyers, black businessmen. This was the reason why most of the black businesses in the townships were burnt down. And only those blacks who decided to fall in line with them, had their businesses saved. Their strategy of intimidate was such that to scare the other people into the fold of the United Democratic Front (UDF) and then the ANC laager.

Beazly: “If you are a city councillor in Sowetho you got killed, or you resigned. So there are no councils looking after the roads or doing anything.
Gogotya: “All moderates are targets. This has been said by the ANC themselves, that the black moderates should be eliminated so that they can make way for radical leadership. All of us are targets, we live in fear. We have to shunt around our children from school to school some times. We never travel the same road twice in the township. This is just normal for us. All of us, we know it just may happen anytime.

Beazly: “Now they are the ones who have invented the terror method of necklacing.

Ronald Reagan: “In this barbaric way of reprisal, a tyre is filled with kerosyne and gasoline and placed around the neck of an alleged collaborator and ignited. The victim may be a black policeman, a teacher, a soldier, a civil servant. It makes no difference. The atrocity is designed to terrorise blacks into ending all racial cooperation and to polarise South Africa as prelude to a final climactic struggle for power.”

Beazley: “Now Franklyn Sonn, who is the leader of the Cape Coloureds, the principal of a Polytechnic, an outstanding man, has said long before a simple thing, which I think just has to get into western skulls, and I think it has to get into Oliver Tambo’s skull. And that is, people who dance on charred corpses have nothing to offer South Africa, but what they are trying to do, or the people behind them are trying to do, because they are mostly ignorant high-school dropouts, is to stop anyone having any conversations to make any kind of settlement, with the South African goverment.

Partridge: “Even after the most preliminary examination of the facts, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the ANC is but one element in black South African politics. Many and various spokesmen for non-violent change were to be found. They speak with authority, reason and very great courage. They spoke to me at the risk of their lives. Dr. Lucy Mvubelo (Gen. Sec. Nat. Union Clothing Workers) is one of them. She has been active in the black trade union movement for more than 40 years, and is a former member of the ANC.

Mvubelo: “You know I am one person who believes that you can lose so much through violence. This is what I told one Dominee in Holland, when he said Violence should come to South Africa, and this generation should die and the new generation would be born and be free. I said No, black violence has never been beneficial to anybody.”

94. In The Conflict of the Past: A Factual Review, Former Commissioner of the SA Police, General Johan van der Merwe, writes:
    

    Where the slightest suspicion existed that someone had given information to the police or cooperated with the police in any way, that person was branded a collaborator and collaborators were burned alive using the most inhuman and barbaric method known as the ‘necklace method’. During the period 1 September 1984 to 31 March 1993, 505 persons, exclusively members of the black community, were burned alive by the necklace method. 36 persons, whom they were able to rescue in time, were severely burnt. During the same period, 710 persons, once again solely members of the black community, were burnt alive while 320 received serious burns. This all but destroyed the ability of the police to obtain information from the black community or to get people to give evidence against members of Umkhonto we Sizwe or other revolutionary organisations. As a result the legal processes available to the police became impotent. Even the declaration of a state of emergency and emergency regulations were not enough to stop the terror. On the 26th of September 1992 the previous Government and the ANC entered into an agreement or so-called “RECORD OF UNDERSTANDING” in terms of which 176 prisoners were released. One of the stipulations of this Agreement determined that:
    

    “The two parties agreed that all prisoners whose imprisonment is related to the conflict of the past, and whose release could make a contribution to reconciliation, should be released.”

    
    With the exception of Barend Strydom, the so-called “Wit Wolf”, all of the other prisoners were released at the insistence of the ANC. These included persons who were serving long sentences for “necklace murders”. In so doing, the ANC clearly confirmed that the ‘necklace murder” was indeed a tool of the revolutionary struggle and was carried out to further their aims. The abhorrent deeds committed by some of these prisoners far exceeded anything that Eugene de Kock was involved with.

G. No Proportional Force: ANC’s Mbokodo Quatro Torture Camps:

95. Anti-Apartheid Movement: Most Successful Popular Front Lobby for Stalinism Anywhere in the World: In Mutinies in the Liberation Armies: Inside Quatro[201], Paul Trewhela writes in the democratic socialist publication Searchlight South Africa:
    

    The first-hand testimony by former combatants of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) about the ANC prison regime… are an event in South African history. Never before has such concentrated factual evidence been presented about the inner nature of the ANC and its eminence grise, the South African Communist Party.
    
    If people wish to understand the operation of the ANC/SACP, they must look here. This is the view behind the proscenium arch, behind the scenery, where the machinery that runs the whole show is revealed in its actual workings.
    
    The ANC/SACP did a very good job in preventing public knowledge of its secret history from emerging… Those who survived the Gulag system of the ANC/SACP did so knowing that to reveal what they had been through meant re-arrest, renewed tortures and in all probability, death. They had to sign a form committing them to silence..
    
    This regime of terror, extending beyond the gates of the ANC/SACP ‘Buchenwald' of Quadro, was a necessary element in the total practice of repression and deception which made the Anti-Apartheid Movement the most successful Popular Front lobby for Stalinism anywhere in the world.
    
    In its 30 years' existence, the AAM put international collaborative organisations of the period of the Spanish Civil War and of the Stalin-Roosevelt-Churchill alliance to shame. Extending to the press, the churches, the bourgeois political parties, the trade unions and the radical, even the ‘trotskyist' left, the AAM has been an outstanding success for Stalinism... Vital to its success has been a practice of open and covert censorship now blown wide open... The ANC's prisoners were its necessary sacrificial-victims.

Inside Quatro: Uncovering the Exile History of the ANC and SWAPO, by Paul Trewhela [*Amazon*]

96. To examine the History of Quatro is to Uncover the Concealed Forces that Operate in the ANC: In Inside Quatro: Uncovering the Exile History of the ANC and SWAPO[202, Mr. Trewhela writes:
    

    In this edited extract from his book, Inside Quatro: Uncovering the Exile history of the ANC and Swapo, Paul Trewhela sheds light on a past that the ANC would prefer to forget.
    
    The ANC's Quatro was best described in a terse statement by Zaba Maledza, when he said: "When you get in there, forget about human rights."
    
    This was a statement from a man who had lived in Quatro during one of the worst periods in its history, from 1980 to 1982.
    
    Established in 1979, Quatro was supposed to be the rehabilitation centre of the ANC, where enemy agents who had infiltrated the ANC would be "re-educated" and would be made to love the ANC through the opportunity to experience the humane character of its ideals.
    
    Regrettably, through a process that still cries out for explanation, Quatro became worse than any prison that even the apartheid regime - itself considered a crime against humanity - had ever had.
    
    However harsh the above statement, however disagreeable to the fighters against the monstrous apartheid system, it is a truth that needs bold examination by our people, and the whole of the ANC membership.
    
    To examine the history of Quatro is to uncover the concealed forces that operate in a political organisation such as the ANC.

Mbokodo: Inside MK: Mwezi Twala - A Soldier's Story, by Mwezi Twala & Ed Bernard [*Amazon*]

97. In Mbokodo: Inside MK: Mwezi Twala - A Soldier's Story , Mwezi Twala and Ed Bernard write:
    

    In 1981 began a time of terror and death for ANC members in exile. In February a strong ANC National Executive Committee entourage which included President Tambo made the rounds of all ANC camps in Angola. Cadres were warned of the presence of a spy network and the need for vigilance was emphasised. Enemy agents and provocateurs were rudely warned by Piliso, in Xhosa, '.. I'll hang them by their balls.' An 'internal enemy' psychosis had been whipped up and whenever ANC leaders visited camps they were heavily guarded. Many men and women were apprehended on suspicion of dissidence were to be exterminated in the most brutal manner in the months ahead. Those disillusioned MK cadres who returned from Rhodesia were the first to go.(p.49)
    
    I became aware of these developments by word of mouth, but I was to discover later on, by personal experience, the terror of Quatro, to name but one death camp. People were removed from amongst us -- taken to Quatro or Camp 13 -- and disappeared forever without reason. Many of them were slaughtered by one means or another and their ultimate destination was a shallow grave. We heard rumours of execution by being buried alive, amongst many other techniques beyond civilized imagination. The purge created great fear amongst all of us, to the point where the smallest criticism, such as of badly prepared food, was seriously reconsidered by every individual, for one could never be certain that a 'best friend' would keep his mouth shut. (p.49)
    
    Our own security people became exceedingly arrogant, to the point where an innocent slip of the tongue or even a simple gesture could land you in a torture cell at Quatro. Security men of the lowest rank and intelligence -- fourteen to eighteen year olds -- became our masters, with the power of life or death in their hands. They acted on a mood with impunity. (p.49-50)
    
    [..] Oliver Tambo visited Pango [Camp] at the height of the terror. The path from the entrance to the admin building was lined -- like a scene from 'Spartacus' -- with men, bloodied and filthy, hanging from trees. When his entourage arrived at admin, where I was officer on duty, Tambo's chief of staff told us that there would be a meeting at 'the stage' (a clearing in the jungle... where we held meetings and discussions). Runners were sent out to notify everyone in the vicinity. On his way to the stage [Oliver Tambo] again passed the men tied to the trees. Being officer on duty, I could not attend the meeting, but my deputy went. After a while I saw guards come up from the stage, release the prisoners and take them to the meeting. There, my deputy told me, instead of objecting to their treatment, as I had hoped, Tambo berated them for their dissident behaviour and appeared to approve when Andrew Masondo declared that on the presidents next visit they would be in shallow graves behind the stage. The prisoners were returned to their trees.. where the president [Oliver Tambo] passed the unfortunate men without a glance on his way out, and they hung there for another three months -- followed by three months hard labour. (p.51-52)

    
    
    
98. Horrors, Tortures and Executions by Mbokodo, at Camp Quatro include:
    
    
    1. Stuart Commission Report: Commission of Enquiry into Recent Developments in the People’s Republic of Angola, March 14, 1984, Lusaka, Angola
       
    2. Mutinies in the Liberation Armies: Inside Quadro, July 1990: Paul Trewhela, Searchlight South Africa, Vol 2, No 1: p.30-35
       
    3. A Miscarriage of Democracy: The ANC Security Dept. in the 1984 Mutiny of Umkhonto We Sizwe, July 1990: Bandile Ketelo, Amos Maxongo, Zamxolo Tshona, Ronnie Massango and Luvo Mbengo, Searchlight South Africa: Vol.2 No.1: (p.35-68)
       
    4. An Open Letter to Nelson Mandela from Ex-Detainees, July 1990: Ex-ANC Detainees, Searchlight South Africa: Vol.2 No.1: (p.35-68)
       
    5. The ANC Conference: From Kabwe to Johannesburg, Jan 1991: Letter to the Editors, Searchlight South Africa, Vol 2, No 2: (p.91-94)
       
    6. The Case of Samuel Mngqibisa (Elty Mhlekazi), July 1991: Elty Mhlekazi, Searchlight South Africa, Vol 2, No 3: (p.49-53)
       
    7. Skewiya Commission Report: 1992: Report of the Commission of Enquiry into Complaints by Former African National Congress Prisoners and Detainees
       
    8. Amnesty International: South Africa: Torture, Ill-treatment and Executions in African National Congress Camps (Dec 92)
       
    9. The ANC Prison Camps: An Audit of Three Years, 1990-1993, Apr 1993: Paul Trewhela, Searchlight South Africa, Vol 3, No 2: April 1993 (p.8-30)
       
    10. ANC - Commission of Enquiry into Certain Allegations of Cruelty and Human Rights Abuse Against ANC Prisoners and Detainees by ANC Members (Motsuenyane Commission), 20 Aug 1993: ANC Mostuenyane Commission Report
        
    11. NEC Repose to Mostuenyane Commission Report: African National Congress National Executive Committee's Response to the Motsuenyane Commission's Report, 29 Aug 1993
        
    12. Sexual Abuse of Young Women in the ANC Camps, Oct 1993: Olefile Samuel Mngqibisa, Searchlight South Africa, Vol 3, No. 3, (p.11-16)
        
    13. Mbokodo: Inside MK: Mwezi Twala - A Soldier's Story, 1994: Mwezie Twala & Ed Benard, Jonathan Ball Publishers
        
    14. A Death in South Africa: The Killing of Sipho Phungulwa and the Mandela Monarchy 'M Plan', April 1993: Paul Trewhela, Searchlight South Africa, Vol 3, No 2: (p.08-30)
        
    15. Women and Swapo: Institutionalized Rape in Swapo's Prisons, April 1993: Paul Trewhela, Searchlight South Africa, Vol 3, No 2
        M
    16. The Dillemma of Albie Sachs: ANC Constitutionalism and the Death of Thami Zulu, Oct 1993: Paul Trewhela, Searchlight South Africa, Vol 3, No 3: (p.34-52)
        
    17. Inside Quatro: Uncovering the Exile History of the ANC and SWAPO, 6 Dec 2009: Paul Trewhela, Sun Times

H. War No Last Resort: Violence a Liberating Force on Rotting Corpse of Settler:

“Killing whites is an action that gives hope to blacks and makes white South Africans used to bleeding… such deaths can be beneficial. When blacks have learnt that a white has died in the violence, that kind of thing comes like the drop of rain after a long drought.” – Oliver Tambo to Trevor Huddlestone, New York Times, 24 Jan 1987

“Black theology will accept only a love of God which participates in the destruction of the white oppressor. With Fanon black theology takes literally Jesus' statement, "the last will be first, and the first last:" Black power "is the putting into practice of this sentence."” -- James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (p.72)

“I wish to be acknowledged not as Black but as white . . . who but a white woman could do this for me? By loving me she proves that I am worthy of white love. I am loved like a white man. I am a white man. Her noble love takes me onto the road of self realization—I marry white culture, white beauty, white whiteness. When my restless hands grasp those white breasts, they grasp white civilization and dignity and make them mine.” (1952:188) -- Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks

“Victimology condones weakness in failure. It tacitly stamps approval on failure, lack of effort, and criminality. Behaviors and patterns that are self-destructive are often approved of as cultural or are presented as unpreventable consequences from previous systemic patterns.” -- Anthony Bradley, Liberating Black Theology

Frantz Fanon's Doctrine of Violence on the Rotting Corpse of the Settler Influence on Anti-Colonial National Liberation Movements (excerpt from The Trap, BBC by Adam Curtis)

99. Nelson Mandela and Frantz Fanon’s Handbook for Black Liberation: Cleansing the Colonized Natives Mind to Restore his Self-Respect with Violence on the Rotting Corpse of the Settler: In Nelson Mandela, Elleke Boehmer writes:
    

    The chapter will end by considering [Mandela's] growing susceptibility to arguments in favor of active or armed resistance, as eloquently articulated in 1950s Africa by Martinique-born, Algeria based anticolonialist Frantz Fanon -- as well as by revolutionary elements within the SACP. …
    
    [..] To guide his organisation in making its difficult decision Mandela read widely in the literature on war and revolution available to him, including Mao Tse-tung, Louis Taruc, and Clausewitz. Yet in the various biographical accounts of this time there is one glaring omission from the reading list: the name of the Paris-trained Martiniquan Frantz Fanon, easily the most important post-1950 theorist of anti-colonial violence, who had already drawn wide attention in francophone Africa.
    
    For the ANC, the Algerian freedom struggle against the local white settler regime had for some time been perceived to exhibit strong parallels with South Africa's. On Mandela's African travels he came into contact with Front de Liberation Nationale officials who had fought for the independence of Algeria, recently won, for whose left-wing Fanon had served as an angry spokesperson. At Oujda in Morocco, an Algerian military base close to the border, he heard Ahmed Ben Bella the guerrilla leader, soon to be first President of an independent Algeria, rally his troops and call for the fight against imperialism to be extended across Africa.
    
    In this context, though Mandela never mentions Fanon by name, it is difficult to believe that he did not feel in some capacity the transformative force of his ideas. ... Fanon's approach to the overthrow of imperial power, based on his time working as a psychiatrist in revolutionary Algeria, was bracingly combative: the colonized, he believed, should resist the coloniser to the death, with violence; their entire sensibility should be focused on this rejection.... There is no doubt that, some ten years on from the ANC's move to arms, Steve Biko's BCM, with its outright rejection of white values, demonstrated a clear debt to Fanon's fiercely nationalist and anti-colonial manifesto The Wretched of the Earth (1961).
    
    [..] In his first international speech, A Land Ruled by the Gun, given at the January 1962 PAFMECA (later OAU) conference in Addis Ababa, Mandela sought to justify the ANC's controversial turn to violence, its "sharpening" of its "less effective" political weapons. Like Fanon in his polemical address in support of anti-colonial violence given to the 1958 All-Africa People's Conference, Mandela gives a careful exposition of the stages of increasing violence the African majority has suffered. As part of this exposition he suggests, as famously does Fanon, that the colonized system's pervasive "atmosphere of violence" is the creation of the colonizer alone, and that in this situation the colonized has no choice but to reject the system absolutely. Any compromise or attempt to come to terms will simply reinforce oppression: "only violence pays."
    
    Mandela's summary of South Africa's anti-imperialist struggle builds gradually toward a short, uncompromising paragraph encapsulating the injunction that "hard and swift blows" need now to be delivered. Strategically framed as a response as a response to Mark Antony-- like rhetorical question concerning what role freedom movements should take against the state's "multiple onslaughts" -- "Can anyone, therefore, doubt the role that the freedom movements should play in view of this hideous conspiracy?" -- Mandela's charged language is at this point distinctly reminiscent of Fanon. Fanon's own 1958 conference speech, given as a riposte to Kwame Nkrumah's influential advocacy of Positive Action stopping short of violence, had been unequivocal in making its central point: the natives violence was not merely necessary but self-transforming. (The speech, which cited Sharpeville as a reminder of colonialism's overkill, was developed into the chapter "Concerning Violence" that forms the core of The Wretched of the Earth).
    
    Published in French, a language Mandela could not read, The Wretched of the Earth did not appear in English translation till 1965, by which time he was already in prison. Yet, as these parallels suggest, it seems likely that he would on more than one occasion on his African tour, most probably in Addis Ababa as well as Morocco, have been exposed to Fanon's ideas, even if at several removes. He explicitly refers both to the 1958 Conference and to Nkrumah's defensive 1960 Positive Action conference in A Land Ruled by the Gun: he would have known about the debates that had taken place at both venues. In this context it seems fitting that MK with Mandela at its head was established in 1961, the year of The Wretched of the Earth.

    
    
    
100. In 'Frantz Fanon': The Doctor Prescribed Violence, Adam Shatz, writes:
     

     When the third world was the great hope of the international left -- three very long decades ago, in other words -- no book had a more seductive mystique than ''The Wretched of the Earth.'' Its author, Frantz Fanon, was a psychiatrist, originally from Martinique, who had become a spokesman for the Algerian revolution against French colonialism. He was black, dashing and, even better, a martyr -- succumbing to leukemia at the age of 36, a year before Algeria's independence in 1962. Fanon was hardly alone in championing the violent overthrow of colonialism. But his flair for incendiary rhetoric was unmatched.
     
     If ''The Wretched of the Earth'' was not ''the handbook for the black revolution,'' as its publisher boasted, it was certainly a sourcebook of revolutionary slogans. (Eldridge Cleaver once said that ''every brother on a rooftop can quote Fanon.'') ''Violence,'' Fanon argued most famously, ''is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.'' This was mau-mauing with Left Bank panache. Not to be upstaged, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in his preface, ''To shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time.''
     
     [He concludes] In Algeria, as in most of Africa, independence was no sooner achieved than it was confiscated by generals, bureaucrats and economic elites. Although Fanon remains indispensable for his writings on race and colonialism, his utopian program for the third world has gone the way of the colonial empires whose doom he foretold.

The Wretched of the Earth: The Handbook for the Black Revolution, by Frantz Fanon [*Amazon*]

101. Handbook for Black Liberation by Cleansing Violent Revolution: What did Frantz Fanon Say in The Wretched of the Earth:
     

     Decolonization is the veritable creation of new men. But this creation owes nothing of its legitimacy to any supernatural power; the "thing" which has been colonized becomes man during the same process by which it frees itself…..
     
     The native who decides to put the program into practice, and to become its moving force, is ready for violence at all times. From birth it is clear to him that this narrow world, strewn with prohibitions, can only be called in question by absolute violence.
     
     [..] The settlers' town is a strongly built town, all made of stone and steel. It is a brightly lit town; the streets are covered with asphalt, and the garbage cans swallow all the leavings, unseen, unknown and hardly thought about.[…] The settler's town is a well-fed town, an easygoing town; its belly is always full of good things. The settlers' town is a town of white people, of foreigners.
     
     The town belonging to the colonized people, or at least the native town, the Negro village, the medina, the reservation, is a place of ill fame, peopled by men of evil repute. They are born there, it matters little where or how; they die there, it matters not where, nor how. It is a world without spaciousness; men live there on top of each other, and their huts are built one on top of the other. The native town is a hungry town, starved of bread, of meat, of shoes, of coal, of light. The native town is a crouching village, a town on its knees, a town wallowing in the mire. It is a town of niggers and dirty Arabs. The look that the native turns on the settler's town is a look of lust, a look of envy; it expresses his dreams of possession—all manner of possession: to sit at the settler's table, to sleep in the settler's bed, with his wife if possible. The colonized man is an envious man. And this the settler knows very well; when their glances meet he ascertains bitterly, always on the defensive, "They want to take our place." It is true, for there is no native who does not dream at least once a day of setting himself up in the settler's place.
     
     [..] In the colonies, the foreigner coming from another country imposed his rule by means of guns and machines. In defiance of his successful transplantation, in spite of his appropriation, the settler still remains a foreigner. It is neither the act of owning factories, nor estates, nor a bank balance which distinguishes the governing classes. The governing race is first and foremost those who come from elsewhere, those who are unlike the original inhabitants, "the others."
     
     The destruction of the colonial world is no more and no less that the abolition of one zone, its burial in the depths of the earth or its expulsion from the country.
     
     In the colonial context the settler only ends his work of breaking in the native when the latter admits loudly and intelligibly the supremacy of the white man's values. In the period of decolonization, the colonized masses mock at these very values, insult them, and vomit them up.
     
     For the native, life can only spring up again out of the rotting corpse of the settler. This then is the correspondence, term by term, between the two trains of reasoning.
     
     [..] But it so happens that for the colonized people this violence, because it constitutes their only work, invests their characters with positive and creative qualities. The practice of violence binds them together as a whole, since each individual forms a violent link in the great chain, a part of the great organism of violence which has surged upward in reaction to the settler's violence in the beginning. The groups recognize each other and the future nation is already indivisible. The armed struggle mobilizes the people; that is to say, it throws them in one way and in one direction.
     
     The mobilization of the masses, when it arises out of the war of liberation, introduces into each man's consciousness the ideas of a common cause, of a national destiny, and of a collective history. In the same way the second phase, that of the building-up of the nation, is helped on by the existence of this cement which has been mixed with blood and anger. Thus we come to a fuller appreciation of the originality of the words used in these underdeveloped countries. During the colonial period the people are called upon to fight against oppression; after national liberation, they are called upon to fight against poverty, illiteracy, and underdevelopment. The struggle, they say, goes on. The people realize that life is an unending contest.
     
     We have said that the native's violence unifies the people. By its very structure, colonialism is separatist and regionalist. Colonialism does not simply state the existence of tribes; it also reinforces it and separates them. The colonial system encourages chieftaincies and keeps alive the old Marabout confraternities. Violence is in action all-inclusive and national. It follows that it is closely involved in the liquidation of regionalism and of tribalism. Thus the national parties show no pity at all toward the caids and the customary chiefs. Their destruction is the preliminary to the unification of the people.
     
     At the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.

     
     
     
102. In Fanon and the Concept of Colonial Violence[206], Robert C. Smith argues that Marxist critics of Fanon’s “fanatical” advocacy of violence and terrorism fail to understand that both Fanon and Marx were seeking “by whatever means necessary” to ‘end the exploitation of man by men’, and that Marx’s analysis had a Euro-centric bias, by overemphasising the socio-economic at the expense of the psychological. He concludes that Fanon is more of a Marxist than any of his Marxian critics, who “are more bourgeois in “outlook” than the bourgeoisie”:
     

     Fanon departs most sharply from Marx in his understanding of the functions of violence in the revolutionary process. Violence was not key to Marx’s analysis of revolution; he agreed that violence would probably be necessary because the bourgeoisie would in all likelihood resist its demise violently; however, he did admit the possibility of nonviolent revolutionary change in certain advanced industrial societies, notably the United States and Britain.
     
     Thus, although Marx expects violence to be a part of the revolutionary process, he does not consider it historically necessary nor does he make the concept central to his analysis. For Fanon, the exact reverse seems to be the case. He argued that violence was indispensable in the decolonization process, a categorical imperative, without which one could not talk of revolution—or at least one could only talk of it.
     
     In his essay, “Toward the Liberation of Africa,” he writes: “Violence alone, committed by the people, violence organized and educated by its leaders, makes it possible for the masses to understand social truths and gives the key to them. Without that struggle, without that knowledge of the practice of action, there is nothing save a minimum of readaptation, a few reforms, at the top, a flag waving: and down there at the bottom an undivided masses still living in the middle ages, endlessly marking time” (1967:118).
     
     To understand Fanon’s insistence on the absolute necessity of violence, one has to understand that violence is more than a mere political method or tool to force the removal of the European oppressor; for Fanon, it is a vital means of psychic and social liberation. He writes, “Violence is man recreating himself: the native cures himself through force of arms.” Thus, unlike Marx, Fanon seems to imply that even if the colonialists peacefully withdraw, the decolonization process is somehow aborted, that liberation is incomplete—the native remains an enslaved person in the neo-colonial social system.
     
     The native’s inner violence remains pent up, unexpressed and is likely to explode in renewed inter-tribal war, civil war, coups or other forms of post independence civil violence, deprived of its only viable outlet—the settler. Thus, the function of violence is only incidentally political; it’s main function is psycho-social. He writes: “The native’s weapon is proof of his humanity. For in the first days of the revolt you must kill—to shoot down a white man is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time: (1963:71).
     
     Fanon seems to have reached this conclusion from generalizations drawn from case studies of the psyches of the oppressed and the oppressor in Algeria. From this psychoanalytic work he “desired” certain assumptions about the nature of colonialism, and liberation. First, he assumed that colonialism, by nature, is violent.
     
     Fanon writes: “Colonialism . . . is violence in its natural state, and it will only yield when confronted with greater violence. The policeman and the soldier, by their immediate presence and their frequent and direct action, maintain contract with the native and advise him by means of rifle butts and napalm not to budge. It is obvious here that government speaks the language of pure force. The intermediary does not lighten the oppression nor seek to hide the domination; he shows them up and puts them into practice with the clear conscience of an upholder of peace; yet he is the bringer of violence into the home and into the mind of the native” (1963:91).
     
     He further argues that colonialism creates in the native a perpetual tendency toward violence, a “tonicity of muscles” which is deprived of an outlet. Hence, the phenomena of “Niggers Killing Niggers on Saturday Night.”
     
     Here he seems to imply that this violence is inevitable, that it must be expressed if the colonial personality and society is to be free. He argues that it is incorrect to view this violence as the effect of hatred or the resurrection of savage instincts. On the contrary, he suggests that, given the colonial context, it is the only way the “wretched of the earth” can be free. For Marx, violence served no such purpose; and here, Fanon is probably more Sorelian than Marxist. Indeed, Marx probably would have recoiled in horror at Fanon’s violence thesis. Yet, one must remember that Marx was dealing with an alienated personality, Fanon with a dehumanized one. At the level of colonized individual, Fanon writes: “For the native, life can only spring up again out of the rotting corpse of the settler” (1963:43).

     
     
     
103. Black Liberation Theology and Frantz Fanon’s role in Black Consciousness: In The Essential Steve Biko, Mandisi Majavu writes:
     

     In all Biko's work and statements, the Frantz Fanon influence can be detected. Even the concept of a black consciousness in liberating black people from their own psychological oppression is a cornerstone of Fanon's argument.
     
     Be that as it may, Biko was undoubtedly the most articulate spokesperson for black people during the early 1970s. He could pinpoint problems black people were facing in this country at that time - their own feelings of inferiority and self-hate.

Frantz Fanon Documentary - Black Skin, White Mask [01/05] [02/05] [03/05] [04/05] [05/05]

104. This argument is supported in Frantz Fanon and Black Consciousness in Azania (South Africa), by Thomas K. Ranuga:
     

     The black is a black man; that is, as a result of a series of aberrations of affect, he is rooted at the core of a universe from which he must be extricated. The problem is important. I propose nothing short of the liberation of the man of colour from himself. Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
     
     The emergence of the Black Consciousness philosophy in the late 1960s is one of the most important ideological developments ever to take place in the evolution of African political thought in Azania. This philosophy surfaced at a time when above-ground black political activities were virtually nonexistent in Azania following the banning of the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) by the white racist government in 1960. It was at this critical historical juncture that the alienation of black youth from dominant white society found concrete expression in the categorical rejection of white liberal leadership by the newly formed all-black South African Students Organisation (SASO) which laid the foundation for and became the cradle of the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) of Azania. The founders of SASO advocated the adoption of a radical political ideology which, in addition to its deep roots in orthodox African nationalism, borrowed major elements from the revolutionary writings of Frantz Fanon. It is the purpose of this analysis to show the dynamic link between the radical ideas of Frantz Fanon and the philosophy of Black Consciousness as propounded and effectively articulated by Steve Biko, the black militant who has come to be known as the father of Black Consciousness in Azania. The major ideas to be focussed upon pertain to political consciousness, the role of white liberals in black liberation movements and the crucial question of total liberation.
     
     The Colonized Mind
     
     Partly because of his training in psychiatry and partly because of his personal involvement in revolutionary activities, Fanon was greatly preoccupied with and deeply distressed by one major legacy of colonialism and imperialism, the paralyzing inferiority complex of blacks and their abject idolization of whites as their role models. His writings were aimed principally at galvanizing the physically and mentally colonized people of the Third World to rise up and retrieve their self-esteem, dignity and freedom and thus resume their rightful place as respectable members of the World community. His major analytical focus was the mind or consciousness as the repository of crippling fears and debilitating complexes. Blacks had to realize that the fear of whites and the attendant inferiority complex were direct products of the colonized mind.

     
     
     
105. According to Sweden and National Liberation in Southern Africa: Solidarity and Assistance by Tor Sellström
     

     Black Consciousness Before Soweto [Uprising]
     
     Largely inspired by the 1960’s black power movement in the United States – but also by the writings of Frantz Fanon and the policies of Julius Nyerere in Tanzania – the philosophy of black consciousness was developed towards the end of the decade by Steve Biko, Barney Pityana and other young black university students of the post-Sharpeville generation. As stated by the former BCM activists Mokoape, Mtintos and Nhlapo,
     
     [t]he cornerstone of Biko’s thinking was that black people must look inwardly at themselves, reflect on their history, examine the reasons for past failures and ask themselves […]: ‘What makes the black man fail to tick?’[208]
     
     Emphasising assertiveness and self-esteem, under the slogan ‘Black man, you are on your own!’ black consciousness maintained that the oppression of blacks was both psychological and physical, respectively described as ‘Phase One’ and ‘Phase Two’. During an initial period, the efforts focused on the psychological aspects…… While it was relatively uncomplicated to address ‘Phase One’, it was considerably more difficult – and in the longer term divisive – to approach ‘Phase Two’. This required a clear strategic objective and definite tactics with regard to alliances and methods of struggle. Mokoape, Mtintso and Nhlapo have recalled how
     
     The questions relating to ‘Phase [Two]’ went largely unanswered […] in BC[M] circles. [I]t was often stated that when the time came, ‘the people will decide’. However, within informal sessions there was a strong recognition of the need for armed struggle. Yet, even those who agreed that this was an absolute necessity were still baffled by the ‘how’.
     
     [Steve Biko makes numerous attempts to schedule meetings with the PAC and ANC, to give military training to BCM members]
     
     As Pityana later noted: “Steve Biko would have come out of South Africa to try to bring some order into the situation and encourage people to have a creative relationship with the ANC.. […] [E]specially the situation among BC[M] people in Botswana was very bad. There were lots of factions and it was necessary that those who really did want to get involved in armed combat could be trusted. Steve would have explored the possibility of BCM engaging in open political struggle internally in South Africa and of letting those who wanted to be involved in armed struggle do so through ANC. Essentially that is what he was going to explore.(Interview with Barney Pityana, pp. 188-89)
     
     Finally, a third – for the apartheid regime potentially much more ominous – meeting was in utmost secrecy planned to take place in Gaborone, Botstwana, in early September 1977. It was not only to involve Biko and Tambo, but also Olof Palme, the leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. It would have brought together South Africa’s foremost internal black politician, representing the post Sharpeville generation; the head of the strongest liberation movement, commanding a sizeable military force; and the representative of a leading donor country, also acting on behalf of a powerful international political community. As later stated by the South African security officer Craig Williamson: “That was bad news”

     
     
     
106. In May the Black God Stand Please! Biko’s Challenge to Religion[209], Professor Tinyiko Sam Maluleke Executive Director: Research, University of South Africa and President: South African Council of Churches, describes Steve Biko’s views on Christianity and Black Liberation Theology:
     

     [Biko] saw black Theology as the only way to salvage Christianity for the black masses. Otherwise Christianity would remain an imposed religion whose role was the maintenance of subjugation – always making Blacks feel like the ‘unwanted step children of God’. Therefore, Black Theology was seen as ‘a situational interpretation of Christianity [meant to restore) meaning and direction in the black man’s understanding of God’. He therefore advocated waging an intellectual and theological battle within Christianity because ‘too many are involved in religion for the blacks to ignore... the only path open for us now is to redefine the message of the Bible and to make it relevant’. Central to the making of the Bible relevant was the reimagination and reinterpretation of Jesus as a ‘fighting God’ – the beginnings of a search for a Black Christology.

107. In SA Students Organisation (SASO) September 1970 edition, in I Write What I Like: “We Blacks”[210], Steve Biko writing under his ‘Frank –Talk’ pseudonym has the following to say about Black Liberation Theology:
     

     What of the white man’s religion – Christianity? ..[..] To this date black people find no message for them in the bible simply because our ministers are still too busy with moral trivialities. They blow these up as the most important things that Jesus had to say to people. They constantly urge the people to find fault with themselves and by so doing detract from the essence of the struggle in which the people are involved. Deprived of spiritual content, the black people read the bible with a gullibility that is shocking. [..] Obviously the only path open for us now is to redefine the message in the bible and to make it relevant to the struggling masses. The bible must not be seen to preach that all authority is divinely institute. It must rather preach that it is a sin to allow oneself to be oppressed. The bible must continually be shown to have something to say to the black man to keep him going in his long journey towards realisation of the self. This is the message implicit in “black theology.” Black theology seeks to do away with spiritual poverty of the black people.

     
     
     
108. The August 1971 edition published the findings of The Commission on Black Theology[211], whose investigations on Black Theology in S. Africa “were geared towards Black Consciousness,” and the “role of theology in the Black man’s struggle.” It proceeds to reprint Resolution 57/71 on Black Theology.
     
     
109. The September 1971 edition included Black Theology: A Re-Assessment of the Christ, by Vic Mafungo[212], which once again focussed on the importance of “solving the political and social problems of the Black people and an ability to see this as an essential aspect of the meaning of salvation.” It also included, Black Consciousness and the Quest for True Humanity[213], which was the text of an address given by Steve Biko, the 1969/70 President of SASO to a Black Theology seminar in Maritzburg on 18 August, 1971. Biko sets out what he calls “the case for Black theology”, and his justification for why Black theology “wants to describe Christ as a fighting God and not a passive God who accepts a lie unchallenged”, for “an important part of Black Consciousness” is relating God and Christ once more to the Black man and his daily problems.
     
     
110. In the May 1972 edition Jayaprakashen Terwaran provides a Review of Essays on Black Theology[214], describing it as “much a book on theology as the Bible is on Politics,” which “exposes the western oriented lie that religion and politics are separate entities.” In James H. Cone’s essay he says “Black Theology puts Black identity in a theological context, showing that Black Power is not only consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ it is the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
     
     
111. In the November 1972 edition, Rev. E.N Bartman address at the 1972 Methodist Conference is published, The Significance of the Development of Black Consciousness for the Church[215].
     
     
112. In the March 1973 edition, Black Theology Conference: An Assessment[216] details the discussions held from 13-16 February at the YMCA in Edenvale, Pietermaritzburg, which among others called for an independent, viable and dependable Black Theology Agency in SA, to take over from the Black Theology Project of the University Christian Movement. An interim Committee was elected, consisting of: Dr. Manas Buthelezi (Natal Regional Director, Christian Institute), Rev. M. Makhaye (Rector, St. Johns’s Anglican Parish, Umtata); Mr. B.A. Khoapa (Director, SPROCAS 2, Black Community Programmes); Rev. Maquia (President, African Independent Churches Association). The edition also contains an interview of James Cone, the leading Black American exponent of the Black Theology Movement, by Mervyn Josie – Our Acting Vice-President, International, titled James Cone – Mervyn Josie[217].

Black Theology and Black Power, By James H. Cone [*Amazon*]

113. Journal of Black Liberation Theology in South Africa: The Journal of Black Theology in South Africa was published by the Black Theology Project in Pretoria, from 1987 to 1994 and was dedicated to the exploration of African and Black theology and its growth and identity in relation to the national struggle for liberation. Editor was Mr. Takatso A. Mofokeng, and Contributing Editor: James H. Cone, Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York, U.S.A, author of A Black Theology of Liberation and Black Theology and Black Power:
     
     
114. In the November 1989 edition of Journal of Black Theology in South Africa, a brief history of Black Liberation Theology in South Africa is provided, documenting the arrival of Black Liberation Theology in South Africa as 1968:
     

     It is now twenty one years since the first conference on Black Theology was held in South Africa. It is therefore proper for us to pause for a moment, look back in the corridors of theological history again. We also need to refresh our memory of the greatest theological development ever to take place on this southern most tip of Africa. When we think back to the early days of Black Theology in South Africa, we can remember many names of black theologians who had a hand in its formation. All these names are important to us to remember because they are milestones on the long and glorious track of Black Theology in our search for liberation and theological self-expression. Among the names which need to be remembered is that of Steve Bantu Biko who, though not a theologian, was able to make theological history with his philosophical contribution. In his speech entitled Black Consciousness and the quest for true humanity, Steve Biko linked Black Consciousness and Black Theology in a way in which no one in South Africa had done before. Ever since he made that linkage many theologians, social scientists and philosophers have debated and discussed Black Theology within the context of Black Consciousness and Black Consciousness within the context of Black Theology. That debate still rages even today. In this issue of our journal we include one article that continues this discussion within our changed situation in which confusion reigns supreme. In the next article the author takes us back again. This time to the history that, according to him, could explain the emergence of Liberation Theology. He takes us back to that theological movement which, though short lived, shocked the conservative theological world and excited those Christians who had been searching for the relevance of the gospel in society. In this present article the author traces the link between Liberation Theology and the American social gospel movement. In our own time and on our continent, especially at this southern most tip of it, it is not possible to discuss liberation and avoid questions on the relevance of socialism, not only for the future of oppressed and poor people, but also for that of Christianity. You will therefore find an article exploring the relationship between Christianity and socialism in this issue.

Farewell to Innocence: A Socio-Ethical Study on Black Theology and Black Power, By Allan A. Boesak [*Amazon*]

127. As a result of Dutch Reformed Black Liberation Theologian Alan Boesak’s instigation, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches declared apartheid a heresy. Mr. Boesak is the author of Farewell to Innocence: A Socio-Ethical Study on Black Theology and Black Power.
     
     
128. The newly instituted International Institute for Race, Reconciliation at the University of the Orange Free State, setup subsequent to the Reitz Four’s alleged satire ‘racist’ video drama is headed by none other than one of the ANC’s foremost Black Liberation Theologians: Dr. Alan Boesak, former author of Farewell to Innocence: A Socio-Ethical Study on Black Theology and Black Power.

Excerpts from Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae Heads of Argument, filed in Afriforum v. Malema (currently censored)

Radical Honesty SA Amicus Application to Equality Court: Judge Colin Lamont & Notifications to SA Officials & Int'l Embassies in [07-2010 EQ JHB] Afriforum v. Malema: Kill Boere/Settlers Hate Speech Trial