Friday, January 28, 2011

Mandela: Saint or Sinner?

VI posted the excellent article below on Mandela, giving you insight into details you won’t find in mainstream media.  Compare that to the video of this guy going nuts because a few South Africans have actually called the man what he is, now that he is frail and apparently sick in hospital.

Notice how he says that insensitive comments made will result in a bloodbath, because the father of the blacks are insulted.  Marxist indoctrination if you’ve ever seen it.  The victims are made to be the perpetrator of the crime.  The bloodbath will be the result of insensitive comments – not the murderous nature of savages.

Watch the video.  Then read the factual article by VI.  And decide for yourself who the nuts are.



Related Articles:
Sycophantic Horseshit: “Mandela Still An Inspiration”
Historical Skeletons
They mention Him In The Same Breath As Ghandi?
A recent posting on Invictus reflects a widely held myth, that Mandela is almost saint-like; in other words there is a hagiographic representation of the man. As one commenter suggested, this deserves a rebuttal.

This posting, as much as I would like it to be a definitive rebuttal, it isn't. But it is a start, and it provides source material for you to do some research for yourself, if you are so inclined.

I am not about to retrace Mandela's entire life. What I will show is that the image of Mandela is largely a Communist Party construct, and that he has been extraordinarily lucky (perhaps a black swan) in that he has been able to largely emulate the image that was created; he doesn't really have a track record, other than a mythological one. It is for this reason that the only movie they could make was Invictus. But does his relatively clean image make him a saint? No. He actively approved of the conduct of the ANC, which includes gross human rights violations, he has knowingly obstructed justice and he is complicit in the crimes committed by Thabo Mbeki, Robert Mugabe and others.


We've all seen the comments, "He forgave the whole of white South Africa", "Mandela won, Botha lost", "It is because of Mandela that the new South Africa has so much to celebrate", "His political theories should be required reading for all", "Because of him, South Africa is so far ahead of other African nations", "Mandela epitomises that dignity and determination lead to a better day", "He symbolises peace and reconciliation". The list is endless.

Nelson Mandela was convicted of treason in 1963/1964 and remained imprisoned until 1990. So, effectively he was removed from the management structure. Although he was probably kept abreast of strategic decisions (albeit with difficulty), and approved of certain deeds (the Church Street bombings), it is doubtful that he had a thorough knowledge of the daily minutiae. The ANC knew this, and given the international profile that Mandela had garnered, after two treason trials, they (together with the Communist Party) created the cult of Mandela.

It is my opinion that Mandela never truly had the power within ANC structures that we are lead to believe. It is probable that he was the ANC poster boy; the image of "peace and reconciliation" to the world. Perhaps he knew this, yet tried to play the part of ANC monarch, which may explain why he displayed a surprising political naivety, in his earlier speeches, upon release from prison. What is certain, is that Mandela never took any decisive steps, on any difficult issues. He didn't want to upset any comrades. Fortunately his advanced age allowed him to step down early and enjoy the rewards of an elderly statesman, despite him not really having a tested track record. Effectively he had served his purpose, and was pushed aside. Personally, I have always been indifferent regarding Mandela, believing that there are more sinister players to focus on.

The fact that Mandela played the 1995 Rugby World Cup to perfection, does not negate the fact that forces greater than he, had shaped the ANC and would dictate the true political nature of the new government. Mandela's game was a distraction. He may well have been sincere about reconciliation; but he never achieved any of the accolades bestowed upon him. If anything, the Communist Party/ANC were exceedingly successful at hoodwinking the public into buying into the whole Mandela cult, which persists today. But that doesn't mean because he may be a nice guy, who fought for a just cause, that he is deserving of the status he enjoys; much like Obama and his Peace prize. Mandela has been happy to have his name associated with the ANC, and for this reason it is important to examine the nature of the ANC, as well as some of the atrocities committed in their name, which they have actively sought to suppress. I am choosing to highlight atrocities committed against their own people, in an effort to show you that it never was about their people, democracy, human rights or freedom from tyranny. The other atrocities are legion, and well documented by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

A little known fact is that the ANC had "recruitment camps" in some of the neighbouring countries; they could be better described as death camps. One of these camps was called Camp Quadro. In 1990 it was revealed that the ANC had engaged in massive human rights violations at this camp, which forced Mandela to make an admission; "Unfortunately, it is true that some of these people that complained were in fact tortured."

