Last Man in London is now available.

Albert Jack’s Last Man in London, that has been receiving favorable reviews worldwide, is being released today.

The first four chapters are available here and the book can either be bought at any of the following links, or asked for at any reliable bookstore.


The ebook (Kindle) edition is available here

The book format (paperback) can be bought (or reviewed) here;

A PDF version is also available here for only $4 – Last Man in London PDF

Special Offer: A free PDF copy will be sent to any reviewer. Reviews can be posted at any of the links (above) and if you email a copy of the review you post (including the link) then Money for Old Rope Publishing will send you a free PDF version of Last Man in London. Ask for a PDF Review Copy here –

Current reviews:

I downloaded this book, and to be honest read the first few paragraphs very quickly… and then thought… hang on… this is a brilliant concept… so started again and read it properly! Its clever, thought inspiring, a book that makes you re-read the last chapter again just to make sure you didn’t miss anything! You can see this being made into a film…. you must read it. Jules Blue

I did not want this book to end! I enjoyed the lead characters so much. Please tell me this is the first of at least three.

My favorite lines were these; ‘Mira would never leave there now. And George would never go there again.’ And ‘Nothing reveals a man’s limitations as much as the absolute realization that his heart and soul is running around in another person’s body.’

Quite profound and a very engrossing read. Superb. Crystal Arnold

A thrillingly disturbing read. Couldn’t put it down.

Albert Jack has always been good with non-fiction but in this novel he has taken all his impressive knowledge about history and popular culture and woven them into a fabric that drapes the world in new clothes. It’s a seemingly bizarre set-up – the world and society controlled in the most spectacular ways – but the reason it is so disturbing is that it is profoundly rooted in today’s real-life societal trends and therefore has the chance of becoming true. It’s riveting to see the issues of our times being taken and stretched out into their possible outcomes. It’s fun at times, wry and amusingly cynical at others (Mr Jack’s trademark) but at all times engaging. Definitely keeps you turning pages and surprises you when you do. This will make a brilliant movie or trilogy. Well done Mr Jack! Eilat Aviram

With gentle twists on top of suspense
Last Man in London was a rather gentle step into an altered society. Serious mind altering media control combined with projects that generated satisfaction with daily life took large populations to some unexpected places but left out others. Leaving the ‘bad news’ to our imaginations, Mr. Jack allows us to understand the more subtle aspects of such a transformation. If you like suspense without all the gore, this would be a good book for you. I tend to rate ‘low’ like some of the teachers you may have had who were stingy with their “As.”
Mae Beth Williams

Albert Jack has come up with a scenario of a future that has an eerie sense of possibility attached to it. He has succeeded in summarizing the most pressing issues of the modern day world situation and creating a blueprint of what the outcome might become. At the outset we meet George Willoughby who is about to embark on his first day of work with the Corporation. He has just finished ten years of training; it is year 143 in the new order. His position will be to keep “history up to date.” This is a very different world from the one we know Countries no longer exist; there are world sectors. Corporation doctrine states that most powerful civilizations do not last more then five hundred years. Capitalism and democracy are not compatible. The few wealthy cannot support vast numbers of poor in a welfare state. Furthermore, religion can no longer be practiced because the warring factions destroy each other in their quest for dominance. The people have lost their will to vote and prefer the corporation to regulate their lives and provide for their needs.

It does not seem to bother George or his carefree friends like Hugo, Will, and girlfriend, Mira. But as George begins his work he learns to question why it is necessary to eliminate the knowledge of how things really happened. George asks his great grandfather about the past, the old printed books he keeps in his chest, and his father and mother. Gradually George discovers the dark secrets of the main board of the corporation and unravels why there are now marriage contracts that need to be fulfilled before one is approved to have a family. The tale touches on many elements: social history, religion, technology, utopias, politics and love. I easily became engrossed in the plot and characters; I read the book in one afternoon. There were a few digressions included that I felt were not needed, but the premise of the book is intriguing and the historical background skillfully pieced together.If you are looking for a short but thought provoking book, this one is an excellent choice.
Barbara Ann Mojica

Absolutely drawn in! The concepts about religious restrictions, censorship, disinformation, population control, and an all seeing government sounds sinister and at odds with what we picture for a Utopian future. Yet this book not only makes it sound plausible, it actually makes it sound like an ideal set worth engineering. This book deftly illustrates the contemporary issues that surround us all today hiding in plain site. Terribly frightening to think of the levels of information and societal controls a big government can employ and how it may also make sense! This is a provocative and brutally simple view of a potential future that addresses the issues of nationalization, religion, and population control while providing innovative and pragmatic solutions to things like marital contracts, education, and healthcare.The author falls in between Orson Wells, Dan Brown, and Chistopher Hitchens. A superb read with lovely and deep characters, will most likely feature on a required reading list for schools for the next generation. This may be the introduction of a new cult classic of the century. A movie may not do this justice, but a tv mini-series could wake up the masses. I see this as less of a prophecy and more of a warning of the evils of competing loyalties and how it mars morals and common sense. Would you trade truth for stability? Geo Emmitt

‘Something of a master stroke by Albert Jack. Last Man in London may well become one of the most prophetic novels of its time as all of the scenarios that Jack lucidly illustrates, (or perhaps predicts) are plausible. As thought provoking and as provocative as ever the author presents the Utopian lifestyle in the year AI43 (After Incorporation) of the inhabitants of the Western World or, as he puts it, The Corporation, where everybody contributes or their genetic line is halted. It is a world where everybody is born sterile and must prove they have something to add to Mankind if they are to be provided the fertility treatment needed for their gene to propagate. The Welfare State has gone, along with its Welfare Generation, religion is banned, and forgotten about, as the underwriter of all evil, democracy is a thing of the past and the West is run as a profitable business, by professional businessman. Democracy was, after all, created as a Polyarchy with the sole intention of protecting the interests of those who created it.

All energy is both free and wireless and the ever increasing population of the planet has now fallen to under one billion (by natural causes) This causes George Willoughby, the central character, confusion as he learns, from a variety of different sources, how democracy was overthrown and who by. What he doesn’t understand is why. A reducing population and smaller market place does not serve the interests of big business who are, after all, controlling everything. And when he does find out it is enough to make your blood run cold.

A Utopian society created by distinctly Distopian methods, all of them possible. Last Man in London starts well, is full of wonderful, believable characters that you will ether love or loath, has some great dialogue, especially between George and his grandfather Edgar, who remembers the old days, and includes a delightful assassination of organised religion as a principal.But, above all, of you want a picture of the future your grandchildren may be living in, then Last Man in London could turn out to be a blueprint. This is the work of fiction that Christopher Hitchens didn’t write.’ Paul Carter

‘It is a post-religion, post-democracy, post-welfare and post-fossil fuel world. Civilization is run as an efficient business. The population is controlled. Nobody is hungry or homeless and everybody makes contribution to the Corporation that runs this world providing a permanently stable economy which makes profit. Technology has advanced, there is abundant Wi-Hy (Wireless Hydrogen energy) to run the computing Hy-Devs (HydroDevices) and it is a world of trans-continental plasmapulsed hydrotrains which zip through to your destinations. But the people suffer from anxiety and depend heavily on diazepam. Diazepam popping George Willoughby is unsettled by questions related to his origins. His grandfather Edgar is his only connection with the world from which the incorporated Orwellian era evolved…

The “Last Man in London And The New World Order” is a riveting book. For many of us who are troubled by the current brutal manifestation of Islamic nihilism that threatens to derail civilization as we know it reading this work by itself provides moments of catharsis. This is a work of science fiction in the Jules Verne mould; remember “From the Earth to the Moon”? Why, even an established yet crazy physicist like Nikola Tesla had demonstrated wireless energy transmission as early as 1891! Thus nothing that Albert says in this book is beyond realization, it is indeed a work of futurology and very prophetic one at that! According to Plato, democracy has the seeds of anarchy built into it and can easily degrade into tyranny.

The fact that Wealth (capitalists) dictates governance is well known and Albert Jack makes a relevant reference to Lord Byron’s “The 12th canto of Don Juan” through the medium of the characters in this book and provides reasoning for the transition to incorporation from the decaying democracies of the West. Unlike in the dystopian Hollywood flick “Elysium” where two classes of people exist: the very wealthy, who live on a luxurious space station called Elysium, and the poor who live on an overpopulated, devastated Earth; in the “Last Man in London” the corporation solves the problem of unwanted population by ingeniously sterilizing them through the medium of capsules in water supply and even vaccination – thus ensuring a future “utopia”, albeit using dystopian means. Stanislaw Lem in his science fictional work “The futurological congress” depicts a future in which entire populations live in a world ordered by manipulating the mind through the medium of designer psychotropic drugs administered through tap water supply…

But, I deviate was there a possibility to keep the population in check by such measures? Then again, sterilization is a better healthier alternative. “Last Man in London” is a powerful and relevant piece of work; it has great Hollywood potential. But considering the atmosphere of apology and political correctness that prevails when it comes to things Islamic, I fear the cinematic potential of this lovely work may become difficult to realize. Do read it.’ Croucho Marx

‘I read this book in two days and really enjoyed it. This novel is full of interesting ideas. The marriage contract with a fixed term and the right to have children only if it is never broken means accountability for both parents. It should be the Law. It is humane. Many other ideas are so innovative. It is the dream of people to always want to move faster, further and more easily, and the whole idea of ​​wireless power is great.

