A few years ago, a sudden thought popped into my mind:
Nelson Mandela had been secretly videotaped having gay sex while he was in prison during his 30 years of confinement - the purpose being to blackmail him should he ever rise to a position of power. I thought further: The CIA advocated such a strategy to the apartheid government and offered their assistance on the technical end.
Was Nelson Mandela gay? I have no way of knowing, but I do know this: 30 years is a long time to be deprived of sex. And apparently Mandela had an above-normal sex drive.
But why say such a thing?
All I'm saying is, these are thoughts that popped into my head years ago. These were sudden and vivid. But I don't put them on the same level as visions. In fact, some of my predictions posted on this blog, which had felt very much like visions, failed to come to pass.
But such a strategy would have made perfect sense. During much of Nelson Mandela's incarceration, it was by no means certain that apartheid would fall. So it would have been ideal to have an insurance policy in place (via blackmail) in order to control or at least moderate someone who seemed to be destiny's child.
And things turned out rather well for these manipulators - far better than they could have dreamed possible. They ended up with a black president who didn't nationalize major state enterprises, though he had said he would. Mandela had Marxist sympathies that had managed to evaporate when he was president. He didn't become a president for life - which I believe had to be part of the deal. There was much talk about reconciliation among the South African races/constituencies - but no talk of wealth redistribution or even of reparations.
[Side Note: One can insist on reparations to at least some degree while also talking of reconciliation.]
There wasn't even any religious talk coming from Mandela, except in broad and generic terms concerning forgiveness and brotherhood - you know, kind of like what the Dalai Lama might say. That, too, I suspect was part of the deal - "you must remain religiously non-aligned."
As for that nonsense about forgoing nationalization because it would have discouraged foreign investment, it is possible to nationalize while giving shareholders and owners a generous golden parachute. But, no, there wasn't any of that kind of talk going on either.
Mandela got to wear the mantle of Mahatma Gandhi, but didn't have to worry about actually uplifting his people out of poverty. Being a one-term president allowed him the luxury of not having to worry about follow-through on any kind of ambitious social/economic reform programs.
So, why say such a thing? Too often, things are not as they appear on the public stage. So I wanted to offer an alternative narrative. Everybody is saying how much they love Nelson Mandela and what a great man he was. Perhaps all this talk is true. But I'm sure that most of those singing his praises don't really know much about the man. And I hate bandwagons and the promotion of one-dimensional saviours. Any time a movement becomes too dependent upon, or too closely identified with, a particular individual, that individual becomes so great a target for corruption and compromise that he should be highly suspected and subjected to brutal scrutiny. And this should be done without wearing rose-colored glasses.
If the apartheid government had really felt threatened by Mandela, he would have died or been broken in prison. Thirty years would have been more than enough for the authorities to execute either option. He even had the luxury of medical treatment, which (if not provided) could have caused his early demise. Such treatment for (especially) high profile prisoners is routinely denied worldwide and ends up being their de facto cause of death. This lack of punitive action was a great source for my suspicion that Mandela had been compromised. I even doubt that he had suffered that greatly while in lockup, being "comforted" by a regime that found a willing partner in the form of this particular prisoner.
The fact of the matter
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and had been on the U.S. terrorism watch list as recently as 2008. He had Marxist sympathies. And he (as might be expected of an African leader who had to convey at least the appearance of tweaking the Great Powers)"...attacked the US more generally, asserting that it had committed more 'unspeakable atrocities' across the world than any other nation, citing the atomic bombing of Japan..." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela#Continued_activism_and_philanthropy:_1999.E2.80.932004
However, both sides got something out of this "rehabilitation" of Mandela. Mandela realized his dream of black majority rule while his blackmailers got to present to the world (especially Black Africa) how it was possible to become a man of peace even when such a lengthy incarceration could have dictated otherwise.
How much has really changed?
How to measure change? Try this: Imagine me standing in Soweto before a crowd explaining my "vision" of Mandela as a "gay" man who had sold out the revolution. Now imagine this: Me, with a rubber tire holding me firmly as I'm burned alive by that very same crowd. I imagine my dying thought being: "If you can't even imagine alternatives to the official story, you'll always be trapped by your baser emotions."
In order to move beyond the crippling devotion which the many bestow upon the "chosen," we have to abandon the politics of personality. My own suggestion on how to do this is in my essay, "A Zero Party System for US Politics" - linked below:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/zero-party-system-for-us-politics.html
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party
"When something looks too good to be true, it almost always is" - Steve.
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment