South Africa Today, The Script Unfolds …

South Africa’s recent election outcome with the ruling African National Congress (ANC) having lost hundreds of thousands of votes came and went as no surprise.

One of the major reasons seems to be, as repeatedly documented; the ANC has become insensitive to the poor majority and has to urgently redefine itself.

moneyIt will have to act on, for example, the e-tolls system and do away with rightwing policies forthwith. In fact, the ANC and its government will not get away without a high-quality, effective and efficient intelligence force, a force similar to that of Zimbabwe. ESKOM, Rand Water and the Traffic Departments are all in serious need of honest, hands-on management. Outsourcing has become a swear word and should be treated as such, because it is one of the roots of corruption.

About thirty years ago a group of well-qualified senior ANC intelligence officers read the strategy of the racist-apartheid Nationalist Party (NP) regime then, which was fully backed by the international West.

A small group of senior ANC NEC members explained under the condition of anonymity, “The White NP regime together with the owners of the economy collaborated as ‘architects-of-apartheid’. Their strategy was to unban the ANC, SACP, PAC, Cosatu and all its affiliates, to put together a multi-party democracy, as they had done in the late 1970s in occupied Namibia. Their “democratic model” would be a two-tier system, similar to the old Roman structures.”

“Their two-tier system would include a host of strategic structures such as the NP’s “regional governments”; the Progressive Federal Party (PFP)-Democratic Alliance (DA) “federal system”, which mischievous armchair academics describe as a “Swiss Canton model”; the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) called it the “con-federal system” with the IFP ruling KwaZulu-Natal on its own and the apartheid-Homeland leaders like general Bantu Holomisa and Lucas Mangope, who would call that system ”Bantustans.”

“The above would leave the ANC, SACP, SACTU, COSATU on the outskirts of the corridors of government.”

Like SWAPO Party in Namibia, who was strongly against South Africa’s NP regime’s dictate with its huge host of 149 political parties then, competing against incoming SWAPO, the ANC intelligence officers and strategists were directly opposed against a similar strategy for South Africa.”

“Whittling down support of both liberation movements would create inflated and hugely expensive provincial governments with nine ministers and their staff complement for as many portfolios. This strategy would lead to ‘consumption expenditure’ instead of ‘infrastructural development expenditure’, this writer was told.

As it is today, the treasury pays 55% of the annual national budget towards the nine provincial administrations. If only a two-third majority in parliament would allow the number of provinces to be reduced to four, maximum five provinces, then central government and its treasury would simply have to cut its budget for the provinces.

The ANC team of strategists and intelligence officers also warned that the Western Cape would be won by an apartheid-colonial NP-alliance. That structure would establish a corridor through to the Free State Province and its capitol, Bloemfontein. The Gauteng Province would fall to the same DA conglomerate by 2019. Will the Gauteng Province ever return to the ANC mold again?

In above context, it is small wonder that ANC strategists and intelligence officers were not at all surprised at the Local Government elections outcome. In fact, the late Chris Hani did not support the regional government system in any way.

As revealed to this writer, “During the Codesa negotiations in 1994 the international West had forced the ANC team to adopt the secret “Sunset Clauses”, as developed by FW de Klerk and Joe Slovo. The alternative was that the racist-apartheid regime threatened, it would kill millions of native African South Africans in their townships by dropping nuclear devices on them.”

The same ANC intelligence officers further warned against “Chris Hani being murdered, as he stood in the way of the covert plotters. The enemy’s covert operations were to kill Hani, as he was intelligent and not corruptible. He understood the enemy tactics too well, including those of certain suspicious ANC leaders and insiders”, this commentator was told.

“The above-mentioned report included that covert operations would follow Hani’s murder up by character assassinating Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma. Both were described as easy targets, as one had a drinking problem and the other a problem with women and money. Such character assassinations could lead to self-destruction. The ANC intelligence had warned the movement about such nefarious activities some thirty years ago.”

Recalled Thabo Mbeki met the EFF leaders on the eve of the elections. He also did not attend any of the ‘star rallies’ of his ruling party and avoided to go onto the campaign trail. When interviewed whom he would vote for, if, he expressed his abhorrence over corruption. Mbeki hinted about his vote and said, “The electorate would have to follow its conscience.” Did it not actually send a message to the ANC members not to vote?