You have all this in the future that Alert Jack offers in Last Man in London. And more than that, I completely agree with the author’s views on religious matters. People should be free from organised religion and spiritually liberated. Even if they are forced to be, as they are here. This is the literary work of a highly creative and extremely intelligent writer. I can’t wait for the next one. Thank you for publishing this.’ Thu Ha Nguyen

‘Loved it! Brilliant & insightful. It feels like the type of fiction that Christopher Hitchens would have written, and I could tell that he heavily influenced it. The craziness of religions are very well elucidated. My favourite book of 2013. At the end of it, I asked myself; how else could the world reach a utopia than how it was described in the novel? The scary answer is; I can’t imagine another way.’ Godfrey Freeman

‘Wow the man does it again, brilliantly crafted, what incredible vision! all my friends will be getting a copy in their Christmas stocking!’ Paul Rickard

A great, highly recommended Ban Quaran

‘This is just a superb piece of work! Great analogies on the modern day world. I relate to the female characters as well. I love this!’ Swallow Pierce

‘Albert Jack presents a compelling vision of a utopian/dystopian corporate neofeudalistic vision of the future in his new novel, Last Man in London. Set in the middle of the 21st century, George Willoughby, a researcher for a global entity known as The Corporation, is tasked with editing novels of 19th century authors such as Dickens and Twain. With all religion having been abolished by The Corporation, George slowly begins to discovers that The Corporation, a seemingly benevolent organization, which has supplanted nations as the de facto world government, may be hiding the true secret of humanity’s history and potential from those who are not among it’s elite. The not-so-distant futuristic world, imagined by Albert Jack, in Last Man in London is like an incredible combination of Huxley’s Brave New World, Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose, and conspiracy theories about modern global elites all in one.’ Carter Lloyd

Albert Jack books available for download here

Last Man in London – Chapter Six

Chapter Six

Edgar looked sad, they were painful memories but he composed himself, poured a little brandy into his coffee and continued. ‘You see, we were told time and time again by the scholars and so called experts that Islam was a religion of peace. And I have no doubt that was true for the vast majority who shared that particular belief. But whether that was actually the case or not turned out to be completely irrelevant. It was a smoke screen that convinced the rest of us in the West that the rampaging maniacs, who terrorised the whole non Islamic world, could be easily contained. It convinced us that they didn’t matter so much. That was where governments had it all wrong. The Corporation, on the other hand, realised that the fanatical few were the ones who had become the leaders. They were the ones with the power and who had all the real influence.

It was they who were waging wars all over the world and slaughtering Christians, Jews and anybody else who did not follow their beliefs. It was they who were killing non-Muslims in Africa in an attempt to create a Caliphate across the entire continent. It was they who were doing the same all over the West whilst the peaceful majority remained silent. They were too scared to stand up to the fanatics from their own religion for fear of becoming targets themselves. It was the fanatical few who were carrying out the bombings, the murders, the beheadings and what they called honour killings.’

‘Honour killings’ asked George, ‘what is that?’

’Anybody who shared their faith and was a true Muslim but who had been considered to have offended that faith, or were in breach of one of their laws, were murdered. Even if it was a member of their own family, including children, if they were caught being too friendly with non Muslims. The fanatical few, the leaders, encouraged all this whilst the peaceful majority stood silently by and that made them part of the problem too. Because the fanatics had taken over the places of worship. And controlled their educations and who taught the next generation, their children, how to grow up and become murderers themselves. It was they who encouraged the hanging and stoning of homosexuals and rape victims and taught them how to make a bomb and walk onto a train, or anywhere else crowded with Christians, and detonate it.

You see, the silent and peaceful majority didn’t matter by then. They had made themselves irrelevant, because we never knew who was peaceful and who wasn’t. They were cowards who hid behind each other. Exactly the same thing had happened during other times in our history. When China was a Communist country there is no doubt that the majority of the Chinese people were peaceful. But their leaders still managed to kill seventy million of them who didn’t agree with their beliefs. When Russia was a Communist country there is no doubt that the majority of Russians were peaceful too and yet they managed to kill fifty million people who did not agree with their beliefs. Japan was a particularly peaceful nation until the fanatical few waged war in South East Asia murdering twelve million people. The same can be said in parts of Africa. Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Libya to name only a few.

The Corporation had studied history and the lesson was a simple one to learn. And they made sure we learned it. By the time of the Incorporation peace loving Muslims had become unimportant. Failing to condemn and prevent the fanatics had meant they themselves were also part of the problem, whether they were directly involved or not. One day they woke up and found that the violent element of their faith now owned them. Innocent, Chinese, Russian, Japanese and African people had all died because the peaceful majority had remained silent, on their behalf. And when it was their turn to die there was nobody left to speak up for, or protect, them either. The Corporation was not going to allow that to happen in the Western Empire.

And because Muslim people failed to integrate and refused to live among westerners in western cities and, instead, gathered together in their own communities, they created no-go zones. Western people could not go into those areas and they enforced their own barbaric laws upon their own people. And the governments did nothing to stop this. So when the inevitable happened, the Fifth Column Attack on the old and the young, families, civilians and any non Muslims, the Corporation was the first to react. They showed us how governments had also become irrelevant. And that is why the first thing the Corporation did was to ban all religions and round up anybody who refused to abandon their medieval beliefs. They were locked away on compounds and everybody could relax again. It was a horrible time son. But difficult decisions are easy to make when there is nothing left to lose.’

George stood up and walked to the window overlooking the Complex. ‘You said it was the governments who did the rounding up, not the Corporation.’

’I can’t really remember now,’ said Edgar. ‘It was around the time of the takeover. It was along time ago now.’

‘So what happened to all those families who were taken to the compounds?’ George asked.

‘They were safe. Safe from revenge attacks. The Christians couldn’t get at them.’

‘No I mean now, where are they now?’

‘Well, after Incorporation and religion was banned, those who refused to give up their Stone Age beliefs were sent back to the Stone Age. They were forced to relocate to a country that did still practice their chosen religion. ‘No problem,’ they were told. ‘If you want to be a Muslim then pick a country where their particular faith was encouraged and off you go.’ It was no surprise that none of them wanted to go anywhere of the sort and so they were forced to. It was called a Peaceful Repatriation Program but I happen to know that many were allowed to stay.’

‘How do you know that?’ George asked.

‘Because many of them were very clever indeed and had a lot to contribute to the new society. Some of them worked in the same science division as me and I am glad they did. You see there had been another war, over one hundred years ago, between western countries that my own grandfather had fought in. He told me all about it when I was younger. One of the countries involved had done a similar thing to the Corporation, only they deported all of their Jewish people. And this turned out to be their biggest mistake because it was those Jewish people, the clever ones, who ended up developing the weapons that eventually defeated the country they had been expelled from. Had they been allowed to stay then the outcome of that war would have been very different. In fact, it would have been the opposite. The Corporation had learned from this and kept the clever Muslims in the West, working for them instead of against them.’

‘That’s a relief, I am pleased about that,’ said George.

‘We all were,’ Edgar replied.

’So what happened to those who were sent back?’ asked George.

‘Well,’ Edgar began, ‘this was the whole problem with religion in general. It was the refuge of very troubled minds. For a start, those who dedicated their lives to Islam did so in different ways. They interpreted their holy and sacred book in their own ways and could not agree with each other. The two largest groups were the worst. The Sunni’s and the Shiites. They didn’t like each other at all and with no Christians left to fight, since there weren’t any after their religion had been banned as an organisation in the West, they turned on each other. They went to war with each other over their beliefs and the West simply let them get on with it. We all sat by and watched it on television. They did a better job of killing each other than our army had been doing anyway. They were left alone to de-populate themselves. Western borders were closed and they were simply ignored. After the Corporation had developed hydrogen energy there was nothing in the Middle East they wanted anyway.’

‘What a terrible way to deal with things, and what about the Christians. What happened to those who refused to abandon their beliefs?’ George wondered.

‘They all went very quiet. I am sure some of them still practiced their silly, superstitious nonsense but never in public. There were still many countries in the Middle East and Africa where Christianity was permitted but none of the westerners wanted to go and live in any of those places. Their total faith was, apparently, not so important to them after all. Besides, none of the younger generation, like me at the time, believed any of that crap by then anyway. It was only the older people and they have all died out now, taking the god they made with them. Their churches and mosques were turned into something more useful, life was more peaceful and the Corporation became incredibly prosperous. We all made so much money. Well, those of us who were contributing did. Those who weren’t all died out, or are dying out. If they couldn’t pay for their own health care then they didn’t get any treatment. Hundreds of millions of people died of illness or, as the Corporation news feeds called it, natural causes.’

‘And this all seems fair to you does it?’ George confronted Edgar. ‘That all the Muslims were taken to detention centres and then expelled from the West and anybody who could not afford medical treatment died of illness?’

‘They started it,’ Edgar told him sternly. ‘They wanted their way of life to be preserved and so the Corporation sent them somewhere that it was being preserved. If more Muslims living in the West had integrated into the communities that they lived in, instead of attacking them, the Corporation would not have sent them back to the Stone Age. The Human Recourses Department once did a study in the Division of Germania that concluded that the Muslim people living there had received over two billion dollars in benefits more than they had contributed to their community. Imagine that multiplied around the fifty Divisions of the Corporation. But they wanted to fight us for their own lifestyles and expected the West pay for it. They ended up fighting for their own lives, somewhere else. But that was their own choice. It didn’t have to be that way. All they had to do was renounce their religion, accept the total ban and observe the law like everybody else.’

George was tracing his finger around the lip of his cup. He was deep in thought.’ Well that explains some things,’ he accepted, ‘but that doesn’t really explain where six billion people disappeared to in forty years.’

‘Well, it does though doesn’t it,’ said Edgar tapping into the calculator on his hy-dev.’ ‘That works out to be around one hundred and fifty million people a year. Which doesn’t seem so many people to die in tribal wars, famine, earthquakes, typhoons, tsunami waves and other natural disasters. Plus, accident, illness and natural causes. Out of seven billion people that would be about right. The real problem was the virus. With most of the remaining population either being unprepared to have children, or unable to conceive, the birth rate dropped from around two hundred million a year to only a few million.

It happened almost immediately but nobody really noticed for years as it was never mentioned by the Corporation news feeds. But then maternity hospitals started closing down as they had little work to do. Following that the schools began to close as there were fewer young students. Then the universities and many hospitals were converted into homes as there were fewer people who needed to use them.  Former government buildings, thousands of them, became apartments. Jails were turned into luxury hotels and compounds to be used as living accommodation. This saved the Corporation trillions of dollars which was all put to good use. Then, after ten years or so, unemployment became a thing of the past. Everybody leaving full time education was guaranteed a job and those who were not properly educated were sent to the West Island, just off the west coast of Albion.

‘The Department of Security,’ said George.

‘The Department of Security,’ agreed Edgar, ‘where everybody who did not complete their education, and who could not make any other contribution to the communities, was relocated for further training. They would never leave that department unless they could prove they could make a valuable contribution in other ways to the Corporation.’

‘So what do they spend their lives doing?’

‘Policing, or they joined the military,’ replied Edgar. ‘Some of them are right here in the Complex. The ones you see in uniform come from there but there are many more that are not in uniform, they look just like you and me. They will be monitoring the hy-devs of anybody they choose.’

‘Like me?’ George asked.

‘No son, they won’t be bothering with you. You are no threat. You are making a contribution. They monitor anybody who maybe making a threat to the New Order. Particularly the underground religious movements. Some of those people were so committed to their beliefs that they still practiced them, in secret. But as the generations went by fewer and fewer of them bothered with it. It’s dying out altogether but the Department of Security keeps an eye on them.

‘What about outside the Complex?’ Asked George.

‘They are everywhere,’ Edgar told him. ‘The Department of Security are watching everybody all over the Corporation, on every Central Complex and in every town, city and village. That is what they are trained to do on the WestIsland. They are stationed on great ships in the seas around our perimeter; they are at the Hydroports and Seaports. They are in the air, in space and even under the sea. And that’s a good thing; it means we can all sleep peacefully in our beds at night. Because the last thing we need, as a species, is all that religious nonsense taking over again. Look at the good it did last time it had any influence over their communities. Both Islam and Christianity. Neither have been allowed in the West since the Incorporation forty three years ago. Life has been so much easier since. And much safer.’

‘I can see that now,’ said George, ‘although I don’t like the idea of being watched all the time. But I wouldn’t want any religion, as you have described it, to be in control of anything ever again. And you still haven’t explained to me exactly what it was yet.’

‘Firstly,’ Edgar reminded George, ‘I have told you. You are not being watched, you are not a threat. Just keep your head down, make your contribution and live quietly. If you are doing that then you can have a great life. You will be safe, ignored and able to or go wherever you want at anytime you want. Stay out of their focus son, like I have, and you will find life is so much better compared to what it was like when I grew up in the democracy. There have been no wars, no famines, no religious threats and having fewer people around is probably the best thing of all.’

George was pacing around the room and listening intently. ‘How come?’ he asked.

’For example, look at this building. There used to be six apartments on this top floor alone with about thirty people living between them. Now I can have it all to myself. It was the same downstairs. It was the same in your building and the same thing all across the Complex, Division of Albion and the whole Corporation. Where there were once one hundred people there are now about ten. Those who want to have families, and can prove they are responsible enough, can have the fertility treatment for free these days. They can have children as long as they themselves can look after them and do not expect the Corporation to pay for everything, like the last governments did with their welfare system.’

‘And what was that?’ George asked as he tapped onto his hy-dev. The message was from Tibha and read, ‘Harry’s Bar, Butler’s Wharf, H14.’

‘Well, that was really the downfall of all democracies. It was started with good intentions. People who worked, who had jobs were paid salaries. Not unlike the allowance and expenses you receive now for your contribution. I was one of those people, most of us were. But, the governments took a small amount away before we even received our money and put it into a big fund. Imagine that George, billions of people all having a small amount of money taken away from them, with no choice, to pay for whatever their elected governments decided to spend it on. Well, they set up something called the Welfare State which gave some of that money to people who did not have jobs and could not find any. The elderly, for example, or the sick and the injured. And people with children they could not afford to feed themselves. And those who were homeless were given somewhere to live. All the people you will find in that book you are working on by Charles Dickens. That sort of poverty was ended. The money, our money, was spent on building houses for those who didn’t have anywhere to live. People who were ill or injured could be looked after in our hospitals for free.’

‘But that sounds like a great idea,’ said George enthusiastically as he tapped a reply to Tibha; ‘sounds lovely, that’s downstairs from Edgar’s and I am here now. See you at 14.’

’It was a great idea, to begin with.’ Edgar agreed.’ And it worked very well. Those who were fortunate enough to have something contributed a little to those who were not.’

‘So what was the problem with that?’

‘The problem was that within two generations there were increasing numbers of people who grew up expecting this. They didn’t even look for any work. This was back in the days when anybody could have children whenever they liked and the more they had, the more money the governments gave them. And the bigger the houses they built for them. There were millions of the little bastards. Life became so easy that before long people from all sorts of places were moving to Albion and claiming money to live here with. Money that people like me were paying into the system. Do you know George; there even became such a thing as Health Care Tourists?

’Heath Care Tourists?’ George questioned.

‘Yes, people who were sick or injured would travel to Albion from all over the planet and then claim they had become sick or injured whilst they were here. By doing that they could then receive the best medical care in the world, for free. Well, not for free, I was paying for it. The rest of us were. And the government encouraged this. It was madness, sheer madness. And this number of people grew and grew, the Welfare Generation they were called. And then governments, who looked no further ahead than the next elections, which were every four or five years, would promise and then give these people more and more benefits. It was old fashioned and crude attempt to buy their votes and secure power again for themselves.

It was something that all Left Wing governments did. They promised money to the poor and lazy that had been squeezed from the hard working and barely solvent. And they were the people who naturally voted for the other side, the Right Wing governments. The problems all started when their own favoured politicians began behaving in the same way and that is how they all fell into such huge debt in the years leading up to Incorporation. Of course, the big business, the wealth creators, could cash in by lending governments vast amounts of money and then charging great rates of interest. And that made them richer and the ordinary people poorer. It was another reason the Corporation found it so easy to launch their takeover bid. They promised to end all of that corruption and we were easily persuaded.’

‘Because real power is defined by money or violence,’ said George quietly. ‘I read that somewhere during ASPP training and I always wondered what it meant. Now I can see what it means. It means power over the people, control over others.’

‘That’s exactly what it means George and we should be grateful that the good guys won. There was no place in modern society for the Welfare State, Health Tourism, religion or, for that matter war. The Corporation have given us many good things, made many good decisions and society is run properly now as any business should be. There is no debt, everybody has a job and makes a real contribution. When I was younger people had to work until they were at least seventy-years old. Sometimes even older than that. You will be withdrawn at fifty-six. That’s it; your contribution is made and then you get to live the rest of your life safely, happily and go and see the world if that’s what you want to do. Or spend the rest of your life at lunch if you prefer, like I do.’

‘So you were a scientist in those days?’ asked George.

‘And I was a lucky one too.’ Edgar admitted. ‘I worked in a medical centre with some of the finest former Muslim scientists in the field of medicine. I was only a junior but, as a team, we developed a vaccination that made it easy for women to conceive children again. It was an antidote to the virus we had identified that was making nearly everybody sterile. But it was very expensive and only the privileged few could afford it although it did work. With just one injection any woman could become pregnant. As long as she was in a fifteen year marriage contact and had the money, then she could have a child. The Human Race was saved from extinction George, that’s how important the discovery was, or at least how it seemed, at the time. That vaccine neutralised the virus and reversed its effects. One of the senior scientists took most of the credit, I was only an assistant, but we were all rewarded, given an empty unit to live in, for free, and a generous living allowance. We were all encouraged to set up our own research laboratories and carry on our work but nobody had to. Our contribution had been made, for life. I have Dr Khan to thank for that; and a great man he was too.’

‘So that explains the laboratory you have,’ George pointed to the closed door at the far end of the room. He had never been inside there but had once passed the open door when he was much younger. It was mainly plasma screens covered with what appeared to be mathematical equations that he new nothing about. Nor did he have much interest in. It wasn’t his subject. But he did notice the mice, the rabbits and the guinea pigs. George had no interest in animals either, even when he was younger, apart from dogs. He promised himself he would have a dog one day when he had reached his withdrawal age. He could keep it in Cape Town where there was plenty of room and countryside nearby. The Central Complex was no place to keep a dog.

