Obliterating the History of the Whites in South Africa

The ruling black Marxist African National Congress (ANC) is steadily and deliberately obliterating the history of English and Afrikaans South Africans.

This is seen, in a very practical way, in the recent countrywide “renaming” process.  Most of South Africa’s cities and towns were planned, laid out, and built by English and Afrikaner South Africans – the two “white tribes”.  It is not surprising, then, that the cities and streets and buildings were for the most part named after various white leaders and heroes of the past.  Even so, however, South Africa has always had beautiful place names in the black languages as well.  But this is not good enough for the ANC.  They have embarked on a deliberate policy of what they call “transformation”: the process of “transforming” SA’s cities and towns by deliberately erasing the monuments to English and Afrikaans South Africans, renaming the cities, and renaming the streets after predominantly ANC terrorist “heroes” and others.  The plan behind this is to obliterate the history of the whites in SA, to make it appear as if they never came to these shores and never accomplished anything.

  Thus, for example, SA’s capital city, Pretoria, named after an Afrikaner leader, has been renamed “Tshwane”, after some black chief who, we are told, lived in the area long ago.  The ANC likes to tell us that it is not Pretoria itself that has been renamed, but rather the entire “megacity”, which (according to the ANC’s new demarcations) includes Pretoria and various other towns and townships; but in practice, Pretoria is already being referred to as Tshwane by ANC leaders and the State-controlled SA Broadcasting Corporation.  In this way, one of the world’s great capital cities has all but disappeared off the map.  It is a deliberate slap in the face of Afrikaners, a huge number of whom still live in and around Pretoria.

  And other cities and towns have had their names changed as well.  Pietersburg became Polokwane,  Stanger became KwaDukuza, and so on.  And not only cities and towns.  Dams, buildings, airports and streets have all been renamed.  In Pietermaritzburg, for example, some nineteen streets were renamed, mainly after ANC revolutionary “heroes”.  Johannesburg International Airport, the main gateway to South Africa, has been renamed “O.R. Tambo International Airport”, after the late ANC leader, a Marxist terrorist who oversaw the ANC from outside the country and directed its terror campaign against the State. 

  White South Africans are feeling like tourists in their own country, so rapid has been the “transformation”.

  And the latest city to come under the assault of the Marxist re-writers of history is Durban, SA’s famous holiday destination and the busiest port city in Africa.  But in Durban, the massive attempt at rewriting history in the ANC’s image has met with huge and angry opposition, from English, Afrikaans, Zulu and Indian South Africans.  The sheer scale of the renaming process in this city, and also the kinds of people whose names are being attached to the streets and buildings, have the residents of Durban up in arms.  In the words of the leader of the opposition Democratic Alliance, Tony Leon, the choice of the new street names is “a rogue’s gallery of Third World revolutionaries”, which ruthlessly celebrates only one narrow version of the country’s history – the ANC’s version.

  181 name changes have been proposed by the ANC-dominated city council!  Most of them commemorate ANC “struggle activists” as they are called (their true name: terrorists), but in addition, the names of certain monstrous Marxists and terrorists from other countries are proposed.  As John Steenhuisen, the opposition Democratic Alliance’s Metro caucus leader, said: “This ‘kick sand in your face’ kind of approach from the ANC cannot go unchallenged.  They are using their majority in council as a blunt instrument to push their will and narrow party political interests.”  He said there should be wider community participation instead of decisions being taken by officials behind closed doors.  True – but this is of course ever the way of Communists.

  As previously stated, it is not only English and Afrikaans South Africans who are incensed at the proposed name changes.  Zulu supporters of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) are up in arms over the plan to rename the Princess Magogo Stadium (named after the mother of IFP leader, Mangosuthu Buthelezi) after Dumisani Makhaye, a late ANC housing minister.  It is also proposed that the Mangosuthu Highway, named after Buthelezi himself, be changed as well.  This further enraged IFP supporters, who (rightly) said that only ANC “heroes” were being honoured.

  Durban’s notorious Point Road, for decades a centre for prostitution and drugs, has been renamed Mahatma Gandhi Street.  This has incensed many Indian residents of Durban, saying Gandhi’s name should not be associated with the most notorious road in the city.

  The proposed new name for the Durban Metro police headquarters is Umkhonto weSizwe Building.  Umkhonto weSizwe, known as MK, was the name of the ANC’s vicious armed wing during the years of its revolutionary terror campaign.  It was the precise equivalent of the PLO, or the IRA.  It was responsible for terrible terrorist atrocities throughout the country.  For decades, conservative, anti-Communist South Africans warred against this evil organisation.  But of course, the ANC is in power now, and MK was incorporated into the SA Defence Force.  The Defence Force today, in fact, is MK, for all practical purposes. 

  Church Street, in the Durban CBD, could soon be renamed after Steve Biko, the Black Consciousness leader who died in prison.  Another road that may bear his name is Umgeni Road.  Or possibly the Botanic Gardens Road.  Field Street could be renamed after Joe Slovo, a sinister leading light in the ANC before his death, believed to have been a KGB colonel.  Old Fort Road may be named after the late Chris Hani, the leader of the SA Communist Party, a terrorist leader.  Or otherwise, he might get North Coast Road, Parkhill, named after him, or even West Street, a major CBD street.

  Smith Street, one of Durban’s most important central streets, may be renamed M.A. Adelaide Tambo Street.  She was the wife of the ANC’s Oliver Tambo.  Another road which may bear her name is Currie Road, Musgrave.  The proposed change for Musgrave Road is to Walter Sisulu, one of the top ANC leaders and a fellow-terrorist with Nelson Mandela.  And the famous Marine Parade may be renamed O.R. Tambo Marine Parade. 

  NMR Avenue (named after the Natal Mounted Rifles) has already been changed to Masabalala Yengwa Avenue.

  The proposed new name for the Jan Smuts Highway, Dawncliffe (Smuts was one of SA’s Afrikaner prime ministers, and a world political figure in his time), is Denis Hurley Highway.  Hurley was a Roman Catholic archbishop, based in Durban, and one of the top “liberation theologians” (“Catholic-Communists”) who used his considerable influence to throw support behind the ANC during its revolutionary campaign.  It is also possible that Queen Street might be named after him instead.

  Another leading “liberation theologian” was Beyers Naude – and Umhlanga Rocks Drive might be renamed after him.

  Old Main Road, Hillcrest, could soon be renamed after Govan Mbeki, a terrorist comrade of Nelson Mandela and the father of SA’s present president, Thabo Mbeki.  And the Durban City Hall, it is proposed, should be renamed the Madiba Building, after the name by which Nelson Mandela is well known.

  Then too, there is the plan to rename Edwin Swales VC Drive after one Solomon Mahlangu.  Who was Edwin Swales?  Was he a Nazi-like white racist, as the ANC loves to portray all whites, past and present, in this country?  No.  He was white, yes, and he was one of only three South Africans to be awarded the Victoria Cross in World War Two, a war fought against Nazism.  But the recognition given to white South Africans is the very thing the ANC wants to wipe out. 

  A somewhat amusing name change, providing a bit of comic relief in the midst of all this, is that proposed for Cowey Road.  The proposed new name is Problem Mkhize Road.  Mkhize was a former MK commander.  In SA, people understand that many blacks are given such names at birth, often according to something that happened during or shortly after the birth, and the man could not help having the name his parents gave him; but to any foreigner, unaware of this, a road named “Problem Mkhize” will be extremely amusing – and bewildering.

  These name changes are all shocking, and disgusting to the sensibilities of all decent-minded people; for many of these people were terrorists.  But certainly one of the most shocking of all, because of how “close to home” it is for the people of the area, is the proposal to rename Kingsway Road, in Amanzimtoti, as Andrew Zondo Road, in honour of a terrorist bomber who killed five people.  He was sentenced to death in 1986 for planting a bomb in a rubbish bin at the Amanzimtoti centre the year before, which killed two women and three children and injured many more.  The DA’s caucus leader in Durban, John Steenhuisen, said, “We will be mobilising people to object.  The process and choice of many of the names is deliberately provocative.”  Speaking about the call to rename Kingsway Road after Zondo, he said, “”It’s almost akin to renaming a street in New York after Osama bin Laden.  It’s highly insensitive.”  And Tony Leon said, “To append the name of Andrew Zondo to a highway in Amanzimtoti, where this saboteur killed five people in a bomb attack during the 1980s, looks like a calculated slight to the families of his victims.”

  The South African Communist Party (SACP), however, voiced its support for renaming the road after Andrew Zondo.  It said: “The SACP… regrets the loss of life in the Amanzimtoti bombing.  Comrade Andrew Zondo was a member of MK and part of the armed struggle and he undertook his activities at the height of apartheid repression… [He] sacrificed his life in the cause of the national liberation and is to many a hero.”  It called on the municipality to educate the public about the “meaning of his activities as contribution to coming to terms with our past.”  It added: “We believe there is a need for those who benefitted from apartheid, to reciprocate the generosity shown by those who suffered under apartheid.”  What deceivers and doublespeakers Communists always are!  They say they regret the loss of life caused by Zondo – yet they call him a hero who gave his life as a “sacrifice”.  He didn’t sacrifice his life, he was executed because of his crimes!  He murdered five people – and now we’re to believe that he is the hero?  What “generosity” did he show to his victims?

  Another proposal, to honour a notorious armed robber, murderer and rapist by renaming a road after him, has been met with shock and anger by opposition parties in Durban.  His name was S’bu Mkhize, SA’s most wanted man at the time, who carried out a reign of murder, robbery and rape.  Although the ANC at the time distanced itself from his crimes, he was particularly brutal when attacking members of the Inkatha Freedom Party, the ANC’s main rival in the province.  He and his gang were cornered in a house in Isipingo in 1992.  When he was called upon to surrender, he lobbed grenades at the police and his gang opened fire with machine guns.  The police brought in armoured vehicles to demolish the house, and he and his gang were killed.  At the time of his death, the police had more than 10 warrants of arrest out for him.

  And now the ANC in Durban wants to rename the R603 road through Umbumbulu after this gangster – the very area in which he committed most of his crimes!  In the words of the IFP’s caucus leader in the Duran municipality, Thembi Nzuza, the IFP is “sickened” by this proposal.  “He killed a lot of our people and our supporters, that one.  He was a common criminal who preyed on the weak and the old.  He was a murderer and a criminal and a robber.”

  IFP leader, Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, is not one to whom the ANC listens.  This is a pity, for he has wisely cautioned what he calls a “gloating” and “disdainful” ANC to be careful about “airbrushing” certain groups, particularly the Afrikaners and the Zulus, out of history, so as to give prominence to ANC-affiliated people alone.  He said that name changes should only be done “with regard for the fact that a part of South Africa’s linguistic and cultural heritage traces its roots to white Africans”, namely the Dutch and British immigrants who started arriving at the Cape 350 years ago.  Wise words indeed.  As history shows with many examples, this kind of blatant cultural obliteration increases bitterness and resentment, and in time it so often leads to yet further uprisings and bloodshed. 

  But dictatorial leaders never learn from history.  When they come to power, they have an opportunity to make all the diverse peoples living within the geographical territory they rule feel welcome, feel as though they have a place in the sun.  But they never make use of this opportunity.  Instead, they inevitably advance only the interests of their own people at the expense of all others.  And as surely as night follows day, this leads to still further resentment, bitterness, animosity, anger, and eventually, bloodshed.  English and Afrikaans South Africans may have lost power in SA; they may at the moment be  a despised minority in the country they ruled so well for so long; but the resentment, bitterness, frustration and anger is building up all the time, as they see themselves marginalised, their history eradicated, their people murdered and raped.  And inevitably, there will be a backlash.  It may not occur this year, or next year, or a decade from now, or two decades.  But it will inevitably come.  This is the nature of men everywhere.

  With the Zulus, it may have already started.  After these name changes were proposed, thousands of Zulu protesters, wielding sticks, ran through Durban’s city centre, upending dustbins as they went, and causing minor damage.  One protester fired shots into the air.  Shops were looted.  By early afternoon about 10 000 protesters had converged at the city hall.  One of the placards read: “Stop naming our streets after your girlfriends!”  Another read: “We All Have Our Heroes.”  And another: “Who Are These People?”  On the same day, Zulu protesters barricaded the Mangosuthu Highway with dustbins and burning tyres.  Traffic lights were smashed.

  And then there are the proposals for certain streets and roads to be named after Communist revolutionaries and terrorists from other countries as well!

  The proposed new name for Kensington Drive, in Durban North, is Fidel Castro Street!  Yes – named after the ANC’s big buddy and fellow-Communist, the brutal dictator of Cuba. 

  Northway, in Durban North, could soon become Kwame Nkrumah Road, named after the brutal first president of Ghana after its independence. 

  Somtseu Road, it is proposed, should be renamed after Kenneth Kaunda, the Marxist president of Zambia who destroyed his own country, reducing it to ruin in every possible way.

  The Higginson Highway may be renamed after no other than Yasser Arafat, the Muslim terrorist leader of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, one of the ANC’s great allies during their revolution.

  Warwick Avenue, in Greyville, may be renamed after Julius Nyerere, the Marxist president of Tanzania whose foolhardy policies reduced that country to utter ruin.

  And Moore Road, in Glenwood, could be renamed after Che Guevara, Fidel’s big buddy and a revolutionary thug.

  Broadway could become Swapo Road.  Swapo is the acronym for the South West African Peoples’ Organisation, the equivalent in South West Africa (now Namibia) of the ANC in South Africa.  Swapo conducted its own terror campaign in South West Africa, until the United Nations saw to it that it became the new government of Namibia.

  The choice of street names is “a rogue’s gallery of Third World revolutionaries” indeed, in the words of Tony Leon.  And the ANC tells the world that SA is a democracy?  What a joke.  What we are witnessing daily is the sheer arrogance of the ANC, which knows it is in power for many years to come and which loves to throw its weight around, doing what it pleases when it pleases regardless of the consequences.  SA is a typical Marxist country now, honouring not only its own terrorist “heroes”, but those of such countries as Cuba, Namibia, and Ghana.  White South Africans would never have imagined it possible, back in the 1980s or even the early 1990s, that  the day would ever arrive when men such as Castro, Arafat, Biko, Hani, Mandela, etc., the enemies of South Africa and of everything the West stood for, would be honoured in the cities they built.  But it has come to pass.  The Communist revolution succeeded, not by winning a war, but by treachery, duplicity, and cunning.

  In all likelihood, not all of these proposed name changes will eventually be accepted.  But the ANC has been very clever.  They have deluged Durban residents with 181 proposed name changes.  They knew there would be an outcry.  But then, when they scale back somewhat, and only bring in, say, 100 name changes, or 130, it makes them look good.  It makes it appear as if they “listened to the people”.  In truth, however, they still will get their own way.  They will scrap a few proposals, but keep the rest, and still “transform” Durban thereby.  Yet they will do so in a way that looks (to the ignorant and uninformed) “democratic” and “consultative.”

  And as things stand now, other places could soon follow.  Will Cape Town, the world famous and beautiful Cape Town, eventually become iKapa?  Will Johannesburg (named after another Afrikaner) become “Jozi” or “eGoli”?  Will the entire country, in fact, oneday be renamed “Azania”?  It is entirely conceivable, for there are many within the ruling party who want it.

  There is only one good thing in all this.  At least now, as SA’s cities deteriorate further and further under ANC mismanagement, becoming increasingly like all other Third World African slum-cities, the names of those whites who worked so hard, and accomplished so much, in SA will no longer be associated with the disasters which these cities have become, or are in the process of becoming, under black Marxist misrule.  At least now, when people visit SA from foreign countries, they will see, on the street signs, the names of the very people who have brought such collapse and ruin to SA!  And then they will look around, at the filth in the streets, the crime and grime, the traffic lights that don’t work, the poor starving street children on almost every corner, the prostitutes and pimps, and all of this will be associated with the names of the ANC’s “heroes” on the street signs.  They deserve it.  The men who, once upon a time, built SA into the great country it was, and the English and Afrikaner peoples they represented, do not deserve to have their names associated with this degradation and mismanagement.

  In the city of Standerton, on direct orders of the ANC mayor, the Great Trek Memorial Stone was destroyed. This monument celebrated the 150th commemoration of the Great Trek, a pivotal event in Afrikaner and indeed South African history, when Afrikaners trekked away from the British-ruled Cape to establish themselves in new territory, and thereby contributed immensely to the opening up of the interior of South Africa and the coming of Western civilization to this barbaric part of the world.

  No wonder, then, that the ANC hated the monument!  At every turn, these black Marxists are faced with the evidences of the wonderful achievements of the English and Afrikaners in South Africa – and it fills them with envy.  They well know that nothing they have done equals or excels such achievements.  And this envy leads to anger and hatred.  They cannot stand these reminders of achievement and excellence.

  The mayor, a black woman named Queen Radebe-Khumalo, gave the order for the Memorial Stone’s destruction.  It consisted of a granite stone with tracks in cement on it, commemorating the Great Trek.  Her words were, “That piece of thing means nothing to us.  It is only a piece of cement with tracks on it.  I don’t even know where it comes from” (Freedom Front Newsletter 101, dalien@vf.co.za).  This reveals not only her hatred for Afrikaner history, but also her ignorance of history.  She should stop viewing history merely through the ANC’s lenses, and she might learn something.  Fat chance of that happening.

  On a national level, the ANC only reacted to the destruction after the Freedom Front Plus, an Afrikaner political party, criticised the ANC’s national leadership over their silence.  Smuts Ngonyama, the ANC’s chief spokesman, said in a statement that the ANC would be investigating the incident, “because the ANC is not here to destroy anyone’s history” (Freedom Front Newsletter 101).  If this were true, then the Memorial Stone would not have been destroyed on the orders of an ANC mayor!  But the real truth lies in the fact that the ANC is interested in preserving only the history of its own people, and of its Marxist terrorist campaign against the previous white government of SA.  In true Communist fashion, they use doublespeak, saying one thing for public consumption but quite another thing to their own followers and comrades.

  Dr Pieter Mulder, the Freedom Front Plus leader, said correctly: “President Mbeki and the ANC leadership’s silence, following the destruction of the Memorial Stone in Standerton, was seen by the Afrikaner community as passive approval of the actions.  If these kinds of actions are not condemned by leaders on a national level, such as President Mbeki, it could lead to reciprocal damaging of communities’ cultural goods.  It will be destructive for relations in South Africa.”  Precisely.  This deliberate destruction of the history, and the monuments to that history, of white South Africans, is only going to breed bitterness, resentment, and eventually – rebellion.  It is always so.  Instead of making SA a country where all its citizens feel at home, the ANC is concentrating solely on the black nations, and doing all it can to obliterate the two white nations.  It is accomplishing this through the marginalisation of whites in the workplace and in every other sphere, the destruction of all records of their great history, and the deliberate genocide of their farmers.

  The Freedom Front Plus also lodged a complaint with the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Language Communities about the destruction of the memorial.  “Irrespective of the reaction of the ANC, the FF Plus is continuing with its complaint.  We are convinced that the Mayor of Standerton and the provincial ANC have contravened the Constitution with the order to destroy the Great Trek Memorial Stone,” said Mulder.  To date, the FF Plus is disappointed with the way in which the Commission has undertaken its duties.  It is their work to protect communities’ language and cultural goods.

  It is not surprising that the Commission, appointed as it was under the ANC, is, like so much else emanating from the ANC, an organisation that operates according to double standards.  All these high-sounding commissions, all these pieces of constitutional legislation, look very good on paper, and give the impression to the outside world that the ANC is committed to a constitutional democracy, the rule of law, the equal and fair treatment of all citizens, etc., etc.  But the reality on the ground is far, far different.  Even if the Commission actually does something about this mayor and her destruction of a monument to Afrikaner history, no one should be fooled into believing that the ANC is really committed to such ideals.  They may indeed act this time, merely because there has been some focus on this and that is potentially embarrassing to them.  But if so they will act reluctantly, and only because they want to save face.  They do not have the interests of Afrikaners or English South Africans at heart, and they will continue with their insidious campaign to obliterate the history of the two white nations in SA. 

  Unless white South Africans wake up and take notice, and stand up for what is right, by making use of all legal methods, the process will continue.  All white South Africans need to stand up and be counted, and say to this Marxist organisation, “Thus far and no further!  We are citizens of this country, with as much right to be here as anyone else!”  If this is not done, very soon the records of our great past here at the southern tip of Africa will be gone, and we ourselves will be even more at the mercy of these Marxist thugs than ever before.  It is not too late, but time is running out.

Shaun Willcock is a minister of the Gospel, and lives in South Africa.  He runs Bible Based Ministries.

купить джинсы на подростка мальчикаалександр лобановский харьков класс

Culture Wars in the West

ImageThere are few denials these days, if any, that in most Western countries a cultural war rages, characterized by an intense and sometimes very personal disagreement involving politicians, intellectuals, activists and an assortment of ideologues. This war, or rather these wars, have been raging for some time already, at least since the Second World War. Their origins can be traced back to the intellectual legacy of a little-known Italian communist who lived in the first half of the twentieth century.

Antonio Gramsci was born in 1891 in Sardinia. He enrolled in linguistics and literature at the university in Turin in 1911, and on all accounts he was a brilliant student. Financial problems, poor health and his increasing commitment to his political activities forced him to abandon his studies by 1915. By this time he had imbibed the ideas of various Italian intellectuals, each of whom promoted a different kind of Marxism.

By 1914 Gramsci was writing for socialist newspapers and had become a successful journalist. He later became an editor, at one point starting a weekly newspaper, while at the same time a prolific producer of political theory. When the Italian Communist Party was formed in 1921, Gramsci became its first leader. He espoused a brand of Leninist Communism, and in 1922 traveled to Russia to meet with Soviet leaders. In his absence, Fascists under Mussolini took over the government in Italy.

Gramsci’s career was cut short in 1926 when Mussolini’s police arrested him on trumped-up charges after an attempt on the life of Il Duce. Mussolini started a campaign against communists and socialists some years prior to the arrest, and finally found a reason to move in on Gramsci. At his trail the prosecutor apparently said that "…this is a brain that must be stopped for twenty years…" and Gramsci was sentenced to a five year jail term. This sentence was changed to 20 years in 1927. In solitary confinement his health deteriorated, and after he was released early in 1934, he died in Rome in 1937. He was forty six years old.

In jail Gramsci wrote his political ideas in a series of Prison Notebooks which were published and distributed by his followers. Eventually, his thoughts and political discourse infected Western thought, and would eventually change Western social and political life, particularly in the years following the Second World War.

Gramsci’s ideas and ideology constitute proof that history is a non-linear and arbitrary process. The short intellectual life of this unlikely figure as a Marxist had dramatic consequences which still influence and in some cases dominate modern political and social ideology.

Communists of Gramsci’s day assumed that a Worker’s State would be created by a spontaneous uprising of the exploited and worker’s classes in Capitalist societies. However, in places such as Italy, in spite of tremendous economic problems and rampant poverty, this did not happen. Instead, Fascism rose out of the ashes of the First World War. This puzzled many Communist thinkers who believed that Capitalism was imposed by the ruling classes and Bourgeoisie and that the resentment of exploited workers would naturally lead to a revolution (such as in Russia in 1918) which would overthrow Capitalism.

Gramsci explained this apparent contradiction. In an important insight, he realized that Capitalism (as an exploitative economic system) was locked in place not only through political and economic pressure from the ruling class and the Bourgeoisie, but also by an ideology and a national culture which framed the economic debate in favour of Capitalism. Capitalism could not be overthrown by a spontaneous uprising because the entire cultural ideology of the day provided for a vocabulary and understanding of the economic system which limited the worker classes’ ability to understand that they are the victims of exploitation. Because Capitalism and the cultural order of the day did provide for the meagre meal on their tables, workers were unwilling to revolt and were even loyal to the system.

Thus, Capitalism was kept in place by the fundamental inability of workers to understand it as exploitative. Underlying this inability was the cultural order of the day and the closed economic debate. And this cultural order and set-up was grounded in the ideology and culture of the populace.

The entire system is stabilized by a Cultural Elite and a Ruling Class who maintain the cultural system by imposing cultural uniformity on workers, and by disciplining anyone who deviates or challenges cultural norms. Gramsci was decades ahead of other ideologues.

The implication of Gramsci’s understanding was that to undermine Capitalism, one must first undermine the culture and ideology of the workers and of the Bourgeoisie. This would affect a change in the cultural reference points and framing of the political debate, or would destabilise these to the point where the cultural adherence of workers to Capitalism could be weakened. The fates of entire societies and countries could be changed. In this respect, the American philosopher and educator Allan Bloom remarked somewere in his book "The Closing of the American Mind" that the study of political ideology is the most important of intellectual activities.

These ideas are indeed very subversive. They discard, for example, notions such as good and evil grounded in Christianity. Instead, good and evil became subjective concepts with meanings which only depend on framing the debate in terms of culture and ideology. Change the meaning of culture, and you also change the meaning of good and of evil. It was not long before Gramsci’s insights infiltrated Western life. The dominance of a ruling culture, and the self-maintainance of this culture was called "cultural hegemony", and Gramsci’s perception that Capitalism was held in place by the hegemonic ruling culture had important influences on leftist Western ideology. Leftist activists (including gay rights activists, pro-abortion crusaders, feminists, desegregationists and others) took up the challenge to undermine and change Western culture and so to affect the perception society had of their causes.

Christianity and its dominant institutions (especially marriage) came under direct assault and the Social Sciences and Humanities departments at universities became battle grounds where the youth could be indoctrinated and their cultural assumptions be challenged.

The Long March through Western institutions started in earnest after the Second World War in analogy to Mao Tse Tung’s march to Beijing. Its principle goal is the overthrow of Capitalism, and the destination is Utopia.

The Long March is of course a fundamental idea in Marxist ideology. The political and cultural destination of Marxists (even those of the "neo-" kind) remain the creation of an earthly Utopia; a place where in the words of Marx there would be taken from people "according to their ability" and where there would be given to people "according to their needs". It would be a place of equality, of sharing and of peace where diverse peoples live in harmony.

Utopian journeys are always to a heavenly destination on earth, and this often justifies the grim decisions travellers have to make while en route. Mao Tse Tung’s Long March, Collectivisation by Lenin and Stalin, and more recently, the journey of the ANC through exile to a "democratic South Africa" in the period 1960 to 1990, were all journeys to Utopia where excesses and brutality were necessary offerings required to remain on course. Utopian promises by Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk of a "New South Africa" in 1994 and the "Transformation" of South Africa by the ANC in the period since 1994 are the new Utopian journeys grounded in the Long March. Its excesses, sometimes violent, often repressive and consistently discriminatory, are justified by the importance of the destination.

Utopia is the earhtly paradise where people live in perfect harmony. While Christianity offers a heavenly Paradise after death, Marxism promises Paradise.on earth. A Paradise that is achievable through revolution and transformation. It is a place of abundance and peace; and a place where the past is irrelevant.

Historicism is a direct consequence of Gramsci’s insight and one of his mayor contributions to Marxist ideology. While most Marxists acknowledge objective historical truths, Gramsci had the view that history is only true in a social and relative context. This relativist approach to history has since been exported to other fields of knowledge, and matured as Relativism after the Second World War.

History, and the way in which it frames perception, provides cultural reference points which often urge men to defend their cultural inheritance tenaciously. It must therefore be deconstructed and discarded or scaled down if a Utopian transformation is to take place. A Long March requires that the perception of history be changed.

Western ideology and culture were fully founded in a historical Christian ethos which defined a Free Man and his fundamental rights to act economically and socially in free will in Gramsci’s day. In contrast to Marxism, Chistianity presented an alternative ideology of absolute truths and absolute good and evil. It promised a heavenly Paradise after death in contrast to the earthly Utopia of Marxists. Thus, Christendom was isolated as an essential opponent. The Long March is also an atheist journey.

Why did Gramsci’s ideas spread so wide, and influenced the Western World so profoundly after the Second World War ended? The answer is twofold. Firstly, the War destroyed Fascism as an alternative ideology. Secondly, and this is quite ironic, there was already the example of a New World in the United States of America.

The Second World War destroyed the historical political order in Europe. The ethnic nation states which once so completely dominated the World were left insecure and without strong social and political cohesion. This ideological vacuum was filled by liberal democratic systems imported from the New World, while ethnic solidarity was discouraged because it was apparently responsible for the disasters that two World Wars brought over Europe. Ethnic Chauvinism and Fascism were regarded as despicable ideologies in the West.

The New World is a social project where the past was viewed as both unimportant and even as a mythological construct which may be given arbitrary meaning. New immigrants shook off their ethnic pasts in Europe and elsewhere to melt into America, a place where history and ethnicity are put aside with the goal of creating a great society which viewed their diverse pasts in Europe as quantum mechanical and of uncertain quality. America often discounts her own past or reflects negatively on the long memories of other peoples. It is a society resolutely looking towards the future. This affected Europeans in the period after the war, and they similarly started to disgard their pasts as well as the historical cultural bonds of Chistianity.

Gramsci’s understanding of cultural hegemony and historicism can certainly in the narrowest sense be understood as a reaction against Italian or European Fascism. The importation of liberal democratic ideals into Europe, the rising tide of relativism under Europeans, the defeat of Facism and a confident Communist society in the Soviet Union which defeated the Nazis, had the effect that Gramsci’s ideological insights spread very quickly through the intellectual community in Europe and to a lesser extent also in North America and elsewhere.

Activists and other leftist ideologues including Marxists and Socialists, realised that Gramsci’s ideas created a methodology which can be used to undermine a hegemonic ruling culture and through revolution import an alternative Utopian order. The journey to Utopia, where sexism, racism and other undesirable -isms have been banished, could now be undertaken, and Leftists everywhere put on their walking shoes and started on the Long March through the institutions.

The methodology included the destruction of cultural and social institutions, the undermining of historical certainties through deconstruction and re-interpretation, the use of terminology and related techniques to discipline individuals and to change their perceptions of their environment. Thus political correctness was born, and vulnerable institutions such as universities become hotbeds of activism. Entire departments in the Humanities and Social Sciences had joined the walk to Utopia.

The Christian Church and its related institutions (marriage, the nuclear family as the cradle of childhood education, the notion of an original sin, and a heavenly Paradise) was singled out as enemy number one by these activists as with the Communists before them. In some cases activists cynically exploited or recruited the Church to join their projects and alienated ordinary members from their own insitutions of faith. The result was a cultural assault on Christianity in Europe and to a lesser extent in the New World. This in turn has led to the creation of a post-Christian society in which religion is still less important than in anti-Christian Marxist states where religion was out-lawed.

During the 1920s, the primary goal of the Long March was economic reform of the Capitalist state. Modern cultural wars therefore constitute mere skirmishes on the way. Extreme feminism and anti-racism caused parallel Gramscian cultural battles, and these continue unabated even fifty years later with the main goal being the undermining of contemporary culture and its transformation into a supposedly more egalitarian and equal society. They have severely affected once strong Western cultural and social institutions such as the church, marriage and educational institutions.

Finally, there is the Law of Unintended Consequences. Leftists and other Marxian activitists could not foresee that their attacks on Christianity and Western culture would fatefully undermine the demography of Western states.

The post-war baby boom generation is the largest, healthiest and richest generation in the history of the West. They are also the generation who came of age while Gramscian cultural wars rage on. This generation, influenced by the new cultural order, has rejected the culture of their forebears en masse, and revels in a cultural revolution inspired by events which occurred decades before in a different place and for different reasons. As this generation now marches into late middle and geriatric age, its legacy will be coming up for review. The largest and best educated of all Western generations, it should have produced a large number of geniuses, artists, and notable political and social figures. But as someone remarked, this generation only invented safe sex, and rock and roll. And of course, we’ll forget about the rock and roll in due course.

The Gramscian revolutions have left a cultural vacuum, and as the baby boomers are dying leaving few children, this is compounded by a demographic vacuum, particularly in Western Europe. These vacua are being filled by Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. Empty churches and vibrant mosques are becoming an essential part of Europe, and it is more often the mosques which are filling the cultural and demographic vacua left behind by a retreating Christendom. Migration from Muslim nations to Europe would have been of little consequence if Europe had a strong demographic profile. However, the migration in European states with declining populations will have remarkable results.

Diminishing the influences of Christianity and overthrowing the cultural and religious order in Europe did not lead to Utopia, as many of Gramsci’s fellow travellers believed it would. It has led to a vacuum which is being filled by a fundamentalist religion unaffected and at odds with the transformation of society promised by Marxists and their fellow travellers.

It is in this sense that the Gramscian cultural wars in the West led to a new cultural war between a branch of fundamentalist Muslims and the remains of Christianity and other liberal democrats in the West. This cultural war is compounded by globalisation and brings different belief-systems and cultures previously seperated by distance together.

It is also fundamentally not of the Gramscian type. It is an irony that many Western observers have become so limited by the intellectual hegemony of Gramscian ideology, that they are not able to understand this fact. Most Westerners are still on a Long March to Utopia, where they believe that different cultures and religions will live in harmony in a state which is basically atheist as promised by the Marxist radicals of Gramsci’s age. Radical Muslims have a completely different destination in mind. This disparate views of the future in Europe are causing great discomfort to many Europeans educated in the mold of a Great Society of diverse peoples living in harmony, as Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci and French author Jean Raspail, among others, have discovered.

The shortcomings of modern Western intellectual thought, especially on the left of the political spectrum, make the development of a proper framework for the new cultural war all but impossible. In their confusion their sympathies are often with the fundamentalists in the cultural war they believe to be Gramscian in nature, rather than with the defenders of historical democratic Western principles which made the West once so powerful and succesful.

While defenders of Western values are still a majority in most Western nations, the exponential laws underlying demography are already working against them. In the medium-to-longer term, momentum and advantage are on the other side, and their eventual and perhaps inevitable triumph will change some Western nations, especially in Europe, at the most basic level. As the Canadian commentator Mark Steyn remarked in a recent opinion piece: (and I paraphrase) "If a bunch of gay men in Amsterdam think that they will be able to continue freely with their gay lifestyle in a Holland with a population which is 40% or 50% Muslim, or if they think that they will be able to pull up roots at will and fly away to San Francisco, then they live in a fool’s paradise".

But we are all bystanders.

зимняя куртка для девочки интернетОлександр Васильович Фільчаков

Losing a war

ImageIn recent weeks Washington DC has been rocked by a sex scandal. A Republican member of Congress, Mark Foley, was accused of soliciting underage pages (teenagers who work as aides to members of Congress) by sending them emails with explicit sexual content. Foley, who was known as a campaigner for "values", was exposed as a hypocrite when copies of the emails were published on the blog "Stop Sex Predators" before it was picked up by ABC news and broadcast nationally.
These allegations are scandalous, to say the least, and politicians, spin-doctors, journalists and others went into a feeding frenzy. Talking heads on television shows and radio commentators pontificated about the scandal and its consequences for hours and sometimes days on end while journalists in the print media wrote many inches of columns, analyzing and dissecting the allegations. This is Bill Clinton all over again – sex in the holiest of American places, in the Congress and Oval Office. Only the American Supreme Court has remained immune, so far.

Arguments about the allegations have now descended to their predictable low, namely, who knew what when, and who should be blamed. Republican members of Congress are busy arranging themselves into a firing squad taking aim at one another, and soon the shooting will start in earnest, with members of the Democratic Party looking on in bemusement, if not amazement.

These events would have been tragicomic and provided humorous relief from the drudgery of everyday life, given normal circumstances. But these are not normal days, and while American politicians are twisting themselves into knots about the scandal, the rest of the world is busy moving on to an apparently inevitable destination.

The depth and viciousness of the reaction to Foley’s transgressions also illustrate that Americans have psychologically progressed beyond September 11, 2001, and that the perception is taking hold that the War on Terror has become at best a distraction, and at worst an unnecessary drain on national resources. The fact remains that the consequences of the Foley scandal may well influence the perception and actions of Americans in world affairs, and in particular in the War on Terror.

The timing of the Foley scandal will almost certainly drastically affect the upcoming elections for Members of Congress on November 7, 2006. The Republican Party, which enjoys small majorities in both Houses of Congress was expected to hang onto reduced majorities, but the Foley scandal and the increasing unpopularity of the Bush administration, have almost certainly swung the election in favour of the Democratic Party.

Observers are generally of the opinion that a change of majority party in the American Congress will have dramatic consequences internationally. A major rift is developing in American society on the issue of the War on Terror, and particularly, about the war in Iraq. While the White House still claims that the war is being won, there is a pervasive pessimism about the War, and rumour has it that even insiders in the White House and in Congress are privately expressing their doubts.

On the left of the political spectrum the Democratic Party is positioning itself to present the war as similar to the war in Vietnam. From this perspective the war cannot be won, and a speedy withdrawal is necessary to save lives and to spare America a humiliating and inevitable defeat.

On the right the Republican Party argues that the war is in the American interest. Handing over the battlefield in Iraq to Muslim extremists, they argue, would simply move the conflict from the Middle East to the Home Front. After all, September 11, 2001, was an attack on the Home Front, and by invading Iraq, the conflict was transposed to the Middle East.

The war is now dragging through its fourth year, and American casualties are mounting, surpassing 2000 in 2006. Material losses, the deaths of countless civilians, and a determined insurgency mounted by foreign Muslims, are the hallmarks of this conflict. American intentions to dethrone Sadam Hussein and to turn Iraq into a democratic state seem now like the naïve dreams of a teenager.

The situation in Afghanistan may appear more hopeful, but is in reality not much better than in Iraq. Dead and wounded Canadian and other NATO soldiers are becoming a reality of the West’s attempts at pacifying the country, and Pakistan is becoming more open in its de facto support of the Taliban while covert Pakistani support of insurgents represents a major headache for Western soldiers.

Thus, while the fascination and accusations regarding Foley’s sexually predatory behaviour towards teenage pages are capturing American attention, the War on Terror drags on and a Congressional election is looming with an outcome which will probably be decided by the Foley scandal, with the result that the War on Terror will be either scaled down significantly, or perhaps even abandoned.

This is the stuff of small random events having major and lasting consequences.

That the war in Iraq has deeply divided Americans is becoming clearer with each passing month. A nascent anti-war movement is starting up, paradoxically initially led by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a dead American soldier. While some European Powers are directly involved in Afghanistan under NATO command, Europeans generally do not have the desire to become further involved in Iraq, and repeated American requests for more soldiers to add to the 144,000 American soldiers already deployed in Iraq and in Afghanistan have fallen on deaf ears. In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become more or less a war between an Anglo Alliance and Muslim insurgents, with the rest of the world looking on in either bewilderment, or bemusement, depending on their points of view.

Can America defeat the Iraqi insurgency and create a democratic Iraq, the goals they set for themselves in 2003? Probably not, and with a predicted Democratic Party victory in the upcoming Congressional elections, one may expect Americans to start planning a withdrawal – if not under the leadership of President Bush, then under his successor. The American public is increasingly against the Iraq war, and the anti-war movement is likely to grow over the next couple of years. One may also expect, all things remaining as they are, that the next American Presidential election will be influenced and perhaps be decided by the war effort.

What does this all prove? First, that Osama bin Laden and his enablers were correct when they predicted that the West cannot fight a prolonged war. Western attention spans are short, and modern Westerners generally have a singular inability to maintain a difficult course, even if it is in their own interest.

Secondly, this proves that the warnings of demographers that Western population decline will have dramatic affects on the ability of the West to project power in other regions of the world, were correct. America is being proven impotent by a rag-tag army of ill-trained and ill-equipped insurgents, and it appears that the time has ended when European and American governments could project power at will into every corner of the world. Perhaps the defeat of the Russians by the Mujahaddin in Afghanistan was a precursor to the current troubles Western forces face, and NATO is not faring any better in their attempt to subjugate and pacify Muslim radicals in that part of the world.

Thirdly, it proves the self-evident truth that only demographically robust societies can fight limitless wars. The suffering and heartache of small families in the West whose only sons are killed in far-flung corners of the world have a much more severe impact on their societies than the deaths of Muslim insurgents of demographically strong societies who fought for perceived liberation within their own countries. In addition, their more robust demographics ensure a virtually limitless supply of fighters. If the West can fight for 5 years, then these societies can fight for 50, and still be ready for the next battle.

Fourthly, the changing demographics in Western countries, with their own surging Muslim populations, is having an effect on the perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the Western mind. Muslim citizens of Western nations are joining and influencing the debate with respect to the War on Terror, and their surging demography will likely increase their influence on both international and domestic policy. Anti-Muslim activities in Western countries are on the increase, but it will be difficult for "indigenous" Westerners to turn the demographic tide. Projections of a "Londonistan" and "Eurabia" by Western observers and authors seem accurate, and this will change post-Christian Western countries and Westerners fundamentally.

Fifthly, the war in Iraq and the inability of the Americans to project their power must paint a disquieting picture for the Israelis. An American defeat in Iraq will prove American impotence and embolden anti-Israel sentiments in the region. As America withdraws from the region, more will Americans will question their involvement in the Middle East and their historical support for Israel. Already, prominent American lawmakers are questioning the involvement of America in the international sphere, and they are pleading for a more isolationist stance or a complete American withdrawal from the international arena. This will mean that America’s allies will be abandoned, and Israel, still reeling from her (mis)adventure in Lebanon earlier this year, must be concerned about the developments and inability of America in Iraq.

That the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be decided by the sexual escapades of a relatively unknown American Congressman is indeed ironic, and is surely a sign of American and Western decadence. Al Qa’ida declared war against the West, and their sympathizers claimed that the West has become too decadent to fight a prolonged war.

The testing grounds for the recipe followed by the Muslim and Al Qa’ida insurgents in Afghanistan and in Iraq, in my opinion, were the African wars of liberation, fought after the Second World War between Portuguese, Rhodesian and South African forces on the one side, and nationalist African insurgents on the other side. In all these wars a weak and often divided insurgency was time and again definitively defeated in battle, yet they all eventually prevailed by achieving all their goals, and some more.

Muslim insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq would know that their efforts are not wasted, and that time is on their side. As ZANU-PF and Frelimo and the ANC marched to victory to prove that ill-trained and ill-equipped insurgents can defeat well-trained, well-armed and motivated armies, the Muslim insurgents are following a proven recipe, and it is obvious who will prevail in the long run.

sponsored instagramФільчаков Олександр Васильович прокурор

The North-Korean bomb

ImageAt 10:39 a.m. local time on 9 October 2006, a small tremor shook North Korea’s North Hamgyong Province. The event was measured at magnitude 4.2 on the Richter scale by the US Geological Survey, although detectors in Japan, China and Australia detected localized seismic activity which may have been somewhat lower on the Richter scale.

There was an immediate flurry of activity internationally, culminating with announcements by Japan, the US and China condemning North Korea for testing a nuclear weapon and breaking its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which it signed in 1985 as a condition to buy a nuclear power plant from the Soviet Union.

It is unclear whether this nuclear test was successful. The yield of the weapon was in the kiloton range, and smaller than the bombs which destroyed Japanese cities in 1945. Current speculation is that the explosion may have fizzled, and that the weapon still suffers some design flaws and other deficiencies. There are even allegations that this is all an elaborate hoax by the North Koreans.

General agreement by experts, however, seems to suggest that a nuclear device was set off, and that a nuclear chain reaction was part of this event. Even if the test "fizzled", it would still have produced valuable data for the engineers and scientists constructing the weapon. They will now make the necessary improvements and changes to increase the yield of the weapon, and I think that an announcement for a second test will be made in a matter of months, if not weeks.

There have long been suspicions in the West that North Korea is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. In his state of the union address on 22 January 2002, the American President Bush labeled North Korea as belonging to the "axis of evil" together with Iran and Iraq, and it appears that these countries have been exchanging nuclear technology.

It does not take much to make a nuclear weapon. Banks of industrial grade centrifuges and a supply of fissionable material (usually Uranium or Plutonium), and knowledge of nuclear chemistry (the chemistry of radioactive transuranium elements), plus engineering skills are really all that is needed.

The science and engineering behind these weapons are old and well understood, and are freely available, at least for older designs such as the Hiroshima bomb (an uranium bomb) or the Nagasaki bomb (a plutonium bomb). In most of these designs, subcritical masses of enriched uranium or plutonium are blasted together or imploded and radiated with neutrons from a neutron source to set of an uncontrolled chain reaction in a supercritical mass of fissionable material. The resulting run-away chain reaction fissions large numbers of atoms in nanoseconds, and releases enormous amounts of energy at the nuclear scale by breaking bonds formed by the strong force between nucleons. This release of nuclear energy produces hard radiation (gamma rays and X rays), enormous amounts of heat and pressure, resulting in a very large explosion which at the low end will be measured in kilotons. In more sophisticated designs a fission bomb is used to set off a fusion reaction in deuterium and tritium atoms resulting in explosions measured in the megaton range. This is the hydrogen bomb.

To be sure, while the science and engineering of nuclear weapons are understood and now even old science, constructing a bomb is not without challenges. Uranium and transuranium elements are heavy metals, and apart from the dangers of their radioactive nature, are also chemical poisons that are often difficult to work with. Enrichment (which involves the separation of isotopes to make fissionable material) is a difficult engineering challenge, and working safely with the nuclear materials in the construction of the bomb is not easy.

It is however, doable for a poor and backwards country. And this is what North Korea seems to have demonstrated.

The CIA fact book estimates that the GDP of North Korea is about 40 billion dollars. This is not much more than the GDP of Zimbabwe, which is about 28 billion dollars, and somewhat less than the GDP of Cuba (about 40 billion dollars).

Generally, North Korea is considered a poor place with an incompetent economy, bad leaders, and economic output per capita less than that of an average Zimbabwean. It is run by a megalomaniac leader (Kim Jong Il) with a rubberstamp Supreme People’s Assembly in an oppressive Stalinist State where people have no individual freedoms. Normally, such a basket case would be ignored at worst by the rest if the world, or be the recipient of aid at best.

North Korean scientists and engineers do not have free access to Western resources. The export of industrial tools necessary for the making of a nuclear weapon is controlled by the International community. North Korea is also isolated in its own region. Japan is hostile, and border disputes with China, as well as refugees which flow from North Korea into China, results in strained relations with its most important neighbour and trading partner.

Yet, in spite of this, this very backwards and poor country appears to have produced a workable nuclear weapon, and it is also well on its way developing missiles which may be able to deliver this weapon over hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometers. To be sure, some difficult challenges remain, but if nothing is done, then it may eventually succeed in producing a workable nuclear tipped missile which could strike Japan or even further away.

The news of North Korea’s nuclear bomb has caused consternation in the West and especially in Japan. It is known that North Korea and Iran are exchanging nuclear technology, and all indications are that Iran is working on its own bomb, perhaps in collaboration with North Korea.

An Iranian bomb will upset the balance of power in the Middle East. At this time Israel is the only Nuclear Power in the region, but it may be joined soon by a threatening Iran.

Meanwhile, a North Korean bomb will also upset the balance of power in East Asia. South Korean insecurities will be enhanced, and the immunity a nuclear weapon provides will allow North Korea to take a much more threatening and bold position along the demilitarized zone (DMZ) which was established at the end of the Korean War to separate the warring parties from one another.

More importantly, the North Korean bomb proves that even an isolated, backwards and poor state can manufacture nuclear weapons. As in any population, the North Korean population does contain its share of technological and scientific geniuses, and enough of them to build a bomb. The hostility of an Iran or North Korea to the West may also induce them to provide radicals with the bomb or help them to construct their own, with unthinkable results.

In the United States these events have generated some comment, and I thought for a moment that some Republican members of Congress fell on their knees to thank the gods for the North Korean bomb. The Republican Party, whose members of Congress are facing a difficult election in November, is usually seen as the party which is better at providing international security, and Americans have traditionally sent more Republicans to Congress when feeling insecure because of international events.

This time around, however, Americans have given the news of the North Korean bomb a big yawn, and the momentary hope that this will turn the tide for Republicans evaporated as soon as new poll numbers became available. The Mark Foley scandal, President Bush’ unpopularity, the increasingly unpopular Iraq war, and other domestic issues, still dominates the political discussion in the US, and the North Korean bomb could sweep these issues aside.

Should Americans be concerned about the North Korean bomb? Only time will tell.

But it is conceivable that many other peoples in other parts of the world should thank their lucky stars that they have become bystanders, and that their disagreements are not anymore as closely connected with the West’s fortunes as it were during the Cold War.

машинка машинкаЛобановский Харьков

Joe Slovo’s legacy lives on

Joe Slovo may be dead, but his legacy lives on. With the release of the movie "Catch a Fire", Uncle Joe’s progeny (with Australian film maker Philip Noyce) have struck another blow against the evil Boers.

The plot, written by Shawn Slovo (the oldest of Uncle Joe’s awful trio), with credits to Robyn Slovo (another of Pappa Joe’s awful trio), is as predictable as it is dull: A morally balanced black victim is set upon by Nazi Boer operatives (the Germanic accent is as unmistakable as it was predictable). He vows revenge, and sets out to blow up an oil refinery – a plan crafted by Pappa Joe who used others to do his dirty work. This is yet another rehashing of an idea that may have been originally due to Nadine Gordimer, or some other author whose only claim to legitimacy lies in exploiting and warping the historical facts of the apartheid period in South Africa.

"The Acclaimed New Thriller Based on a True Story" exclaimed ads for the movie in Western newspapers, promising viewers a righteous journey of truth fighting evil. Yet some of the unmistakable details of the times are missing: no necklacings, no killings of accused collaborators of the white regime, no revolutionary songs extolling the virtues of killing whites (see for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc), no killings of whites by stonings or shootings, and of course, no reference to the communist underpinnings of the philosophy extolled by the African National Congress at that time; whose Freedom Charter reads like an introduction to the Constitution of the Deutsche Democratic Republic.

The intellectual roots of "Catch a Fire" can be traced back to Joe Slovo. The absolutely awful Uncle Joe was in his day the leader of the South African Communist Party and a committed follower of an even more awful version of Stalinism. He was also the leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe – the armed wing of the ANC that specialized in attacks on economic and civilian targets in South Africa. This is particularly ironic, since Uncle Joe’s parents fled Lithuania for South Africa, apparently because of a virulent brand of anti-Semitism in Joe Stalin’s Soviet Union in 1934. Once safely in South Africa, and under protection of the Boers, the awful Joe quickly forgot the evils of Stalinism, and instead switched sides to become a committed follower of Stalin and a determined enemy of the Boers.

Uncle Joe has already given up the ghost, but his spirit marches on in his children. One of his red diaper babies, now not a mere youngster anymore, has here made a movie which would make their Pappa proud. In this they have recruited Philip Noyce, who apparently would not let historical details such as Stalinism and necklacings stand in the way of making a good movie, and who would willingly rub shoulders with the inheritors of an ideology so banal and intellectually bankrupt that even the most stupid of leaders of the modern ANC have abandoned it. Only Blade Nzimande, some elements in the PAC and second tier followers of Jacob Zuma, still march on this abandoned road while Joe’s ghost eggs them on to even more outrageous ideological positions.

But Pappa Joe’s intellectual short-sightedness and evil ideology will not stop the Slovo girl from making a killing here. No, they have gone to the Capitalist West, got an Ozzie, and made a movie for the stupid capitalistic proletariat in the United States who will in droves ooh and aah about the intellectual shallowness of the script and the virtuous portrait it paints of black good and white evil. And then completely miss the point about the Stalinist legacy and blatant propagandistic motives underlying this effort. And for Pappa Joe’s girls, this is also another kick at the Boers in his honour.

The Slovo family fled the intense anti-Semitism in the Stalinist Soviet Union when Joe was only eight, and they should know, if by word of mouth, the evils underlying the stereotyping of entire populations. But this message appears lost on this awful lot. Like a Nadine Gordimer who in her torturous prose made a living vilifying and stereotyping Boers, the Slovo girls live in a universe of evil Boers from which they sample and display bits to make a living at the often lethal expense of others.

Shawn Slovo’s first movie (A World Apart, 1989) explored the same ideas as in Catch a Fire, and one has to wonder if her intellectual capacity is limited to but one idea. Her younger sibling (Gillian Slovo) has similarly explored the same theme in her novel Red Dust, an effort that could be safely ignored if it was not for the pervasive stereotyping of Boers in page after limited page.

In the world of the Slovo girls, Boers are one dimensional caricatures of evil to be exploited for profit at the box office. There are no good, bad or ugly Boers. No Boers with diverse opinions and even more diverse lives. No Boers who are sportsman, or honest soldiers, or academics or accountants or farmers or victims of assault or exploited and victimized children. No, the Boers are oppressive assholes who teach their children to shoot to kill.

But the Slovo girls are getting the last laughs. They have since abandoned South Africa and live in capitalistic comfort overseas, making fortunes by stereotyping Boers (of whom thousands have now been killed since 1994 in unprovoked attacks by former members of Umkhonto we Sizwe, Pappa Joe’s former outfit).

These girls may be the red diaper babies of a Stalinist, but at least they are not Boers – and even the progeny of a Stalinist love the moral high ground. That appears to be their claim to legitimacy. And the West will give them that. The Stalinist legacy will be overlooked, the stereotyping of an entire and diverse nation of Boers will be accepted at face value, and the Slovo girls will get filthy rich from royalties while striking a blow for Pappa against his old enemies. Pappa will frown at the blatant capitalistic profiteering of his girls, but he will approve of this movie.

дровяная печь длялобановский харьков класс

Alex Boraine: Scratching where it’s not itching

ImageIN a recent news article, former deputy head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) dr. Alex Boraine accused the National Prosecuting Authority of dragging it’s feet in the prosecution of people denied amnesty by the TRC. The United Nations Committee backed Boraine’s plea, claiming that people suspected of torturing prisoners during apartheid should be put "on trial and pay compensation to the victims."

n a recent news article (http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,9294,2-7-1442_2035657,00.html ), former deputy head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) dr. Alex Boraine accused the National Prosecuting Authority of dragging it’s feet in the prosecution of people denied amnesty by the TRC. The United Nations Committee backed Boraine’s plea, claiming that people suspected of torturing prisoners during apartheid should be put "on trial and pay compensation to the victims."

One cannot help but question why the prosecution of former leading figures under apartheid is still considered a major priority amongst South Africa’s new ruling class. Obviously justice should be served, but the current levels of violence, murder and mayhem under ANC rule eclipses the crimes committed during apartheid by far, in effect making a mockery of the whole idea of justice, not to mention reconciliation. Had South Africa transformed into the stable, prosperous and peaceful country its citizens hoped for, the justice in this act would have been understandable. The current ANC’s feet-dragging policy towards combating AIDS and violence though, seems to be conveniently overlooked in this plea.

The absurdity is exacerbated if one considers the tendentiousness on which the TRC was founded. In stead of a bona fide courtroom trial, in which first of all the nature of a crime has to be thoroughly examined before prosecution could take place, the TRC drew an a-priori conclusion regarding the criminal nature of apartheid and henceforth proclaimed to investigate to what extent the crimes committed could be considered crimes. In short: You are guilty, but exactly how guilty needs to be discovered, effectively leaving the administrators during the apartheid regime in a Kafkaesque "damned if you do, damned if you don’t" double bind. In doing so, the TRC placed itself in the position of the sole moral authority over South Africa, an act that portends the rise of a totalitarian regime where a minority now finds itself at the mercy of a "moral" majority.

Boraine’s plea follows two significant events pertaining to South Africa’s past and present. Firstly former president P.W. Botha passed away, and contrary to the expectations of many South Africans, president Thabo Mbeki hailed Botha as a leader who made a significant contribution to dismantle apartheid. Messages of gratitude and scorn were echoed world wide through media and discussion forums, some calling Botha a hero and man of integrity, other calling him a Fascist, oppressor and even a war criminal.

The other significant event was the release of the United Nations Human Development Index (http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_ZAF.html), where the declining state of health in South Africa is for all to see. What makes this report especially significant is the gradual increase of South Africa’s general health from 1975 onwards, reaching a plateau in 1990 and sharply declining from 1995, shortly after the ANC took power. South Africa slid down 35 places since 1990, currently ranking at 121 out of 177 countries. The main cause of this decline is attributed to the AIDS epidemic.

Even though the TRC issued a harsh sentence towards apartheid, general health statistics paint a somewhat nuanced picture. Indeed, life expectancy amongst Africans increased significantly during white rule from Verwoerd onwards. Tuberculosis was brought well under control and infant mortality rate fell sharply. During apartheid, the economy grew at a steady 3,5% per annum, the number of black school going children increased by 250% during the first 25 years and during the last 20 years of white rule, the total number of income earners in the entire South African economy saw blacks almost double from 20% in 1975 to 37% in 1995. These contributions left TRC head Archbishop Desmond Tutu unimpressed, claiming "a bad tree cannot bear good fruit". Along with this, Tutu launched a fierce attack on F.W. de Klerk for possessing knowledge regarding the Boipatong massacre, perhaps even orchestrating it. A preposterous accusation, especially given the volatile transition period. No leader would ever risk a civil war by inciting violence amongst tribes. Only when De Klerk threatened legal action to shut down the TRC, Tutu withdrew his unfounded accusation.

From this perspective, Boraine’s accusation to once again pay attention to past crimes merits concern. Not only has the TRC revealed its biased witch-hunting approach that paid little respect for great achievements that were made during apartheid, it also claims to be an organ superior to the rule of law. This is demonstrated further when three years ago a legal team led by Ed Fagan wanted to sue major American companies for profiteering from apartheid, as apartheid was declared a crime against humanity ( http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=9459 ). Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu stepped in the fray discouraging the plaintiffs, with Mandela stating that South Africans do not need outside interference and are capable to deal with issues of reconciliation, reparation and transformation among themselves (the irony being that the same international interference turned Mandela into a leading symbol of hope). This makes one wonder as to the honesty of the TRC’s accusation that apartheid is a crime against humanity, a view originally held by the Communist block in the United Nations and dismissed by the West. It should surprise few that many TRC members had Communist sympathies, and the TRC hearing should therefore be seen as an elongation of Communist deceptive facade politics. After all, what damage could a legal tribunal have done that the TRC could not?

The most reasonable assumption for the UN committee’s and Boraine’s actions would be to distract the attention away from the current political chaos that is undermining South Africa as a nation. It seems as if a need to establish a moral credibility is needed. The ANC is clearly a failing government. Ten years ago South Africa boasted as world leader in training medical doctors. Today the minister of health, dr. Manto Tshabalala Msimang advises the use of a garlic cocktail to treat HIV infections. Many qualified South Africans are leaving the country because of unpopular government policy, opinion makers have expressed doubt in South Africa’s ability to host the 2010 FIFA World Soccer event, and leftist anti-apartheid authors and poets have expressed their discontent with the ANC government. Breyten Breytenbach referred to the ANC as racist and Stalinist, André P. Brink called safety and security minister Charles Nquakula a monster and Nadine Gordimer typified some developments in South Africa as ‘very, very worrying’. Mbeki’s comradeship with Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe does little to inspire confidence with white landowners, whom are according to certain experts already being threatened with genocide. Incidentally, veteran anti-apartheid politician Helen Suzman warned against Thabo Mbeki stating he is "most definitely anti-white".

Dr. Boraine is in effect defying that very same moral principle he proclaims to uphold. The message he sends out justifies governments’ draconian anti-white laws and condones the current mayhem. To delve into the past twelve years after the end of white rule seems to reveal a certain sense of fatalism, a perception that South Africa could not be saved on its current course. This in turn reinforces governments continuing strive to turn South Africa into a once again divided country, but this time between rich and poor. Time will tell which the bigger of the two evils would be, even though many people already made up their minds on this matter. Poverty and hunger enslave people more than any "whites only" poster could.

casinos onlineФільчаков Олександр Васильович прокурор