The revered, late ANC President in exile, Oliver Reginald Tambo, maintained that no living being would be stronger than the ANC.

The late ANC and country president, Nelson Mandela, is on record having said in 1993 before he was elected as president of a new South Africa, “If people relax their vigilance, they will find their sacrifices have been in vain. If the ANC does not deliver the goods, the people must do to it what they have done to the apartheid regime … “

What is it that both above-mentioned leaders knew then already, that the rest of the leadership and its voters have not been exposed to?

Internationally renowned researcher, author and journalist, professor John Pilger commented, “The economic ‘growth’, which Nelson Mandela applauds, was once described by Joseph Schumpeter, the doyen of Harvard economists, as ‘creative destruction’.”

South African businessman, Mzi Khumalo, comments, “Three ways the White minority has outsmarted the native black majority in the democracy numbers game are:

  • They concentrated their numbers into the Western Cape and secured themselves a dominion. (This is similar to Namibia’s secessionists of the Caprivi Strip, which was argued and punished as “high treason”, this writer.)
  • They follow the divide and conquer strategy by promoting the EFF through the corporate mainstream media cartels and fund it to dilute the impact of Black unity.
  • They then convinced ANC voters that (president) Zuma is unacceptable to vote for, while convincing their most racist voters to vote for the DA, even if their leader is Black.”

“It’s not the ANC, who must smell the coffee, because they will loose power. It’s the Black voter who must smell the coffee, or loose political expression”, Mzi Khumalo explains.

Have power; patronage, resources and subsequent arrogance destroyed the ANC elite?

Have the academic and corporate mainstream media cartels’ propaganda war waged against the ANC, eventually contributed to the ANC’s demise?

Would the ANC be reduced to a rural political party by 2019, whereas the DA and its coalitions would ascend to become a multi-party, urban conglomeration, ruling South Africa?

In fact, the DA did not make any progress in these last elections. The ANC regressed, as voters simply did not vote. The DA rides on a tribal ticket to split the ANC. Have certain ANC factions, lobbied with outside interest groups to accept a “thirty-year-plan” to divide the amaZulu from within the ANC?

Senior ANC NEC sources under the condition of strict anonymity expect, “The funds for the EFF would be re-directed away from a dwindling Congress Of The People (COPE) to the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) to capture the youth and assist the DA in its move to enter the native Black living areas. But, once the EFF tastes power, it will self-destruct. It will be then that the former racist-apartheid NP and owners-of-the-economy’s offspring, the DA, will have used the EFF to its hilt and spit it out.”

South Africa’s judiciary would play a major role, as it slipped through the backdoor into the corridors of political power. The liberal abuse of the constitution has already become the order of the day. The electorate seems confused, who actually wields power in South Africa. However, the electorate understands the problems of the ANC leadership.

The election outcome unfolded exactly as analysed above.



An example of South Africa’s Media Spin. An Open Letter.

The Editor,

The article written by Stephen Grootes on your page 3 of Business Day, Monday, 7 January 2013, cannot go unchallenged.

Grootes wrote under the headline, “Disaffection in the inner circles of the ANC”, that “more stinging criticism over time” from “several high-profile individuals such as Jay Naidoo, Mamphela Rampele, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, former ANC member and now Congress of the People leader Mosiuoa Lekota, Barney and Sipho Pityana” would come forward. Those names according to Grootes are part of the “inner circles of the ANC”. Also, “they have in common that none of them was closely associated with President Jacob Zuma …”.

Does it mean that President Zuma is not part of those “inner circles of the ANC”? Grootes writes on that “in the public eye, their history gives them legitimacy” when criticizing Zuma. “They cannot be written off as aggrieved because they were all opponents of the apartheid regime.” Lauding those ‘legitimate voices of criticism’ of Zuma, Grootes speculates that “their criticism appears to stem from a genuine concern for country and people.” And then, “This means they cannot be accused of having a political agenda.”

He further shows his misled logic by stating at the end of his speculative article, “This is likely to lead to more such individuals emerging with sharper and more stinging criticism.” Neither Tutu, who was never an ANC member, nor Ramphele, nor Naidoo, nor Lekota, nor the Pityana brothers were ever part of the “inner circles of the ANC”.

In fact, it would have been responsible had the writer of that article done his research. He would have been able to establish that the names he used, jumping to claim their impeccable history, hardly have any support among the branches, nor the rank and file of literally the majority of delegates present at Mangaung to write of. They did not have the majority support, nor do they have it, nor will they. Their “stinging criticism” therefore will be heard on a corporate media platform and among its customers only. 

Such speculative, misleading and possibly even mischievous media analysis has led to many South Africans not to have been able to sense the mood leading up to Manguang among the ANC at large. And, the media attended the ANC conference. Despite its wrongful and flawed reporting over a lengthy period, the corporate media still sticks to its leaks and gossip. 

Why would you get it so wrong all the time?

The Dark Side of the Media is its steering of News and Current Affairs in 2013/2014 and beyond

By Udo W. Froese, non-institutionalised, independent political and socio-economic analyst and columnist, based in Johannesburg, South Africa.

 6 January 2013

The dark side of the media is that it is the public platform for the age-old attempt to influence the general public, its client base. Its hidden agenda is to propagandise corporatisation, the only acceptable way forward as part of global capitalism.

Terms such as “embedded journalists”, “academic analysts”, committed to some cause of democracy or another, re-defining popular concepts like ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, ‘choice’, ‘reform’, ‘regime and regime change’, ‘impartiality’, ‘objectivity’ and ‘balance’ is standard practice, reinforced by the access to the facility of technology and the illusion of a “free flow of information”. This means in reality, more media owned by ever fewer conglomerates. This has led to the severe limitation of open public debate and its general participation.

Professor John Pilger, author of the book, “Hidden Agendas” documents, “There is strong evidence that the public has intuitive concerns about the secret laws of media power and its influence over and intrusions in their lives.”

Well-known British journalist, Robert Fisk, commented in one of his columns in The Independent, writing about the so-called “Arab Spring” in North Africa and the Mid East, referring to Syria and quoting Western media, “Syria’s rebels were always “closing in” on Homs, the Damascus, the Aleppo, then Damascus again. The West supported the rebels. Money and guns aplenty came from Qatar and Saudi Arabia (also from Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq, this writer), moral support from Obama, Clinton, the pathetic Hague (in the Netherlands), (France’s new president) Hollande, the whole factory of goodness – until, inevitably, it turned out that the rebels contained rather a lot of Salafists, executioners, sectarian killers (also mercenaries, this author) and in one case (possible more than one, this writer), a teenage head-chopper who behaved rather like the ruthless regime they were fighting.”

In 2001 already, John Pilger wrote in an article referring to the war in Afghanistan that caused a stir in the self-proclaimed international West, under the title, “This war is a farce”, “The war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks’ bombing not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks on the US has been caught or killed in Afghanistan.”

“Instead, one of the poorest, most stricken nations has been terrorised by the most powerful – to the point where US pilots have run out of dubious “military targets” and are now destroying mud huts, a hospital and Red Cross warehouses and lorries, carrying refuges.”

Pilger asked in that article, “Why are cluster bombs being used? They spray hundreds of bomblets that have only one purpose: to kill and maim people. Those that do not explode lie on the ground like landmines, waiting for people to step on them.”

In South and southern Africa the corporate media and its fallacy of “academic analysts” continue to propagate a so-called “North African style Arab Spring”. In fact, 2013 will see a continuation of attacks on the person of the re-elected ANC president, Jacob Zuma, and his leadership. The dubious motive seems to attempt to discredit and destroy South Africa’s ruling party and its government.

A word of advice from senior British journalist, Robert Fisk, for “Middle East potentates, dictators, Western poseurs, television presenters and journos (including ‘academic analysts’, this writer), do not use the following words, or expressions in 2013: moderate, democracy, step down, step aside, tipping point, falling into the wrong hands, closing in, spilling over, options on the table or – terror, terror, terror, terror, terror.”

Fisk then asks, “Too much to hope for? You bet. We’ll even get another load of clichés from the goodness factory to replace those that have already served their purpose.”

And finally, for South Africa and the rest of the region – remember there is indeed a working law in the law book against any destabiliser, local and foreign, committing High Treason through promoting a so-called “North African style Arab Spring”. The corporate media barons should not assist with unsavoury destabilisation attempts, using the electronic and print media.


The death of intellectualism in South Africa

By Udo W. Froese, independent political and socio-economic analyst and columnist, based in Johannesburg, South Africa.


The historic role of accusations, counter accusations, finger pointing, propaganda campaigns and attempts at character assassination packaged as intellectual analysis have intensified. And, if all fails, the last resort then is assassination of informed opponents of those, who dictate public thinking in South Africa.

They are viewed as a threat to a strategised course and quickly labelled as being ‘conspiratorial theorists’ and ‘mad outsiders’, as ‘spin doctors’. Then they are marginalised out of the public domain.

Author and journalist, Barry Sergeant, quotes in his book on the murdered mining tycoon, Brett Kebble, “The Kebble Collusion”, Arthur Schopenhauer, who once said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

Once, former president Thabo Mbeki had been recalled by the ruling African National Congress (ANC), a space opened for open criticism and robust public debate of the ANC and its leadership. Those same ‘intellectuals’ said about Mbeki, “he speaks above the heads of everyone”.

That newly opened space was however promptly filled and closed by a self-appointed, mischievous pseudo-academic, exclusive elite, dictating their well-paid, same sold, same old, predictable analysis. Instead of building a national participatory debate and incorporating the broad indigenous African majority and their daily concerns, they proved to be one-sided parrots, who can merely regurgitate propaganda. Not only have they discredited themselves and those, who aspire to be professional academics, but killed the democratic public debate.

They are all tied to their institutions, representing the policies of those institutions.

The national democratic debate was therefore, never allowed to be born. In fact, there were no articles, no public outcry and no complaints in any of the news bulletins and current affairs programmes about the establishment of media monopoly and its crass silencing of the national public debate.

Like all democratic countries throughout the world, South Africa and Namibia need free and open-minded intellectualism, not tied to institutions, who pay them. It would mean that whatever such ‘intellectuals’ utter, would have to be checked by following the trail of the money. Always remember, he who pays the piper, calls the tune.

If South Africa’s democracy wants to survive, it needs the national public debate, preferably without any of those paid-up mischievous ‘armchair academic intellectuals’, who have nothing to add, but to give credence to the daily news and current affairs. The Southern African region would wilt away without real independent intellectuals, as their space would always be filled by opportunistic propagandists, attempting to mislead the uninformed public.

The mind of an intellectual should refrain from any form of participation in the execution of a propagandistic course. It should rather be investigative and add real substance to research and fact.

What has happened to real intellectual debate and analysis of the likes of Anton Lebede (ANC), Robert Sobukwe (PAC), Johnny Makathini (ANC), Mzala Nxumalo (ANC and SACP), Abraham Tiro, Steve Biko (BCM), the Kenyan Ngungi aa Thiongo, Ghana’s former president Kwame Nkrumah, Ruth First (SACP and ANC) and James Thaele (ANC)?

The aforementioned demonstrate that this continent, including South Africa once had solid intellectuals, who were a shining light to their people. Today, the self-appointed “intellectuals” are subjective, repetitive and predictive. This has turned particularly South Africa into an intellectual desert. A new generation of intellectuals needs to be coming up to assure a healthy, balanced and democratic debate. They need to overcome the branding and labelling of those self-appointed and institutionalised ‘intellectuals’, who would obviously try to destroy them.

Since 1994, when Thabo Mbeki became deputy president to Nelson Mandela, the national democratic debate suffered marginalisation. ‘Objectivity’ of the media and the institutionalised intellectuals disappeared. Since then, no logical clarity how ‘intellectualism’ is interpreted and viewed exists.

Thabo Mbeki’s inner circle and the media hailed him as an ‘intellectual’. Those who dared criticising him, were exposed to his wrath, attacking his critics viciously, leaving no stone unturned until the critical one had seriously been moved out of the system.   

This however changed since the ANC’s Polokwane Conference. But, the ‘intellectuals’ remain dissatisfied and joined the cacophony of the media in their focus on bringing the incumbent down next month at the ANC’s Mangaung Conference. The open space for debate was abused and filled with a form of hate-propaganda. It is disappointing that there is no intellectual analysis that can put the current situation in South Africa into a realistic and factual perspective.



Who really grabbed Africa’s land and still does so, regardless?

By Udo W. Froese, independent political and socio-economic analyst and columnist, based in Johannesburg, South Africa, commenting from Windhoek, Namibia and Harare, Zimbabwe.

The global north is unable to feed itself. This explains the “land acquisition” (sounds better than land grab) for food crops in Africa. The UN body, the ‘Food and Agricultural Organisation’ (FAO) published a report on this trend in December 2009.

The writer/researcher, Thembi Mutch from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, documented in the London based newsmagazine, NewAfrican, “Rural land grabs in sub-Saharan Africa force peasant farmers into ghettos in cities where jobs are scarce – which will only contribute to further food shortages and crisis in the future.”

Such ruthless foreign land grabs cause imminent abject poverty and starvation of continental proportions.

Mutch observes further, “In many African countries there are no mechanisms to monitor land appropriation. Although there are public protectors, an auditor general, anti-corruption units and other controlling mechanisms in place, it is easy to bypass them: they monitor only government and donor money, not private investment.”

It means, the purchase of land in sub-Saharan Africa will not end. This will lead to further disenfranchisement of already disadvantaged indigenous Africans in their own land on their own continent. They remain hopeless, starving third-class citizens.

In her article on ‘land grabbing’ in Africa in the newsmagazine, NewAfrican, Thembi Mutch writes, “A whole new industry has sprung up, including commodities and futures trading on African land and water rights, and with it, there has been a concomitant rise in investment firms, many based in the UK, who actively promote partnerships between private companies and brokers based in sub-Saharan Africa.”

“The British firm, Silverstreet Capital, boasts about its ability to buy up African farms and “boost productivity” by, among other things, abandoning “till” farming – i.e., farming by hand. Smallholding African farmers are at the bottom of the pile. Land acquisition is attracting new players. For example, the Rockefeller/Gates Foundation/USAID partnership is working with Monsanto – USD$150 million will be invested by them into an “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (AGRA) project,” Thembi Mutch explains.

Global land grabbers of huge tracts of African soil include the likes of US, British and European billionaires, the Saudi Arabian government and the Sultan of Brunei for their private use only and without access for the local population. They do not carry Africa’s interests. Those well-heeled foreigners arrange themselves through their elites on the ground. They receive tax breaks and exemptions, repatriations of profits, additional free land and water concessions.

As Mutch documents in her research, published in the NewAfrican, “The issue is not necessarily the purchasing. It is the levels of secrecy, the lack of templates or agencies monitoring how the (indigenous) people who already live on the land, will be dealt with.”

It gets worse. “Numerous “pioneering” Dutch and Swedish farmers are keen to use areas in Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and Uganda for biofuels experimentation. The needs of smallholders are sidelined. They are viewed only as potential cultivators for an industry that is still trying out seeds, growing methods and approaches,” as observed by Thembi Mutch.

The above documented research should be one of the priorities of the African Union (AU), Ecowas and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in order to stem the resultant high unemployment, abject poverty, starvation and the destabilisation of a whole continent.

Farayi Nziramasanga in Harare, Zimbabwe, summed up the actions of the new breed of African leadership in the newsmagazine, NewAfrican, writing, “Over the past couple of decades, nationalist leadership with a pan-African perspective has been replaced by “new democrats” supported by the (international) West. These donor-funded client-leaders have a local focus and dare not annoy their funders. They owe their elevation and sustenance to foreign interests, who in turn dictate policy.”

Addressing the role of the AU, Nziramasanga, writes, “Our power as a continent lies in us being able to speak with one voice and act in unison on issues of (African) continental interest. And, Nigeria and South Africa have to shed the illusion of continental giants – they are not and never will be.”

It is important for Africa to understand its position and the foreign interests, the real role, for example, of the US’s continental ‘Africa Command’, ‘Africom’ and its proxies. This should also mean, the role of South Africa’s former cabinet minister, dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma occupying the chair of the African Union, is to understand and accept it as her primary task “to pull the Africa-wide power into a continental force for the advancement of Africa-wide interests.”

Leaders, who secretly sell the birthright of their supporters for a bowl of soup, commit the serious crime of High Treason and should be held accountable by the structures of their countries, their regions and finally, the AU. Africa should view the outsourcing of its land as a criminal offense.

“Western capitalism arose through strong government for the economy and for accessing the resources in the global South (which continuous to this day),” are the final words of Thembi Mutch, the author of the feature in the magazine, NewAfrican, “Land grabbing, a growing menace”.

Forget the European ICC in the Netherlands. Cut ties with it. Africa has no option, but to re-establish itself, its land, its wealth and its own souvereign courts.



Open Letter To New Era Newspaper, Namibia, Africa

The letter of Mr. Koos Pretorius in your edition of ‘New Era’ on 7 November 2012 under the title “I want to learn” cannot go unchallenged. In an attempt to discredit me, the proud chairman of the ‘Action Monitor Group’ claims that the facts in my columns should be queried.

First, in my research making use of, among others, ‘Wikipedia’, the ‘Action Monitor Group’ is a political party in Namibia. “The party is based among conservative white Namibians only, with most of its top leadership having served in the government of apartheid South West Africa.”

Add to this, ‘Action Monitor Group’ is unrepresented in Windhoek’s parliament and is therefore, redundant with ever dwindling support.

It is good that some of you would like to learn. Yet, it never ceases to amaze that you learn and choose to forget the history of the past racist occupation. Amnesia serves those well, who were in fact, part and parcel of that history and still have a lot to answer for.

There is a link that you should visit before you try to undermine those, who keep up to date with history and current affairs. The link under the title “South Africa – Overcoming Apartheid, Building Democracy” (overcomingapartheid.msu/people,php?id=129) – will take you to a page on the late former colonial-apartheid Prime Minister of South Africa, Hendrik French Verwoerd. He was born on 8 September in 1901 in Amsterdam, Holland.

This page will reveal that, “It was here that he (Hendrik French Verwoerd) made his infamous statement regarding the limitation of the black academic curriculum to basic literacy and numeracy, because ‘Africans were meant to be hewers of wood and drawers of water only’.

As former columnist of the late Hannes Smit’s (Smittie’s) weekly newspaper, ‘Windhoek Observer’, and politician, Mr. Koos Pretorius should have come across the above-mentioned in his readings. In fact, he should be very well aware of Verwoerd’s racist remarks, having been in the same political camp. Does the politician Pretorius admit that he is not “op hoogte van sake nie”, meaning, that he is not up to historical date? Or, is he trying to motivate his role as an upright apartheid-apostle in Namibia in 2012?

It surprises this writer that Pretorius in his quest for wanting to learn would not be au fait with the Verwoerdian history of Nationalist Party South Africa and the closely linked background of his affiliations with the colonial-apartheid structures of Pretoria. The same applies to the DTA in the then South West Africa.

The author of Dirk Frederik Mudge’s biography, “Reenmaker van die Namib” (“Rainmaker of the Namib), At van Wyk, quoted Mudge as having said that ‘he had to approach the South African government for help of R100 million to be able to fight the popular movement of SWAPO in the elections towards the end of 1989 and that he had received it’.

Wikipedia also reports that the “Allgemeine Zeitung and the Republikein are (were until recently) both owned by Democratic Media Holdings (DMH, at one stage also called ‘Dirk Mudge Holdings’), of which Dirk Mudge is (was) the chairperson. Mudge was a pivotal figure in the DTA from its inception in 1977 until the mid-1990s. During that period the Republikein was widely viewed as being aligned with the DTA. DMH even pumped part of its profits into the DTA after independence. Earlier, the DTA had bankrolled the paper.”

DMH has since sold the majority of its shares to South Africa’s media conglomerate Nasionale Pers/Media 24.

On page 37 of the book “Historical Dictionary of Namibia” (second edition), authored by Victor L. Tonchi, William A. Lindeke and John J. Grotpeter, it is documented that “Nico Basson, a former South African military intelligence official revealed in May 1991 that he, Basson, had been part of a major disinformation campaign that was financed by R100 million then of secret South African government funds. He worked from the Kalahari Sands Hotel in Windhoek.”

“In addition to a series of “dirty tricks” revealed by Basson, it came to light that R65 million of the R72 million Rand election budget of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (DTA) came from South Africa.”

In the same above-mentioned book, on the same page 37 it states, “DTA chairman, Dirk Mudge, acknowledged the truth of the statements.”

By referring to “lowering the political debate”, Mr. Koos Pretorius is not known for high standards during his apartheid heydays in the South West African legislature. It now seems that he wants to stifle any national debate by demonstrating his skills.

Given the real history of ownership of Africa’s land, the slave- and colonial background, from which apartheid and UDI grew, it would be logical that the indigenous Africans would fight back. Parallel structured economic exclusion added to a seriously disadvantaged life in abject poverty for generations of Africans in their own land on their own continent.

With all due respect and in the aforementioned historic light, it would therefore, be clear that the struggle movement, SWAPO, which forms today’s ruling party, rides the historical, moral, legal and legitimate high-ground.


Udo W. Froese



Where The Present Is Based On Fraud, The History On Lies And The Future Does Not Exist

By Udo W. Froese, non-institutionalised political and socio-economic analyst and columnist based in Johannesburg, South Africa.

The heart of South Africa’s conflict firmly lies in plundering and pilfering of its resources. The old, established oligarchic crony capitalism divided this country and the region’s wealth among a few ultra-rich families, who deployed their paid-up political puppets to secure total control over the abundant resources forever.

It includes all natural resources in the soil of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region without exception.

They have a warped understanding of patriotism. As knights in shining armour with bleeding hearts for the poor majority and their leadership, they plan to return to South and southern Africa to pillage again. As in the past, so too in the present, they use their business acumen and the intellect of the law as well as their political plants to develop a system that dumps the poor majority in deeper poverty, without any political influence or power. In other words, the poor majority is being misled to enrich the exclusive and insatiable oligarchs through the added cheap and uneducated indigenous African muscles ever further.

Those few oligarchs, their families and their institutionalised academic analysts worked on a well thought out plan to structure poverty thoroughly that it has become inescapable. The family history of the architects of apartheid proofs this writer correct.

Those self-enriched families had ordered an academic research programme of the life of the majority of the people, their leadership and their access to South and southern Africa’s resources. Two commissions were appointed to do that political and socio-economic research. They include the “Molteno Commission” of 1959 and the “Bogenhagen Commission” of the early 1960s.

Today, those plunder barons rate among the richest in the world, as they have moved their loot far from the original source to the lands of their roots.

Meanwhile, the ruling ANC produced an educated and sophisticated leadership. Despite the colonial-apartheid policies and laws, despite Bantu-education, despite no access to the country’s real economy and resources, these leaders realised what was construed and eventually saw through such collusion.

The educated leadership was able to lift the power from those self-righteous oligarchs and their diabolical agendas. Under the ANC rule, the electorate, which is the majority of South Africa, has at least put some of the power into the hands of national and regional- and local governments.

Against the aforementioned historic background the majority owns and manages the country’s Public Investment Commission (PIC), which holds the public pension funds. That amount has grown over ZAR1 trillion, which is much higher a figure than the total cash amount of all of South Africa’s banks.

The PIC has the controlling share in the electricity supplier, ESCOM, the transport network of Transnet, the telecommunication supplier of Telkom and the country’s national water supply.

The new, democratic majority leadership of the country does not only control the above-mentioned structures, but also has built over two million starter homes over the last eighteen years. In addition, it produced more black African matriculants and professional academics than the entire history of South and southern Africa.

Given the history of country and region, it is interesting to observe that the political, media- and civil society opposition lead by the Democratic Alliance (DA), criticise the ANC led government and its president to the point of attempting to rush through parliament a vote of no confidence in the incumbent with the assistance of the courts.

Yet, they do not even have confidence in their own looks and cannot be disciplined to control their diets. As a well-known social commentator and senior politician told this writer, “The DA is lead by misfits who have the audacity telling the public that the ANC has not delivered. Those misfits rely solely on the old criminal oligarchic capital, which now hopes to enter South Africa and its government in their disguise of white knights in shining armour, coming to safe the poor of the country.”

But the reality would show a different picture, namely, the grassroots would be marginalised and forgotten, even starving to death, while the few oligarchs and their families would get richer and richer in their global village.

A senior member of the ANC NEC added, “How is it possible that old mutton dresses itself up as lamb and another cannot discipline her diet, but then claim to be the better managers of society? They even have the nerve to copy the ANC’s historic freedom songs and clenched fist salute, trying to mislead the majority. No man, this is serious fraud. The DA’s leaders should be impeached. They are a disgrace to South Africa. If the DA would ever make it into government, that era in history would be known as the weighty disorientation of botox.”

A sense of nationwide anger and frustration with the oligarchic, exclusive ownership of the economy, its structured poverty on the one hand and political disingenuousness on the other is noted.