‘So you were all rewarded with early withdrawal. What have you been going since then?’ George enquired.

‘Living my life young man. Watching sport, gambling, drinking and enjoying the company of women. I like to read too. That’s why I kept all those books in the chest I once showed you. But I haven’t looked in there for years now. All the books I need are right here,’ Edgar fingered his hy-dev, ‘in this book archive. Thanks to people like you George, and those before you. It’s an important job you have there; making sure history is reflected properly in fiction. I sometimes carry out experiments and submit my findings to the Research Department but science has moved on such a long way since my day. I really haven’t kept up with it.’

‘You haven’t missed religion since it was banned?’

Edgar laughed, ‘no way. I was always an atheist anyway, I never believed in any of that hocus pocus, thank God.’ He laughed some more at his own joke. George didn’t really see what was funny.

‘What about democracy, is there anything you miss about the old way of government?’ he asked.

Edgar considered his reply. ‘Well, I suppose I liked the idea that we were all responsible for our communities. Countries, as we used to call them. That we could vote for who we wanted to govern us and that they would do whatever they had promised for everybody in return for that vote. The idea of democracy is a good one in theory; it’s just that it doesn’t work in practice. I remember that after the other war I told you about, between the old European countries where one of them sent all the religious Jewish people away who then found a way of defeating them. Do remember I told you earlier?’ George nodded. ‘Well, after that war the Welfare State was set up by the next government. And at the very same time a group of wealthy and influential businessmen from all over the old countries of the West began meeting up once a year at a hotel called The Eiderberg.

They said they were meeting to discuss how to improve trade between the West in general and the rest of the world. All the richest people of their generation were at some point invited to the meetings and as they grew older and died out the younger generation joined in and took over. Within twenty years or so the Eiderbergers, as they were known, were the owners of all the major news feeds, internet information companies, advertising companies and everything else we could gather information from. They owned all the banks too and the technology companies. And this meant they could persuade us who to vote for and who not to vote for. The governments knew this too and so it was in their own interest to bring in or modify laws that suited the Eiderbergers and their business needs. Because nobody could ever be elected, anywhere in the West, without their endorsement.

People had become lazy George. Whenever there was an election the Eiderbergers made sure all the so called democratic votes went in their favour. It was easy for them when all over the news feeds they owned one candidate was presented as the great reformer and the other was seen to be backed into a corner and accused of lying, cheating and fraud. Who would you vote for? And so everybody voted in the way their news feeds encouraged them too. The news feeds owned by the Eiderbergers. It was mass hypnotism and it meant they got the governments they needed for their own interests and we, the actual voters, got the governments we deserved. The rich got richer and the rest of us picked at pieces. This became widely known just before Incorporation. Thanks to the internet, which was still unregulated at the time, people started learning all about the way the Eiderberg Group controlled politics from behind the scenes and that democracy was a sham. The vote counted for nothing.’

Edgar then patiently explained that the cornerstone of democracy was the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech. It was something the news feeds fought for the right to and governments tried to regulate. It was an honest attempt by some honest people to hold back the tide of force. The problem for them was, as more and more people began to realise, that the news feeds, the television channels, the newspapers and the internet information channels were all owned by members of the Eiderberg Group. And the freedom of the press was only free for those who owned it. That was the elite few who funded the political campaigns that led to the so-called fair elections of their own representatives. It was they who decided who would be able to govern, not the voters. In truth the Free Press practiced censorship as a policy.

Democracy, of the fashion that the Greeks imagined it to be, had never existed at all in the Western Empire. Ancient Greek society arranged a system that allowed all people to cast a vote, privately. An announcement would be made and each person could then drop either a black or white stone into a pit. These were then counted and if the majority of the stones were white then the proposal was approved. If the majority were black then it meant the people disagreed. It was infantile but it worked in small communities where everybody was informed by their own means. It was the pure democracy. However, in the great Western Empire, where people were manipulated by controlled information, their opinions could only be formed by the source of that information. Real democracy never existed in modern times. Edgar reminded George once again that if voting had made any difference at all then it would never have been allowed.

‘Ordinary people George,’ Edgar concluded, ‘who were either too stupid or too lazy to think for themselves simply voted for whoever their favourite news feed led them towards. And that was not a democracy, it was a sham. I, for one, was glad to see the back of it. And the back of the Eiderberg Group too.’

Chapter One  Chapter Two   Chapter Three   Chapter Four  Chapter Five  Chapter Six  Available now

Albert Jack books available for download here


Mandela, The Rivonia Trial Speech

On April 20th 1964 Nelson Mandela was forty-six years old and was standing in the dock of the Pretoria Supreme Court in what became known as the Rivonia Trials. He and nine others were charged with;

  • Recruiting persons for training in the preparation and use of explosives and in guerrilla warfare for the purpose of violent revolution and committing acts of sabotage
  • Conspiring to commit the aforementioned acts and to aid foreign military units when they invaded the Republic,
  • Acting in these ways to further the objects of communism
  • Soliciting and receiving money for these purposes from sympathizers in Algeria, Ethiopia, Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, and elsewhere.

Facing the death penalty Mandela took to the stand and this is what he said;


I am the First Accused.

I hold a Bachelor`s Degree in Arts and practised as an attorney in Johannesburg for a number of years in partnership with Oliver Tambo. I am a convicted prisoner serving five years for leaving the country without a permit and for inciting people to go on strike at the end of May 1961.

At the outset, I want to say that the suggestion made by the State in its opening that the struggle in South Africa is under the influence of foreigners or communists is wholly incorrect. I have done whatever I did, both as an individual and as a leader of my people, because of my experience in South Africa and my own proudly felt African background, and not because of what any outsider might have said.

In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case.

Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.

I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962.

In the statement which I am about to make I shall correct certain false impressions which have been created by State witnesses. Amongst other things, I will demonstrate that certain of the acts referred to in the evidence were not and could not have been committed by Umkhonto. I will also deal with the relationship between the African National Congress and Umkhonto, and with the part which I personally have played in the affairs of both organizations. I shall deal also with the part played by the Communist Party. In order to explain these matters properly, I will have to explain what Umkhonto set out to achieve; what methods it prescribed for the achievement of these objects, and why these methods were chosen. I will also have to explain how I became involved in the activities of these organizations.

I deny that Umkhonto was responsible for a number of acts which clearly fell outside the policy of the organisation, and which have been charged in the indictment against us. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, but to demonstrate that they could not have been authorized by Umkhonto, I want to refer briefly to the roots and policy of the organization.

I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.

But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute. If the Court is in doubt about this, it will be seen that the whole history of our organization bears out what I have said, and what I will subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to adopt. I want, therefore, to say something about the African National Congress.

The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African people which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven years – that is until 1949 – it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government in the belief that African grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could advance gradually to full political rights. But White Governments remained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater. In the words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became President of the ANC in 1952, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:

“who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all”.

Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid violence. At this time, however, there was a change from the strictly constitutional means of protest which had been employed in the past. The change was embodied in a decision which was taken to protest against apartheid legislation by peaceful, but unlawful, demonstrations against certain laws. Pursuant to this policy the ANC launched the Defiance Campaign, in which I was placed in charge of volunteers. This campaign was based on the principles of passive resistance. More than 8,500 people defied apartheid laws and went to jail. Yet there was not a single instance of violence in the course of this campaign on the part of any defier. I and nineteen colleagues were convicted for the role which we played in organizing the campaign, but our sentences were suspended mainly because the Judge found that discipline and non-violence had been stressed throughout. This was the time when the volunteer section of the ANC was established, and when the word `Amadelakufa` was first used: this was the time when the volunteers were asked to take a pledge to uphold certain principles. Evidence dealing with volunteers and their pledges has been introduced into this case, but completely out of context. The volunteers were not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army pledged to fight a civil war against the whites. They were, and are. dedicated workers who are prepared to lead campaigns initiated by the ANC to distribute leaflets, to organize strikes, or do whatever the particular campaign required. They are called volunteers because they volunteer to face the penalties of imprisonment and whipping which are now prescribed by the legislature for such acts.

During the Defiance Campaign, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed. These Statutes provided harsher penalties for offences committed by way of protests against laws. Despite this, the protests continued and the ANC adhered to its policy of non-violence. In 1956, 156 leading members of the Congress Alliance, including myself, were arrested on a charge of high treason and charges under the Suppression of Communism Act. The non-violent policy of the ANC was put in issue by the State, but when the Court gave judgement some five years later, it found that the ANC did not have a policy of violence. We were acquitted on all counts, which included a count that the ANC sought to set up a communist state in place of the existing regime. The Government has always sought to label all its opponents as communists. This allegation has been repeated in the present case, but as I will show, the ANC is not, and never has been, a communist organization.

In 1960 there was the shooting at Sharpeville, which resulted in the proclamation of a state of emergency and the declaration of the ANC as an unlawful organization. My colleagues and I, after careful consideration, decided that we would not obey this decree. The African people were not part of the Government and did not make the laws by which they were governed. We believed in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that `the will of the people shall be the basis of authority of the Government`, and for us to accept the banning was equivalent to accepting the silencing of the Africans for all time. The ANC refused to dissolve, but instead went underground. We believed it was our duty to preserve this organization which had been built up with almost fifty years of unremitting toil. I have no doubt that no self-respecting White political organization would disband itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had no say.

In 1960 the Government held a referendum which led to the establishment of the Republic. Africans, who constituted approximately 70 per cent of the population of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not even consulted about the proposed constitutional change. All of us were apprehensive of our future under the proposed White Republic, and a resolution was taken to hold an All-In African Conference to call for a National Convention, and to organize mass demonstrations on the eve of the unwanted Republic, if the Government failed to call the Convention. The conference was attended by Africans of various political persuasions. I was the Secretary of the conference and undertook to be responsible for organizing the national stay-at-home which was subsequently called to coincide with the declaration of the Republic. As all strikes by Africans are illegal, the person organizing such a strike must avoid arrest. I was chosen to be this person, and consequently I had to leave my home and family and my practice and go into hiding to avoid arrest.

The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to be a peaceful demonstration. Careful instructions were given to organizers and members to avoid any recourse to violence. The Government`s answer was to introduce new and harsher laws, to mobilize its armed forces, and to send Saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force designed to intimidate the people. This was an indication that the Government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a milestone on the road to Umkhonto.

Some of this may appear irrelevant to this trial. In fact, I believe none of it is irrelevant because it will, I hope, enable the Court to appreciate the attitude eventually adopted by the various persons and bodies concerned in the National Liberation Movement. When I went to jail in 1962, the dominant idea was that loss of life should be avoided. I now know that this was still so in 1963.

I must return to June 1961. What were we, the leaders of our people, to do? Were we to give in to the show of force and the implied threat against future action, or were we to fight it and, if so, how?

We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight. Anything else would have been abject surrender. Our problem was not whether to fight, but was how to continue the fight. We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than they already were. But the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights. It may not be easy for this Court to understand, but it is a fact that for a long time the people had been talking of violence – of the day when they would fight the White man and win back their country – and we, the leaders of the ANC, had nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to pursue peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in May and June of 1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a nonracial State by non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism.

It must not be forgotten that by this time violence had, in fact, become a feature of the South African political scene. There had been violence in 1957 when the women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there was violence in 1958 with the enforcement of cattle culling in Sekhukhuniland; there was violence in 1959 when the people of Cato Manor protested against pass raids; there was violence in 1960 when the Government attempted to impose Bantu Authorities in Pondoland. Thirty-nine Africans died in these disturbances. In 1961 there had been riots in Warmbaths, and all this time the Transkei had been a seething mass of unrest. Each disturbance pointed clearly to the inevitable growth among Africans of the belief that violence was the only way out – it showed that a Government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose it. Already small groups had arisen in the urban areas and were spontaneously making plans for violent forms of political struggle. There now arose a danger that these groups would adopt terrorism against Africans, as well as Whites, if not properly directed. Particularly disturbing was the type of violence engendered in places such as Zeerust, Sekhukhuniland, and Pondoland amongst Africans. It was increasingly taking the form, not of struggle against the Government – though this is what prompted it -but of civil strife amongst themselves, conducted in such a way that it could not hope to achieve anything other than a loss of life and bitterness.

At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the Government met our peaceful demands with force.

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the Government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is Exhibit AD, we said:

“The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom”.

This was our feeling in June of 1961 when we decided to press for a change in the policy of the National Liberation Movement. I can only say that I felt morally obliged to do what I did.

We who had taken this decision started to consult leaders of various organizations, including the ANC. I will not say whom we spoke to, or what they said, but I wish to deal with the role of the African National Congress in this phase of the struggle, and with the policy and objectives of Umkhonto we Sizwe.

As far as the ANC was concerned, it formed a clear view which can be summarized as follows:

  1. It was a mass political organization with a political function to fulfil. Its members had joined on the express policy of non-violence.
  2. Because of all this, it could not and would not undertake violence. This must be stressed. One cannot turn such a body into the small, closely knit organization required for sabotage. Nor would this be politically correct, because it would result in members ceasing to carry out this essential activity: political propaganda and organization. Nor was it permissible to change the whole nature of the organization.
  3. On the other hand, in view of this situation I have described, the ANC was prepared to depart from its fifty-year-old policy of non-violence to this extent that it would no longer disapprove of properly controlled violence. Hence members who undertook such activity would not be subject to disciplinary action by the ANC.

I say `properly controlled violence` because I made it clear that if I formed the organization I would at all times subject it to the political guidance of the ANC and would not undertake any different form of activity from that contemplated without the consent of the ANC. And I shall now tell the Court how that form of violence came to be determined.

As a result of this decision, Umkhonto was formed in November 1961. When we took this decision, and subsequently formulated our plans, the ANC heritage of non-violence and racial harmony was very much with us. We felt that the country was drifting towards a civil war in which Blacks and Whites would fight each other. We viewed the situation with alarm. Civil war could mean the destruction of what the ANC stood for; with civil war, racial peace would be more difficult than ever to achieve. We already have examples in South African history of the results of war. It has taken more than fifty years for the scars of the South African War to disappear. How much longer would it take to eradicate the scars of inter-racial civil war, which could not be fought without a great loss of life on both sides?

The avoidance of civil war had dominated our thinking for many years, but when we decided to adopt violence as part of our policy, we realized that we might one day have to face the prospect of such a war. This had to be taken into account in formulating our plans. We required a plan which was flexible and which permitted us to act in accordance with the needs of the times; above all, the plan had to be one which recognized civil war as the last resort, and left the decision on this question to the future. We did not want to be committed to civil war, but we wanted to be ready if it became inevitable.

Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision.

In the light of our political background the choice was a logical one. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. This is what we felt at the time, and this is what we said in our Manifesto (Exhibit AD):

“We of Umkhonto we Sizwe have always sought to achieve liberation without bloodshed and civil clash. We hope, even at this late hour, that our first actions will awaken everyone to a realization of the disastrous situation to which the Nationalist policy is leading. We hope that we will bring the Government and its supporters to their senses before it is too late, so that both the Government and its policies can be changed before matters reach the desperate state of civil war.”

The initial plan was based on a careful analysis of the political and economic situation of our country. We believed that South Africa depended to a large extent on foreign capital and foreign trade. We felt that planned destruction of power plants, and interference with rail and telephone communications, would tend to scare away capital from the country, make it more difficult for goods from the industrial areas to reach the seaports on schedule, and would in the long run be a heavy drain on the economic life of the country, thus compelling the voters of the country to reconsider their position.

Attacks on the economic life lines of the country were to be linked with sabotage on Government buildings and other symbols of apartheid. These attacks would serve as a source of inspiration to our people. In addition, they would provide an outlet for those people who were urging the adoption of violent methods and would enable us to give concrete proof to our followers that we had adopted a stronger line and were fighting back against Government violence.

In addition, if mass action were successfully organized, and mass reprisals taken, we felt that sympathy for our cause would be roused in other countries, and that greater pressure would be brought to bear on the South African Government.

This then was the plan. Umkhonto was to perform sabotage, and strict instructions were given to its members right from the start, that on no account were they to injure or kill people in planning or carrying out operations. These instructions have been referred to in the evidence of `Mr. X` and `Mr. Z`.

The affairs of the Umkhonto were controlled and directed by a National High Command, which had powers of co-option and which could, and did, appoint Regional Commands. The High Command was the body which determined tactics and targets and was in charge of training and finance. Under the High Command there were Regional Commands which were responsible for the direction of the local sabotage groups. Within the framework of the policy laid down by the National High Command, the Regional Commands had authority to select the targets to be attacked. They had no authority to go beyond the prescribed framework and thus had no authority to embark upon acts which endangered life, or which did not fit into the overall plan of sabotage. For instance, Umkhonto members were forbidden ever to go armed into operation. Incidentally, the terms High Command and Regional Command were an importation from the Jewish national underground organization Irgun Zvai Leumi, which operated in Israel between 1944 and 1948.

Umkhonto had its first operation on 16 December 1961, when Government buildings in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban were attacked. The selection of targets is proof of the policy to which I have referred. Had we intended to attack life we would have selected targets where people congregated and not empty buildings and power stations. The sabotage which was committed before 16 December 1961 was the work of isolated groups and had no connection whatever with Umkhonto. In fact, some of these and a number of later acts were claimed by other organizations.

The Manifesto of Umkhonto was issued on the day that operations commenced. The response to our actions and Manifesto among the white population was characteristically violent. The Government threatened to take strong action, and called upon its supporters to stand firm and to ignore the demands of the Africans. The Whites failed to respond by suggesting change; they responded to our call by suggesting the laager.

In contrast, the response of the Africans was one of encouragement. Suddenly there was hope again. Things were happening. People in the townships became eager for political news. A great deal of enthusiasm was generated by the initial successes, and people began to speculate on how soon freedom would be obtained.

But we in Umkhonto weighed up the white response with anxiety. The lines were being drawn. The whites and blacks were moving into separate camps, and the prospects of avoiding a civil war were made less. The white newspapers carried reports that sabotage would be punished by death. If this was so, how could we continue to keep Africans away from terrorism?

