|
|
The Third
Phase |
|
"Actions just like
those of F4J brought about the changes in South Africa.
Wrong. I have just read the shortened version of Mandela's book. I then spent the month January 04 in Cape Town [where I lived in the 1940s], visiting Robben Island. I then read the full version of the book, some 750pp. After many years of F4J - type activity, Mandela gave up on it and was appointed head of MK, “The Spear of the Nation”, the terrorist wing of the ANC. Many years later, while still in jail, he refused to say that ANC would give up terrorism. This refusal was the reason why he remained in jail for another five or ten years. It was for many years the sole sticking point for a government anxious to release him, as his book makes clear. It is disgraceful to sanitise Mandela's record, clearly stated in his book. Unlike Matt, he successfully made the transition from F4J type to terrorist leader.
It is a travesty of history
to sanitise Mandela into an F4J type, because he tried that and concluded it
had failed. Mandela went through all three phases - (1) FNF seeking sympathy
for the oppressed majority but merely winning contempt for spineless
fathers; (2) F4J indulging in demonstrations etc; then the third phase, (3)
the terrorist phase which Mandela led. We are still in the second, F4J phase.
Its leaders will be brushed aside by the cadres who finally gain victory for
the family as an institution. Whether these terrorist forces will then
promote democracy, or move the country to fascism, is the key historical
issue. Democracy having patently failed to defend a majority of our citizens
for decades, it is now difficult to argue for it. (The gender-racists who
subverted, and now control, our political process are themselves
neo-fascist.) The main issue is whether the lasting legacy of radical
feminism will be a pro-family, patriarchal fascist government. Obviously, the
current racist government in South Africa is an ill omen, if we look to South
Africa as a precedent for our own tragedy. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Nelson Mandela, “Long Walk
to Freedom”, pub. Little, Brown 1994/2003 P321 “…. We had no choice but to
turn to violence ….” !!!! Actions just like those of F4J brought about the
changes in South Africa. Therefore this winning formula which was applied
with great success in - Michael Hickman !!!! - Touche P322 “Would it not be better to
guide this violence ourselves ….? If we did not take the lead now, I said, we
would soon be latecomers and followers of a movement we did not control. …. A
military campaign was inevitable.” P323 “The Congresses authorised
me to go ahead and form a new military organization, separate from the ANC.
…. We were embarking on a …. path of organised violence ….” P324 “The name of this new
organisation was Umkhonto we Sizwe (The Spear of the Nation) – or MK for
short. …. To wage acts of violence against the state …. I made my way through
the available literature on armed warfare and in particular guerrilla warfare
….” P336 “…. If sabotage did not
produce the results we wanted, we were prepared to move on to the next stage:
guerrilla warfare and terrorism.” P434 “Sabotage, I said, offered
the best hope for future race relations.” P474 As a D group prisoner, I
was entitled to have only one visitor, and write and receive only one letter
every six months. I found that one of the most inhumane restrictions of the
prison system. Communication with one’s family is a human right …. P559 …. It is a source of deep
sorrow not to be able to see one’s own children. [Was Judge Munby always
callous, or did his lust for power, and desire to bully, make him callous? -
IC] P617 “MK’s first car bomb attack
took place in May 1983, and was aimed at an air force and military office in
the heart of Pretoria. This was an effort to retaliate for the unprovoked
attacks the military had launched on the ANC in Maseru and elsewhere and was
a clear escalation of the armed struggle. Nineteen people were killed and
more than two hundred injured. The killing of civilians was a tragic accident, and I felt a profound horror at the death toll. But disturbed as I was by these casualties, I knew that such accidents were the inevitable consequence of the decision to embark on a military struggle.
Mandela is absolutely convinced that the second (F4J) phase failed, and that the third, terrorist, phase, which he led, defeated Aparteid. F4J is merely an interim phase, delaying reform. F4J will be brushed aside, as was FNF, by the third, terrorist, initiative, which will be the successful one. Like Mandela, the man who leads the terrorist phase may become Prime Minister of England a little later on, get the Peace Prize, and be called "The Saviour of the Nation".
(Phase 2) F4J will face the same contempt as they (and I) dish out to FNF (Phase 1). Mandela managed to move the ANC forward from Phase 2 to Phase 3. F4J will not make this move, and so will be replaced, probably by a rapidly growing fascist party. That is in the future, after the euphoria of the F4J successes dies away with no reform resulting.
http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/Mandela/Mandela.html Nelson Mandela is one of the great moral and political leaders of our time: an international hero whose lifelong dedication to the fight against racial oppression in South Africa won him the Nobel Peace Prize and the presidency of his country.
http://web.hec.ca/leadergraphies/dropdown/mandela.htm As we know, Nelson Mandela is a man of engagement. And as he specifies, his achievements are driven more by his sense of justice rather than by moral preoccupations. When the peaceful struggle became inefficient, for example, he decided to use violent practices. And in terms of his family, it was his biggest source of pain. This other side of Nelson Mandela is often glossed over by the mass media, which prefers to conceal the darker sides of Mandela’s life. In reality, Mandela isn’t a man with super-human abilities for fighting injustice – he is a man with weaknesses and defects like any other. In short, he is a common man who led his life according to his convictions.
http://www.hoosierreview.com/wendling_files/wendling5.html Such was the regard for human life that targets were
carefully selected, "Our strategy was to make selective forays against
military installations, power plants, telephone lines, and transportation
links . . ." Mandela does not mention blowing up discos,
restaurants, malls, or busses. Rather MK sabotaged, "targets that would
not only hamper the military effectiveness of the state, but frighten
National Party supporters, scare away foreign capital, and weaken the
economy. This we hoped would bring the government to the bargaining
table." @@@@@@@@@@@@@
by Ivor Catt; Today in South Africa, one regularly hears; "The white man is the new black man." White women have jumped on the victimology bandwagon, (as one sees in the propaganda on a trip to Robben Island), leaving white men in South Africa hopelessly exposed, at only 9% of the population of 40 millions. They are unable to leave the country, and face a terrible future. One white mother, who fought against Aparteid, recently mugged twice before she left, told me she is desperate to get her sons out, for their own safety, but cannot, even though she is in England and her parents are English. [Inverse racism makes us give safe harbour to non-whites from the Middle East, but exclude whites from our own culture. The white males who might escape to England is very small, and they are well educated and well qualified.] The betrayal by white women of their white men; their lack of solidarity, is one of the most terrible outcomes of radfem propaganda, which is prevalent at a naive level in South Africa, and will cause many deaths of white males in South Africa. White men, including those who fought against Aparteid, face a grim future. They are not accepted in Britain as refugees. At home, they face the double whammy of radfem attack and being the new Black Man, denied employment etc., which is preferentially given to women and/or to non-whites. – Ivor Catt @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ the "Society of Friends in Britain had been
campaigning against the slave trade for many years. They had presented a
petition to Parliament in 1783 and in 1787 had helped form the Society for the Abolition of the
Slave Trade. – Julian below, with Quaker connections. How have the mighty fallen. See http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/te26quag.htm A good model for today's Society of Friends is the career MP who lacks other source of income. He will join a public outcry on a matter of social concern after it has reached full flood. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ycuqcens.htm Many years ago I tried to
deliver one page of information to the Children's Committee in Friends House.
I was prevented by their chairman Hosking,…. http://www.ivorcatt.com/3901.htm
- Child Contact Centres http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ya5edick.htm http://www.ivorcatt.com/2903.htm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 2. Obtaining the vote for women .- Julian, below. Melanie Phillips, in her most recent book; “The Rise of Women”, circa 2002, says that women had the vote just as much as men until about 1850. That is why the radfem-rewritten history of the battle always starts after 1850. The loss of equality in voting by women was a temporary accident, according to Melanie, due to confusion in reformist parliamentary debates and legislation. It is also of interest that at one phase both the Pankhursts opposed the franchise for women. What are the lessons, when taking Michael's example from South Africa (about 40 years) into account, below? .- Julian, below. The lesson is that, like FNF, F4J is merely foreplay before the real battle, when Mandela succeeded. He wrote that significant economic damage had to be inflicted on the state. This required sabotage and probably terrorism, in order to bring basic human rights to the oppressed majority. After Spiderman/Tower Bridge, when I said to Matt F4J that 5millions of damage or 50 millions was too little, he agreed that in order to get reform we had to inflict one billion pounds of damage on the economy every few months. We are now sitting, waiting for the men of action. We can only hope that they do not carry a fascist tyranny in their wake. That is what faces us if we fail to address the crisis seriously enough. Note that the democratic process has comprehensively failed. I personally believe that the behaviour of judges and other vested interests brings a very great threat to the democratic process. Cc
Lord Justice Ward, Appeal
Court, Royal
Courts of Justice, Strand, Central London. Ivor Catt 8aug04 ----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 3:39 AM Subject: Call for fathers to stand and fight for their families,
seconded Please redistribute: See below for letter from Michael Hickman,
reposted to Euro-dads as I think it is a good letter - better than the one to
President Mbeki, which appears almost ambivalent in its substance. 2. Obtaining the vote for women ( see eg: http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/MOLsite/learning/features_facts/world_city_5.html ) This followed a steady widening of the franchise during the nineteenth century. However, note that this widening of the franchise was a battle for men as well. By the end of the nineteenth century, only two thirds of adult men had the vote. It took even longer to kick off for women, and this was actually due to people self-centredly going for their immediate compromise goals, one by one, and eschewing the more radical, which set the tone for what was to come. 1897 was the point at which the women's lobby groups and aims appeared to crystallise into a defined structure. Then "In 1903 the campaign for women's 'suffrage' or the right to vote entered a new phase. That year Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters Christabel, Sylvia and Adela started the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) in Manchester. The motto of the WSPU was 'Deeds not words'." The franchise was given to women over thirty at the end of the war (1919), but only given to women over 21 in 1928. The universal adult franchise was achieved more by degrees than by an outright decision.
So, 1783 to 1833 (50 years) for banning slavery, and circa. 1850 to 1928 (about 80 years) or 1897 to 1928 (30 years), to obtain the vote for women.
What are the lessons, when taking Michael's example from South Africa (about 40 years) into account, below?
In both the British cases, the full reforms were to some degree held up by schism, between the "ban the slave trade" (moderate) and the "ban slavery" (absolute values) contingents, and between the suffragettes (radical, direct action) and the suffragists (jaw jaw, not war war). The British are highly prone to the syndrome "What do we want? Gradual Change! When do we want it? Soon!" It does well to remember that the goals of both suffragettes and suffragists were still extremely limited, even though John Stuart Mills, George Sand or Mary Wollstonecraft were stating the obvious long before. It is also worth recalling that slavery in Britain itself had not existed, legally, since the fourteenth century, although this fact had to be unearthed all over again in the late eighteenth century, such were the economic interests in maintaining it.
Both campaigns were bogged down by largely futile debates about the nature of other races, or of the opposite sex. In the case of slavery, these racialist arguments continued for well over a century, part of their legacy being Nazism. In the case of votes for women, apart from a brief two-decade hiatus, courtesy of Nazism, we are still bedevilled with systemic discrimination on the basis of sex 80 years later.
Whereas in South Africa, only one side was making the comparisons (the apartheid ruling whites), and the movement was fairly unitary, barring a small parliamentary contingent which was complementary to the ANC. Nevertheless, active discrimination against whites in South Africa appears resurgent, as I write, and runs the risk of matching the feminist discriminatory backlash we now suffer in the UK.
Nevertheless, the lesson to activists here, from South Africa, would appear to be: do not split into two rancorously feuding wings, and do not compromise - particularly in the UK, if you want to get full rights enacted in law before you are dead. In particular, avoid seeking to change legal rights in parliament until you have got enough muscle outside parliament to be listened to, as unfortunately vested interests rule here as well.
The lesson to any UK historian or politician is surely to end these futile, officially devised discriminations and allow people to get on with something useful instead. This would be a major departure from two centuries of fretting over the blindingly obvious, and would perhaps remind us that our values should owe more to the seventeenth century Cromwellian revolution which changed us forever, and less to a reactionary fear of Napoleon and French revolutionary zeal.
But this also leads to a contemporary lesson worth learning - and again one has to reach over all these battles for sectional human rights of the intervening centuries, to seventeenth century England, before one finds a simple, clear language which chimes with our own in this respect. Family rights are as fundamental, if not more so, than any of the three sets of rights covered above - as they impact on all of us, and thus their absence can pit any individual directly against the state.
So the final lesson is that to win this battle, we have to widen, not narrow the battlefront, whether fathers are in the vanguard or not. In this, Michael makes a fine point below, where he says:
"Last but not least do not forget that every father has a mother,
for every They already have been affected, Michael, in fact there is nobody, nobody at all, who can count on being excluded from the effects of state tyranny over families.
Perhaps somebody should tell our chief judge, Dame Elizabeth Butler Sloss, as she seems to believe it is only a tiny minority?
Julian
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/zb038.htm The coming of Fascism Ivor
Catt, 23nov99 http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/02063.htm |
|
|
|
|