Well, that was about as good as it got. The truth is, all of "those" people that complained, were "their" people. All of whom were tortured, and a lot more summarily executed. Importantly, it must be noted that Oliver Tambo stated that "In 1984 enemy agents managed to start a mutiny in our camp". This has remained as a common myth, and is frequently used to justify their ruthless behaviour. In fact, a mutineer Ketelo, stated that "The mutiny had to be understood as the workings of enemy provocateurs". The reality is far more disturbing.

The mutiny arose as a result of combatants, loyal to the ANC, becoming disgruntled at not being able to fight within South Africa, and the harsh conditions within the camp. The ANC had become paranoid, and perpetually trolled its ranks, seeking out illusory spies; whilst at the same time it would not tolerate any dissenting voices.

The mutineers insisted on meeting Oliver Tambo, to discuss their grievances. Tambo refused. The mutineers were ultimately rounded up, some were imprisoned without trial for up to 5 years, in appalling conditions (interesting given that the National Party was vilified for a similar practice of detentions without trial for up to 3 years). A very many were dehumanised, tortured and summarily executed; some for trivialities such as smoking marijuana.

The crux, of course, is that ANC supporters will say that the mistreatment and/or execution of a few hundred, does not equate to the humiliation and denial of opportunities imposed upon millions of black South Africans. Indeed, but it does reveal a mindset; one which South Africa has inherited, and one which is claiming victims in the tens of thousands.

The ANC conducted a secret enquiry into the mutiny, named the Stuart Commission report, where it was shown in detail, what the causes of the mutiny were. It was not enemy activity. It was gross mismanagement, paranoia and authoritarianism. The findings should have been discussed at the ANC conference of 1985, as was expected, but it was never tabled. When confronted about this, Chris Hani exploded that the NEC would not be dictated to, and that the Conference was subservient to the NEC. So, effectively democracy was crushed. No surprise there. The ANC leaders imprisoned, tortured and executed mutineers, knowing they were innocent of the smear of being enemy agents.

Many of the mutineers had believed in democracy, and had been products of the 1976 education uprising; they were not hardline Marxists like the ANC leadership. Well the ANC leadership quickly changed that view. The atrocities were largely meted out as a punishment for speaking out. This is the true nature of what South Africa inherited.

I am quite sure Mandela knew about these atrocities, but kept quiet because it was for the "greater good". Regardless, in 1990 Mandela was confronted by reality. He received an open letter from surviving mutineers. In response he convened a commission of enquiry, which produced the Skweyiya Commission report, the weakest of 3 reports. But its mandate was restricted. Mandela instructed investigations to probe complaints from living prisoners only. Therefore all disappearances and murders would receive no attention. This effectively exonerated the perpetrators. He did this deliberately. To date none of the perpetrators have been brought to justice. But some of the surviving mutineers have subsequently been assassinated.

Mandela accepted the findings, reluctantly, by stating "The ANC leadership acknowledged responsibility for not adequately monitoring and eradicating such abuses". A lie. The top leadership, all the way to Tambo, condoned and participated in the abuses, including Tambo, Modise, Slovo, Hani, Pahad, Zuma and others.
So we start to get the picture of our "saint". Let's not forget how quickly he distanced himself from Winnie, who had been embroiled in issues of her own, surrounding necklacings, torture and murder, which she must have shared with Mandela on her occasional visits.

It is my contention that Mandela is not a fool. He knew what was happening; his intentions may have been pure, but the scent of victory was so sweet that he was never going to "spoil the party". The only real victim here is democracy. If you think not, just look at how the ANC has responded to losing the Western Cape. Their game is about absolute power, a Stalinist type dictatorship, which is effectively what South Africa is getting. It isn't about the poor, and the redressing of past imbalances. It probably never was. So, to answer the question: Is Mandela a saint or a sinner? In my book he is definitely a hypocritical sinner.

More importantly, though, what is in store for the future of South Africa? Well, a democracy is out of the question. It has the appearance of one, but it isn't. Just ask yourself, what do you think Jacob Zuma is doing? His ideology has never been democratic, he is an African strong man (in other words he believes in strong and centralised government), he is unilateralist, and he does not tolerate dissent. Consider his past role within the ANC and his thug associates, vis-a-vis the Shaik brothers and Malema, who will undoubtedly kill for him. If you are in any doubt as to what the ANC stood for, familiarise yourself by reading Talking With The ANC.

For a comprehensive description of the atrocities, read the Amnesty International report, as well as the other linked documents. Also, look out for the book Inside Quatro, by Paul Trewhela, who is single-handedly responsible for documenting most of the evidence, and seeking justice for the mutineers. He has done a sterling job for about 30 years.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

"New Economic Plan" neither new, economical, nor a plan

Ok, so the fruitcakes at COSATU aren't happy with it either, which is normally a good reason to cheer.

JZ is right on the money with his "no theory, no politics" comments, and fair play to him for that, but this next is a sad reflection on a government with no real ideas:

the government should look at ways to create more jobs in its priority service delivery sectors such as education, health and rural development
Eh?
Creating more government jobs is the last resort of the ideologically bankrupt. Not only that, but the idea that service delivery being poor is the result of not enough wekkas is complete b.s. as everyone knows.
Actually training the existing employees, and actually making them do their jobs, would eradicate the need to employ more people, but, then again, in Africa that's a suicidal strategy for any politician with a voter base hooked on the heroin of government "help".


*****

New economic plan ‘needs to be overhauled’


IOL news ANC cabinet lekgotla001

Independent Newspapers

Cabinet began its annual January lekgotla in Limpopo to discuss government's programme for the coming year with growth and jobs high on the agenda. Photo: Independent Newspapers

As the cabinet’s five-day planning meeting kicks off in Limpopo today, Cosatu members have warned that the government’s much-hyped new economic plan could go the same route as the one that pitted them against former president Thabo Mbeki and brought him to a fall.

National Union of Mineworkers boss Frans Baleni, who attended part of the ANC’s two-day lekgotla in Midrand on Thursday and Friday, yesterday told The Sunday Independent that it was crucial for the ruling party and government to hear the unions on the document.

“If we can change part of it, we will be happy, because all stakeholders would have contributed and their footprint would be in the plan, but if (the New Growth Path) is non-negotiable like Gear (Mbeki’s Growth, Employment and Redistribution policy), it will take us back to an old era,” he said.

Cosatu president Sdumo Dlamini, who attended the lekgotla plenary report-back on discussions in the lekgotla’s New Growth Path commission, said he was happy with the progress.

“We agreed that we need to continue to do a lot of work on the New Growth Path,” he said.

Dlamini said the ANC had extended an invitation to Cosatu to raise the issue again within the party’s economic transformation committee, as well as at the alliance summit set for the last weekend of the month.

Cosatu and the ANC seemed headed for a clash when the labour federation said in a press release earlier this week that it could not work with the government in the implementation of the New Growth Path as it stood.

The labour federation said the plan “falls far short of the comprehensive development strategy capable of unleashing a plan that will fundamentally transform our economy and adequately address the triple challenges of extraordinary high levels of unemployment, poverty and deepening inequalities”. It needed to be “overhauled if it is to succeed in uniting the alliance behind the type of programme envisaged by all alliance formations”.

Cosatu is particularly unhappy about the proposed wage caps in the plan, which it says would see workers’ wages frozen while the implementation of such a cap for bosses would be near impossible.

President Jacob Zuma, whose administration is set to be defined by the New Growth Path, this week told the lekgotla there should be “no theory (and) no politics” when it came to discussions on job creation, and that the government should look at ways to create more jobs in its priority service delivery sectors such as education, health and rural development. - Sunday Independent

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

A mother sets the example for her children…..


And she is called the mother of the nation?

Cops abused after pulling Winnie's car over

2011-01-12 08:04

Johannesburg - Winnie Madikizela-Mandela is demanding an apology from two police officers who pulled over her car on the M1 highway because it was weaving recklessly through traffic at 150km/h.

"Who the fuck do you think you are," she repeatedly yelled at him and his colleagues, Warrant Officer Jannie Odendaal said on Tuesday.

"I didn't recognise her since she had white powder all over her face and looked much older than when I'd last seen her."

Odendaal, a member of the Gauteng police flying squad, said the occupants of the vehicle refused to identify themselves.

"I've been working my arse off in the police for 19 years and now I have to apologise to her for doing my job," said Odendaal.

A general in the office of the Gauteng chief of police, Lieutenant General Mzwandile Petros, told Odendaal that he would accompany them to Madikizela-Mandela so they can apologise.

Petros would then apologise on behalf of the police.

"I don't know if I still belong in the police if this is the way they treat me.