Already scores of Africans had died as a result of racial friction. In 1920 when the famous leader, Masabala, was held in Port Elizabeth jail, twenty-four of a group of Africans who had gathered to demand his release were killed by the police and white civilians. In 1921, more than one hundred Africans died in the Bulhoek affair. In 1924 over two hundred Africans were killed when the Administrator of South-West Africa led a force against a group which had rebelled against the imposition of dog tax. On 1 May 1950, eighteen Africans died as a result of police shootings during the strike. On 21 March 1960, sixty-nine unarmed Africans died at Sharpeville.

How many more Sharpevilles would there be in the history of our country? And how many more Sharpevilles could the country stand without violence and terror becoming the order of the day? And what would happen to our people when that stage was reached? In the long run we felt certain we must succeed, but at what cost to ourselves and the rest of the country? And if this happened, how could black and white ever live together again in peace and harmony? These were the problems that faced us, and these were our decisions.

Experience convinced us that rebellion would offer the Government limitless opportunities for the indiscriminate slaughter of our people. But it was precisely because the soil of South Africa is already drenched with the blood of innocent Africans that we felt it our duty to make preparations as a long-term undertaking to use force in order to defend ourselves against force. If war were inevitable, we wanted the fight to be conducted on terms most favourable to our people. The fight which held out prospects best for us and the least risk of life to both sides was guerrilla warfare. We decided, therefore, in our preparations for the future, to make provision for the possibility of guerrilla warfare.

All whites undergo compulsory military training, but no such training was given to Africans. It was in our view essential to build up a nucleus of trained men who would be able to provide the leadership which would be required if guerrilla warfare started. We had to prepare for such a situation before it became too late to make proper preparations. It was also necessary to build up a nucleus of men trained in civil administration and other professions, so that Africans would be equipped to participate in the government of this country as soon as they were allowed to do so.

At this stage it was decided that I should attend the Conference of the Pan-African Freedom Movement for Central, East, and Southern Africa, which was to be held early in 1962 in Addis Ababa, and, because of our need for preparation, it was also decided that, after the conference, I would undertake a tour of the African States with a view to obtaining facilities for the training of soldiers, and that I would also solicit scholarships for the higher education of matriculated Africans. Training in both fields would be necessary, even if changes came about by peaceful means. Administrators would be necessary who would be willing and able to administer a non-racial State and so would men be necessary to control the army and police force of such a State.

It was on this note that I left South Africa to proceed to Addis Ababa as a delegate of the ANC. My tour was a success. Wherever I went I met sympathy for our cause and promises of help. All Africa was united against the stand of White South Africa, and even in London I was received with great sympathy by political leaders, such as Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Grimond. In Africa I was promised support by such men as Julius Nyerere, now President of Tanganyika; Mr. Kawawa, then Prime Minister of Tanganyika; Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia; General Abboud, President of the Sudan; Habib Bourguiba, President of Tunisia; Ben Bella, now President of Algeria; Modibo Keita, President of Mali; Leopold Senghor, President of Senegal; Sekou Toure, President of Guinea; President Tubman of Liberia; and Milton Obote, Prime Minister of Uganda. It was Ben Bella who invited me to visit Oujda, the Headquarters of the Algerian Army of National Liberation, the visit which is described in my diary, one of the Exhibits.

I started to make a study of the art of war and revolution and, whilst abroad, underwent a course in military training. If there was to be guerrilla warfare, I wanted to be able to stand and fight with my people and to share the hazards of war with them. Notes of lectures which I received in Algeria are contained in Exhibit 16, produced in evidence. Summaries of books on guerrilla warfare and military strategy have also been produced. I have already admitted that these documents are in my writing, and I acknowledge that I made these studies to equip myself for the role which I might have to play if the struggle drifted into guerrilla warfare. I approached this question as every African Nationalist should do. I was completely objective. The Court will see that I attempted to examine all types of authority on the subject – from the East and from the West, going back to the classic work of Clausewitz, and covering such a variety as Mao Tse Tung and Che Guevara on the one hand, and the writings on the Anglo-Boer War on the other. Of course, these notes are merely summaries of the books I read and do not contain my personal views.

I also made arrangements for our recruits to undergo military training. But here it was impossible to organize any scheme without the co-operation of the ANC offices in Africa. I consequently obtained the permission of the ANC in South Africa to do this. To this extent then there was a departure from the original decision of the ANC, but it applied outside South Africa only. The first batch of recruits actually arrived in Tanganyika when I was passing through that country on my way back to South Africa.

I returned to South Africa and reported to my colleagues on the results of my trip. On my return I found that there had been little alteration in the political scene save that the threat of a death penalty for sabotage had now become a fact. The attitude of my colleagues in Umkhonto was much the same as it had been before I left. They were feeling their way cautiously and felt that it would be a long time before the possibilities of sabotage were exhausted. In fact, the view was expressed by some that the training of recruits was premature. This is recorded by me in the document which is Exhibit R.14. After a full discussion, however, it was decided to go ahead with the plans for military training because of the fact that it would take many years to build up a sufficient nucleus of trained soldiers to start a guerrilla campaign, and whatever happened the training would be of value.

I wish to turn now to certain general allegations made in this case by the State. But before doing so, I wish to revert to certain occurrences said by witnesses to have happened in Port Elizabeth and East London. I am referring to the bombing of private houses of pro-Government persons during September, October and November 1962. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, nor what provocation had been given. But if what I have said already is accepted, then it is clear that these acts had nothing to do with the carrying out of the policy of Umkhonto.

One of the chief allegations in the indictment is that the ANC was a party to a general conspiracy to commit sabotage. I have already explained why this is incorrect but how, externally, there was a departure from the original principle laid down by the ANC. There has, of course, been overlapping of functions internally as well, because there is a difference between a resolution adopted in the atmosphere of a committee room and the concrete difficulties that arise in the field of practical activity. At a later stage the position was further affected by bannings and house arrests, and by persons leaving the country to take up political work abroad. This led to individuals having to do work in different capacities. But though this may have blurred the distinction between Umkhonto and the ANC, it by no means abolished that distinction. Great care was taken to keep the activities of the two organizations in South Africa distinct. The ANC remained a mass political body of Africans only carrying on the type of political work they had conducted prior to 1961. Umkhonto remained a small organization recruiting its members from different races and organizations and trying to achieve its own particular object. The fact that members of Umkhonto were recruited from the ANC, and the fact that persons served both organizations, like Solomon Mbanjwa, did not, in our view, change the nature of the ANC or give it a policy of violence. This overlapping of officers, however, was more the exception than the rule. This is why persons such as `Mr. X` and `Mr. Z`, who were on the Regional Command of their respective areas, did not participate in any of the ANC committees or activities, and why people such as Mr. Bennett Mashiyana and Mr. Reginald Ndubi did not hear of sabotage at their ANC meetings.

Another of the allegations in the indictment is that Rivonia was the headquarters of Umkhonto. This is not true of the time when I was there. I was told, of course, and knew that certain of the activities of the Communist Party were carried on there. But this is no reason (as I shall presently explain) why I should not use the place.

I came there in the following manner:

    1. As already indicated, early in April 1961 I went underground to organize the May general strike. My work entailed travelling throughout the country, living now in African townships, then in country villages and again in cities.

During the second half of the year I started visiting the Parktown home of Arthur Goldreich, where I used to meet my family privately. Although I had no direct political association with him, I had known Arthur Goldreich socially since 1958.

  1. In October, Arthur Goldreich informed me that he was moving out of town and offered me a hiding place there. A few days thereafter, he arranged for Michael Harmel to take me to Rivonia. I naturally found Rivonia an ideal place for the man who lived the life of an outlaw. Up to that time I had been compelled to live indoors during the daytime and could only venture out under cover of darkness. But at Liliesleaf [farm, Rivonia,] I could live differently and work far more efficiently.
  2. For obvious reasons, I had to disguise myself and I assumed the fictitious name of David. In December, Arthur Goldreich and his family moved in. I stayed there until I went abroad on 11 January 1962. As already indicated, I returned in July 1962 and was arrested in Natal on 5 August.
  3. Up to the time of my arrest, Liliesleaf farm was the headquarters of neither the African National Congress nor Umkhonto. With the exception of myself, none of the officials or members of these bodies lived there, no meetings of the governing bodies were ever held there, and no activities connected with them were either organized or directed from there. On numerous occasions during my stay at Liliesleaf farm I met both the Executive Committee of the ANC, as well as the NHC, but such meetings were held elsewhere and not on the farm.
  4. Whilst staying at Liliesleaf farm, I frequently visited Arthur Goldreich in the main house and he also paid me visits in my room. We had numerous political discussions covering a variety of subjects. We discussed ideological and practical questions, the Congress Alliance, Umkhonto and its activities generally, and his experiences as a soldier in the Palmach, the military wing of the Haganah. Haganah was the political authority of the Jewish National Movement in Palestine.
  5. Because of what I had got to know of Goldreich, I recommended on my return to South Africa that he should be recruited to Umkhonto. I do not know of my personal knowledge whether this was done.

Another of the allegations made by the State is that the aims and objects of the ANC and the Communist Party are the same. I wish to deal with this and with my own political position, because I must assume that the State may try to argue from certain Exhibits that I tried to introduce Marxism into the ANC. The allegation as to the ANC is false. This is an old allegation which was disproved at the Treason Trial and which has again reared its head. But since the allegation has been made again, I shall deal with it as well as with the relationship between the ANC and the Communist Party and Umkhonto and that party.

The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of African Nationalism. It is not the concept of African Nationalism expressed in the cry, `Drive the White man into the sea`. The African Nationalism for which the ANC stands is the concept of freedom and fulfilment for the African people in their own land. The most important political document ever adopted by the ANC is the `Freedom Charter`. It is by no means a blueprint for a socialist state. It calls for redistribution, but not nationalization, of land; it provides for nationalization of mines, banks, and monopoly industry, because big monopolies are owned by one race only, and without such nationalization racial domination would be perpetuated despite the spread of political power. It would be a hollow gesture to repeal the Gold Law prohibitions against Africans when all gold mines are owned by European companies. In this respect the ANC`s policy corresponds with the old policy of the present Nationalist Party which, for many years, had as part of its programme the nationalization of the gold mines which, at that time, were controlled by foreign capital. Under the Freedom Charter, nationalization would take place in an economy based on private enterprise. The realization of the Freedom Charter would open up fresh fields for a prosperous African population of all classes, including the middle class. The ANC has never at any period of its history advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure of the country, nor has it, to the best of my recollection, ever condemned capitalist society.

As far as the Communist Party is concerned, and if I understand its policy correctly, it stands for the establishment of a State based on the principles of Marxism. Although it is prepared to work for the Freedom Charter, as a short term solution to the problems created by white supremacy, it regards the Freedom Charter as the beginning, and not the end, of its programme.

The ANC, unlike the Communist Party, admitted Africans only as members. Its chief goal was, and is, for the African people to win unity and full political rights. The Communist Party`s main aim, on the other hand, was to remove the capitalists and to replace them with a working-class government. The Communist Party sought to emphasize class distinctions whilst the ANC seeks to harmonize them. This is a vital distinction.

It is true that there has often been close co-operation between the ANC and the Communist Party. But co-operation is merely proof of a common goal – in this case the removal of white supremacy – and is not proof of a complete community of interests.

The history of the world is full of similar examples. Perhaps the most striking illustration is to be found in the co-operation between Great Britain, the United States of America, and the Soviet Union in the fight against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to suggest that such co-operation turned Churchill or Roosevelt into communists or communist tools, or that Britain and America were working to bring about a communist world.

Another instance of such co-operation is to be found precisely in Umkhonto. Shortly after Umkhonto was constituted, I was informed by some of its members that the Communist Party would support Umkhonto, and this then occurred. At a later stage the support was made openly.

I believe that communists have always played an active role in the fight by colonial countries for their freedom, because the short-term objects of communism would always correspond with the long-term objects of freedom movements. Thus communists have played an important role in the freedom struggles fought in countries such as Malaya, Algeria, and Indonesia, yet none of these States today are communist countries. Similarly in the underground resistance movements which sprung up in Europe during the last World War, communists played an important role. Even General Chiang Kai-Shek, today one of the bitterest enemies of communism, fought together with the communists against the ruling class in the struggle which led to his assumption of power in China in the 1930s.

This pattern of co-operation between communists and non-communists has been repeated in the National Liberation Movement of South Africa. Prior to the banning of the Communist Party, joint campaigns involving the Communist Party and the Congress movements were accepted practice. African communists could, and did, become members of the ANC, and some served on the National, Provincial, and local committees. Amongst those who served on the National Executive are Albert Nzula, a former Secretary of the Communist Party, Moses Kotane, another former Secretary, and J. B. Marks, a former member of the Central Committee.

I joined the ANC in 1944, and in my younger days I held the view that the policy of admitting communists to the ANC, and the close co-operation which existed at times on specific issues between the ANC and the Communist Party, would lead to a watering down of the concept of African Nationalism. At that stage I was a member of the African National Congress Youth League, and was one of a group which moved for the expulsion of communists from the ANC. This proposal was heavily defeated. Amongst those who voted against the proposal were some of the most conservative sections of African political opinion. They defended the policy on the ground that from its inception the ANC was formed and built up, not as a political party with one school of political thought, but as a Parliament of the African people, accommodating people of various political convictions, all united by the common goal of national liberation. I was eventually won over to this point of view and I have upheld it ever since.

It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an ingrained prejudice against communism, to understand why experienced African politicians so readily accept communists as their friends. But to us the reason is obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression is a luxury we cannot afford at this stage. What is more, for many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa who were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with us, and work with us. They were the only political group which was prepared to work with the Africans for the attainment of political rights and a stake in society. Because of this, there are many Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with communism. They are supported in this belief by a legislature which brands all exponents of democratic government and African freedom as communists and bans many of them (who are not communists) under the Suppression of Communism Act. Although I have never been a member of the Communist Party, I myself have been named under that pernicious Act because of the role I played in the Defiance Campaign. I have also been banned and imprisoned under that Act.

It is not only in internal politics that we count communists as amongst those who support our cause. In the international field, communist countries have always come to our aid. In the United Nations and other Councils of the world the communist bloc has supported the Afro-Asian struggle against colonialism and often seems to be more sympathetic to our plight than some of the Western powers. Although there is a universal condemnation of apartheid, the communist bloc speaks out against it with a louder voice than most of the white world. In these circumstances, it would take a brash young politician, such as I was in 1949, to proclaim that the Communists are our enemies.

I turn now to my own position. I have denied that I am a communist, and I think that in the circumstances I am obliged to state exactly what my political beliefs are.

I have always regarded myself, in the first place, as an African patriot. After all, I was born in Umtata, forty-six years ago. My guardian was my cousin, who was the acting paramount chief of Tembuland, and I am related both to the present paramount chief of Tembuland, Sabata Dalindyebo, and to Kaizer Matanzima, the Chief Minister of the Transkei.

Today I am attracted by the idea of a classless society, an attraction which springs in part from Marxist reading and, in part, from my admiration of the structure and organization of early African societies in this country. The land, then the main means of production, belonged to the tribe. There were no rich or poor and there was no exploitation.

It is true, as I have already stated, that I have been influenced by Marxist thought. But this is also true of many of the leaders of the new independent States. Such widely different persons as Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah, and Nasser all acknowledge this fact. We all accept the need for some form of socialism to enable our people to catch up with the advanced countries of this world and to overcome their legacy of extreme poverty. But this does not mean we are Marxists.

Indeed, for my own part, I believe that it is open to debate whether the Communist Party has any specific role to play at this particular stage of our political struggle. The basic task at the present moment is the removal of race discrimination and the attainment of democratic rights on the basis of the Freedom Charter. In so far as that Party furthers this task, I welcome its assistance. I realize that it is one of the means by which people of all races can be drawn into our struggle.

From my reading of Marxist literature and from conversations with Marxists, I have gained the impression that communists regard the parliamentary system of the West as undemocratic and reactionary. But, on the contrary, I am an admirer of such a system.

The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.

I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the country`s system of justice. I regard the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration.

The American Congress, that country`s doctrine of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments.

I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and East. All this has led me to feel that in my search for a political formula, I should be absolutely impartial and objective. I should tie myself to no particular system of society other than of socialism. I must leave myself free to borrow the best from the West and from the East . . .

There are certain Exhibits which suggest that we received financial support from abroad, and I wish to deal with this question.

Our political struggle has always been financed from internal sources – from funds raised by our own people and by our own supporters. Whenever we had a special campaign or an important political case – for example, the Treason Trial – we received financial assistance from sympathetic individuals and organizations in the Western countries. We had never felt it necessary to go beyond these sources.

But when in 1961 the Umkhonto was formed, and a new phase of struggle introduced, we realized that these events would make a heavy call on our slender resources, and that the scale of our activities would be hampered by the lack of funds. One of my instructions, as I went abroad in January 1962, was to raise funds from the African states.

I must add that, whilst abroad, I had discussions with leaders of political movements in Africa and discovered that almost every single one of them, in areas which had still not attained independence, had received all forms of assistance from the socialist countries, as well as from the West, including that of financial support. I also discovered that some well-known African states, all of them non-communists, and even anti-communists, had received similar assistance.

On my return to the Republic, I made a strong recommendation to the ANC that we should not confine ourselves to Africa and the Western countries, but that we should also send a mission to the socialist countries to raise the funds which we so urgently needed.

I have been told that after I was convicted such a mission was sent, but I am not prepared to name any countries to which it went, nor am I at liberty to disclose the names of the organizations and countries which gave us support or promised to do so.

As I understand the State case, and in particular the evidence of `Mr. X`, the suggestion is that Umkhonto was the inspiration of the Communist Party which sought by playing upon imaginary grievances to enrol the African people into an army which ostensibly was to fight for African freedom, but in reality was fighting for a communist state. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the suggestion is preposterous. Umkhonto was formed by Africans to further their struggle for freedom in their own land. Communists and others supported the movement, and we only wish that more sections of the community would join us.

Our fight is against real, and not imaginary, hardships or, to use the language of the State Prosecutor, `so-called hardships`. Basically, we fight against two features which are the hallmarks of African life in South Africa and which are entrenched by legislation which we seek to have repealed. These features are poverty and lack of human dignity, and we do not need communists or so-called `agitators` to teach us about these things.

South Africa is the richest country in Africa, and could be one of the richest countries in the world. But it is a land of extremes and remarkable contrasts. The whites enjoy what may well be the highest standard of living in the world, whilst Africans live in poverty and misery. Forty per cent of the Africans live in hopelessly overcrowded and, in some cases, drought-stricken Reserves, where soil erosion and the overworking of the soil makes it impossible for them to live properly off the land. Thirty per cent are labourers, labour tenants, and squatters on white farms and work and live under conditions similar to those of the serfs of the Middle Ages. The other 30 per cent live in towns where they have developed economic and social habits which bring them closer in many respects to white standards. Yet most Africans, even in this group, are impoverished by low incomes and high cost of living.

The highest-paid and the most prosperous section of urban African life is in Johannesburg. Yet their actual position is desperate. The latest figures were given on 25 March 1964 by Mr. Carr, Manager of the Johannesburg Non-European Affairs Department. The poverty datum line for the average African family in Johannesburg (according to Mr. Carr`s department) is R42.84 per month. He showed that the average monthly wage is R32.24 and that 46 per cent of all African families in Johannesburg do not earn enough to keep them going.

Poverty goes hand in hand with malnutrition and disease. The incidence of malnutrition and deficiency diseases is very high amongst Africans. Tuberculosis, pellagra, kwashiorkor, gastro-enteritis, and scurvy bring death and destruction of health. The incidence of infant mortality is one of the highest in the world. According to the Medical Officer of Health for Pretoria, tuberculosis kills forty people a day (almost all Africans), and in 1961 there were 58,491 new cases reported. These diseases not only destroy the vital organs of the body, but they result in retarded mental conditions and lack of initiative, and reduce powers of concentration. The secondary results of such conditions affect the whole community and the standard of work performed by African labourers.

The complaint of Africans, however, is not only that they are poor and the whites are rich, but that the laws which are made by the whites are designed to preserve this situation. There are two ways to break out of poverty. The first is by formal education, and the second is by the worker acquiring a greater skill at his work and thus higher wages. As far as Africans are concerned, both these avenues of advancement are deliberately curtailed by legislation.

The present Government has always sought to hamper Africans in their search for education. One of their early acts, after coming into power, was to stop subsidies for African school feeding. Many African children who attended schools depended on this supplement to their diet. This was a cruel act.

There is compulsory education for all white children at virtually no cost to their parents, be they rich or poor. Similar facilities are not provided for the African children, though there are some who receive such assistance. African children, however, generally have to pay more for their schooling than whites. According to figures quoted by the South African Institute of Race Relations in its 1963 journal, approximately 40 per cent of African children in the age group between seven to fourteen do not attend school. For those who do attend school, the standards are vastly different from those afforded to white children. In 1960-61 the per capita Government spending on African students at State-aided schools was estimated at R12.46. In the same years, the per capita spending on white children in the Cape Province (which are the only figures available to me) was R144.57. Although there are no figures available to me, it can be stated, without doubt, that the white children on whom R144.57 per head was being spent all came from wealthier homes than African children on whom R12.46 per head was being spent.

The quality of education is also different. According to the Bantu Educational Journal, only 5,660 African children in the whole of South Africa passed their Junior Certificate in 1962, and in that year only 362 passed matric. This is presumably consistent with the policy of Bantu education about which the present Prime Minister said, during the debate on the Bantu Education Bill in 1953:

“When I have control of Native education I will reform it so that Natives will be taught from childhood to realize that equality with Europeans is not for them . . . People who believe in equality are not desirable teachers for Natives. When my Department controls Native education it will know for what class of higher education a Native is fitted, and whether he will have a chance in life to use his knowledge.”

The other main obstacle to the economic advancement of the African is the industrial colour-bar under which all the better jobs of industry are reserved for Whites only. Moreover, Africans who do obtain employment in the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations which are open to them are not allowed to form trade unions which have recognition under the Industrial Conciliation Act. This means that strikes of African workers are illegal, and that they are denied the right of collective bargaining which is permitted to the better-paid White workers. The discrimination in the policy of successive South African Governments towards African workers is demonstrated by the so-called `civilized labour policy` under which sheltered, unskilled Government jobs are found for those white workers who cannot make the grade in industry, at wages which far exceed the earnings of the average African employee in industry.

The Government often answers its critics by saying that Africans in South Africa are economically better off than the inhabitants of the other countries in Africa. I do not know whether this statement is true and doubt whether any comparison can be made without having regard to the cost-of-living index in such countries. But even if it is true, as far as the African people are concerned it is irrelevant. Our complaint is not that we are poor by comparison with people in other countries, but that we are poor by comparison with the white people in our own country, and that we are prevented by legislation from altering this imbalance.

The lack of human dignity experienced by Africans is the direct result of the policy of white supremacy. White supremacy implies black inferiority. Legislation designed to preserve white supremacy entrenches this notion. Menial tasks in South Africa are invariably performed by Africans. When anything has to be carried or cleaned the white man will look around for an African to do it for him, whether the African is employed by him or not. Because of this sort of attitude, whites tend to regard Africans as a separate breed. They do not look upon them as people with families of their own; they do not realize that they have emotions – that they fall in love like white people do; that they want to be with their wives and children like white people want to be with theirs; that they want to earn enough money to support their families properly, to feed and clothe them and send them to school. And what `house-boy` or `garden-boy` or labourer can ever hope to do this?

Pass laws, which to the Africans are among the most hated bits of legislation in South Africa, render any African liable to police surveillance at any time. I doubt whether there is a single African male in South Africa who has not at some stage had a brush with the police over his pass. Hundreds and thousands of Africans are thrown into jail each year under pass laws. Even worse than this is the fact that pass laws keep husband and wife apart and lead to the breakdown of family life.

Poverty and the breakdown of family life have secondary effects. Children wander about the streets of the townships because they have no schools to go to, or no money to enable them to go to school, or no parents at home to see that they go to school, because both parents (if there be two) have to work to keep the family alive. This leads to a breakdown in moral standards, to an alarming rise in illegitimacy, and to growing violence which erupts not only politically, but everywhere. Life in the townships is dangerous. There is not a day that goes by without somebody being stabbed or assaulted. And violence is carried out of the townships in the white living areas. People are afraid to walk alone in the streets after dark. Housebreakings and robberies are increasing, despite the fact that the death sentence can now be imposed for such offences. Death sentences cannot cure the festering sore.

Africans want to be paid a living wage. Africans want to perform work which they are capable of doing, and not work which the Government declares them to be capable o Africans want to be allowed to live where they obtain work, and not be endorsed out of an area because they were not born there. Africans want to be allowed to own land in places where they work, and not to be obliged to live in rented houses which they can never call their own. Africans want to be part of the general population, and not confined to living in their own ghettoes. African men want to have their wives and children to live with them where they work, and not be forced into an unnatural existence in men`s hostels. African women want to be with their menfolk and not be left permanently widowed in the Reserves. Africans want to be allowed out after eleven o`clock at night and not to be confined to their rooms like little children. Africans want to be allowed

to travel in their own country and to seek work where they want to and not where the Labour Bureau tells them to. Africans want a just share in the whole of South Africa; they want security and a stake in society.

Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy.

But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on colour, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one colour group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it will not change that policy.

This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live.

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

The Words and Wisdom of Nelson Mandela

Madiba in Words.

‘I am fundamentally an optimist. Whether that comes from nature or nurture, I cannot say. Part of being optimistic is keeping one’s head pointed toward the sun, one’s feet moving forward. There were many dark moments when my faith in humanity was sorely tested, but I would not and could not give myself up to despair. That way lays defeat and death.’

‘When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.’

‘It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.’

‘Appearances do matter — so remember to smile.’

‘A leader. . .is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.’

‘Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. Sometimes it falls on a generation to be great. YOU can be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom.’

‘No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.’

‘Courage is not the absence of fear — it s inspiring others to move beyond it.’

‘Where you stand depends on where you sit.’

‘I have walked that long road to freedom. I have tried not to falter; I have made missteps along the way. But I have discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. I have taken a moment here to rest, to steal a view of the glorious vista that surrounds me, to look back on the distance I have come. But I can only rest for a moment, for with freedom come responsibilities, and I dare not linger, for my long walk is not ended.’

‘Education is the great engine of personal development. It is through education that the daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that the son of a mineworker can become the head of the mine, that a child of farmworkers can become the president of a great nation. It is what we make out of what we have, not what we are given, that separates one person from another.’

‘A good head and a good heart are always a formidable combination.’

‘I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.’

‘In my country we go to prison first and then become President.’

‘There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountaintop of our desires.’

‘There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered.’

‘The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.’

‘You may succeed in delaying, but never in preventing the transition of South Africa to a democracy.’

‘Any man that tries to rob me of my dignity will lose.’

‘The victory of democracy in South Africa is the common achievement of all humanity.’

‘The authorities liked to say that we received a balanced diet; it was indeed balanced — between the unpalatable and the inedible.’

‘Prison itself is a tremendous education in the need for patience and perseverance. It is above all a test of one’s commitment.’

‘I always knew that someday I would once again feel the grass under my feet and walk in the sunshine as a free man.’

‘I have always believed that exercise is the key not only to physical health but to peace of mind.’

‘For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others’

And finally, my favorite of them all. If we needed any evidence of Madiba’s wit and sense of irony (or was he simply taking the piss?) he said of meeting the Spice Girls, ‘These are my heroes. This is one of the greatest moments in my life.’

Yeah, right. Thank you for everything Mr Mandela, and I will be laughing at that one for the rest of my life. Albert Jack