"It looks like they're accepting Ms Madikizela-Mandela's word above my own," said Odendaal.

At about 09:50 on December 30 2010, Odendaal and his colleague - who doesn't want to be identified or discuss the events - pulled over a silver Audi A6 at the Jan Smuts Avenue off ramp on the M1 north.

On orders from Petros, they were pulling over and searching vehicles.

According to Odendaal they had already noticed and followed the Audi at the Xavier Road off ramp.

"We decided to pull over the Audi and switched on our sirens and lights," Odendaal said.

The car, which has tinted windows, only stopped about 5km further.

"A man jumped out and yelled: 'Who the hell do you think you are to want to search this vehicle, we are not in the era of apartheid any more'," Odendaal said.

The man appeared to be one of Madikizela-Mandela's bodyguards. He bumped Odendaal against the chest, according to Odendaal.

"I fetched a taser from our vehicle to scare him off. He then said they are accompanying Ms Madikizela-Mandela and they're very late."

Odendaal's colleague insisted that he wanted to identify Madikizela-Mandela himself, but the man refused.

Odendaal says he and his colleagues were in full police uniform.

Madikizela-Mandela got out, yelled at them, and instructed her bodyguard and driver to drive on.

According to Odendaal they logged the incident, but no complaint was laid because they felt "nothing would come of it since it's Madikizela-Mandela".

Last week they were informed that Madikizela-Mandela, her bodyguard and driver had submitted three complaints against them.

Odendaal says he was initially willing to swallow his pride and apologise, but has since changed his mind.

He and his colleague were transferred to other departments in the police on Friday until an internal investigation can be completed.

"We were asked to write a report and did so. We had to go to the provincial office where a general said Madikizela-Mandela would withdraw the complaints against us if we apologise to her."

Colonel Neville Malila, police spokesperson, said on Tuesday that a complaint of pointing a firearm and intimidation is being investigated against Odendaal and his colleague.

An internal investigation is also underway.

He said the bodyguards submitted these complaints. According to him the two policemen didn't speak to Petros and the case is considered sub judice.

Zodwa Zwane, Madikizela-Mandela's spokesperson, referred Beeld to "the minister or the commissioner of police".

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

The confused Zulu.


There are a few bloggers whom I read religiously.

And there are many reasons why I read some blogs.

Some of them are for the fun of it, some other for more obvious reasons, and then the one or two that is neither for this or that reason, but purely because I enjoy the intellect, insight, and knowledge of the blogger.

Alex’s blog is one of those. He obviously is a highly intelligent person, with a passion for Africa.

He rarely comments on South Africa, but when he does, it usually is with a slant that I would never have taken, and because of that highly entertaining, and informative.

The below posting I just have to share with our readers.

Zuma goes Zulu on Zapiro... again!

There's no other way in explaining the BIZARRE renewed legal assault by Zuma against South African cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro aka Zapiro than by surmising that the South African president has gone Zulu on Zapiro.

I've previously said that by going after Zapiro, Zuma was on the path of bringing South Africa down at the level of Mugabe's Zimbabwe. As it happens, people are now being thrown in jail in Zimbabwe for calling Mugabe a little troll or a gnome.

But Zuma's (and incidentally Mugabe's) predicament, it now appears to me, is more fundamental and therefore congruent with the so-called "traditional" and "authentic" (Mobutu) ideational system whose many tenets Africans have still to individually and collectively shed before an elusive "African Renaissance" could possibly dawn on the continent.

Franz Fanon once theorized--and I'm loosely paraphrasing--that culture isn't some frozen meal left intact in the fridge that you go and retrieve at will any time you'd want to. Culture is a dynamic, ever-changing and flickering practice by a human group at any very present moment.

Treading along the same vein, Nigerian literary and cultural critic Abiola Irele once delivered a now-famous lecture aptly entitled "In Praise of Alienation."

In sum, culture is created or re-create and engineered willy-nilly by social formations or larger human institutions. Hence a global culture in which human rights, gender equality, gay and lesbian rights, democracy, etc, is now being created before our very eyes—though Claude Lévi-Strauss saw such a global cultural uniformity project as detrimental to cultural diversity.

In point of fact, South Africa is a progressive modern society that prides itself on its ethnic and cultural diversity. That's why it juridically integrates the many customary laws of its ethnic groups. Zuma can thus lawfully marry any number of wives as polygamy is part of Zulu cultural heritage whereas his Jewish compatriot Zapiro is paradoxically prevented by law from doing so.

In Zulu customs, as in many other African traditional cultures, the chief is a hallowed and aura-radiating individual to whom one owes obsequious respect and in whose presence one is awestruck. And in our traditional societies, making fun of the chief is unthinkable and even punishable by death. I was once told a legend on the lethal protocol at the court of King Chaka Zulu: if a notable made the unfortunate mistake of sneezing when the king was speaking, he was strangled on the spot!

In today's South African society, however, public figures are (and should be) fair game to cartoonists and late-night-show comedians; and Zuma, not being the Chaka, might be interrupted with impunity by the thundering sneeze of one of his cabinet ministers.

Zuma might have conflated two realms in this row with Zapiro: the modern multi-ethnic and centripetal realm that moors different groups into one South African nation, on the one hand; and, on the other, the centrifugal and ethnocentric realm into which individual groups find their specific identity.

And, as the president of a multi-ethnic state, Zuma ought to firmly stand with both legs on his country's centripetal realm. This is an argument made a while back by a South African lawyer about the serial marriages of Zuma...

The hope is that it'd soon dawn on Zuma that he'd confused two different genres. Zapiro isn't a Zulu tribesman. And even if Zapiro were a Zulu, he could still shed his tribal identity and diss the head of state in his cartoons without violating the constitution and the law.

This being said, how could a mere cartoon so terribly incense Zuma to the point of his running the risk of reminding his compatriots of some of his actions that amount to repeated rapes with aggravated circumstances of Lady Justice (like having parole granted on grounds of serious illness to a healthy millionaire friend of his who also happens to be his one-time creditor)? That's the kind of bafflement I recently heard Zapiro express in an interview with the BBC...

Well, we've also watched on TV frenzied people foaming at the mouth and engaging in the ritual burning of the Swedish flag and attempting to exact unspecified reparations from the Swedish state for the unspeakable crime of drawing prophets committed by one or two of Swedish cartoonist nationals. In the US, we saw Reverend Al Sharpton
gathering a mob for a demonstration against a New York tabloid that depicted Obama's stimulus plan as undecipherable signs smeared on paper by a chimp! (And without mixing genres, an ayatollah--just like a marshal in a Western movie keen on capturing a dangerous outlaw—had issued a death fatwa against a writer, with money to be collected by the free-lance bounty hunter who'd drop the felon!)

But having said from the outset that Zuma has gone native on Zapiro, a bizarre move by an incumbent head of state, there's only one place where I can find a beginning of an explanation: anthropology, the field of study of the "apparently irrational behaviour," as quipped British anthropologist Alfred Gell, citing the ethnographic baffling quandary of "my brother is a green parrot."

Gell gave this definition of anthropology while developing his "anthropological theory of art" (see his "Art and Agency").

Gell discovered that "art objects" (which he calls "indexes"), in indigenous societies, have no bearing on the way these objects are understood in Western institutionalized settings and circles (museums, academia, art collectors and aficionados, as well as the general public).

In indigenous settings, indexes are things around which social relations are mobilized. These indexes, in an animistic way, are even "extensions of persons" and have social agency.

"This agency," says Gell, "can be agonistic or defensive as well as beneficial."

These indexes have dynamic relations between themselves, between them and people, or between people through their proxy. (Well, this is an extremely reductionist take on Gell's complex theory.)

It seems to me that to Zuma Zapiro's cartoon has turned into an "agonist" index, with the nastiness of a Haitian voodoo doll. Hence his "apparently irrational behavior" in this matter.

Ultimately, the millions of rands in damages being sought by Zuma would never ward off the nefarious juju Zapiro's cartoon has become for him.

In Zuma's worldview, breaking the spell of the wicked cartoon can only be done according to the following script:

Mwalimu Saleh, a medicineman from Tanzania, is flown to South Afica to cure the ailing soul of Zuma. He's brought in his luggage the most potent body parts harvested on murdered albinos (genitals, anuses, and hearts). He stews these body parts. When the stew is ready, he tells Zuma: "You'll eat this stew four Fridays in a row. This powerful medicine will right your listing soul knocked off balance by the soul-eater Zapiro. Focus on Zapiro while you eat: you'll be nibbling at his soul till you slowly and painfully turn the loathsome cartoonist into a golem!"