In the mid to late 1980's, political violence and repression in South Africa was featured regularly on the evening news. International pressure against the white government was brought to bear in the form of embargoes and sanctions, resulting in political reforms and the election of Nelson Mandela as State President. Now that apartheid is forever abolished and a new constitution establishing "equality" is ratified, is the quality of life any better for South Africans of all colors?
The old South African system of apartheid has been well documented by many capable and objective authors. It is not this author's purpose to examine apartheid, but to examine the fruits of democracy and decide if life has gotten better for the oppressed now that they can vote.
Crime has been a part of life in South Africa over the past several decades, but in recent years, especially since the African National Congress (ANC) was voted into power, there has been a steady flow of reports indicating a dramatic rise in violent crime. Statistics reveal that in 1994, the year of the ANC victory, South Africa became the rape capital of the world with about 99.7 reported rapes per 100,000 people. This included child rape which has increased 108% since 1993. (Johannesburg Star).
The U.S. had 39.2 reported rapes per 100,000 for the same period, with Germany reporting 7.5. One of four females, including children, living in black townships are likely to be raped this year with Soweto township reporting 200 rapes every month. Rape crisis centers estimate that only one in 35 rapes is likely to be reported and, if that ratio is accurate, it would reflect that 809,404 rapes occurred in South Africa in 1994. (Figures obtained from The Star and the Mail & Guardian newspapers).
South Africa has one of the highest murder rates in the world with Johannesburg possessing the distinction of "murder capital" of the world. Ninety out of every 100,000 persons will be murdered this year in South Africa. Often murders are committed in conjunction with rape and robbery. Inadequate record keeping and under reporting has hindered efforts to properly assess the acceleration of violence. (The Star and the Mail Guardian ).
South Africa's government has blamed the wave of crime on unemployment. South Africa is also the unemployment capital of the world, with one out of three workers unemployed and 40% of black men out of work. (U.S. News & World Report) . Economic factors have helped to create an atmosphere of despair, resulting in an unprecedented wave of crime.
AIDS is another plague on the rise in South Africa. It is reported that 14% of all pregnant women are infected with aids and that 2.4 million South Africans are HIV positive, up 33% from last year's count of 1.8 million. Sexual assault and promiscuity, the results of breaking down the social order, has hastened the spread of this deadly disease. (The Star and the Mail & Guardian).
Why has democracy failed to bring about the bright promises of those proclaiming "the new South Africa"? Where is the material prosperity promised by the lifting of sanctions, the "car in every garage and a chicken in every pot" fruition of this international campaign to "free South Africa"? One might be inclined to wonder if many South Africans look back with nostalgia to the old days of the old order.
The word "apartheid" literally means "apart-ness" and in South Africa these boundaries establishing "apart-ness" were drawn along officially defined racial lines and codified by law. Only people of European decent were allowed to vote, with limited representation being granted to Asians and those of mixed race later on. Supporters of apartheid have stated that this arrangement is necessary because of the unique racial make-up of the country, and that integration of all races in a common society would not guarantee peace, freedom and prosperity for all.
Even while the international community worked itself into a self-righteous fit over South Africa's system of apartheid, it failed to recognize that it, too, was living within a system of "apart-ness". America's system of segregation, for example, is most clearly seen in the realm of material possessions. How much money you possess determines where you may live, who you may associate with, and what kind of legal representation you get when accused of a crime, etc. In America our version of apartheid is called "class".
American apartheid is also practiced within the realm of thought or belief. If you say you go to church, for example, you will be asked, "which denomination?" in order that you may be classified and segregated into an officially defined group. If you apply for a job in a profession such as teaching or journalism, your views could be brought under intense scrutiny. If you profess to believe in absolutes, or even fail to exhibit adequate enthusiasm for the dogma of the ruling "class", you very well could be segregated out of a job and, hence, the privilege of making a living. American apartheid is far more oppressive than the South African brand, in that it is concealed and painted over to be the opposite of what it is.
When all South Africans were permitted to vote, they traded in their old model of apartheid for the American brand. Even though racial segregation has been scrapped and every one can vote, a majority of black South Africans are still living in the same squalid townships as they did under the old regime, with the exception that now the circumstances are far more distressing. In the old days they feared the police and didn't have the liberty to demonstrate or join the political movement of their choice. Now they can demonstrate and join a political party, but they also have oppressors that are far more deadly than the white policemen of the old order. Hunger, want, assaults on life, person and property by marauding criminals who have no fear of punishment - - these elements existed under apartheid, but not to the extent that they now do under "democracy".
It is the white, Afrikaans-speaking population that controlled the ruling Nationalist party under apartheid, and it is the Afrikaaner that has been the nemesis of British imperial rule in southern Africa over the past two centuries. Primarily of Dutch decent, the Afrikaaner has been called anything from "fiercely independent" to "bull-headed, racist and ultra-conservative." Not prone to entangling alliances or diplomatic niceties, the Boer (Afrikaaner) has posed a significant threat to the designs of internationalists seeking to subdue the African continent for their own profit. South Africa, with its rich gold, diamond, platinum and strategic mineral deposits, was at the top of the list. Since an outright military assault to overthrow the white-ruled government might raise a few eyebrows, it became necessary to subdue this nation by another means, more sophisticated but surer of lasting results. Thus a campaign was begun to bring "freedom and democracy" to South Africa.
Neighboring Rhodesia, which was also guilty of neglecting the one person, one vote democratic system, didn't provoke the indignation of the international community until it declared its independence from Britain on November 11, 1965. On that same day, the United Nations Security Council branded Rhodesia "a threat to international peace and security", even though Rhodesia had never threatened its neighbors or had the capacity to do so. Soon afterward, President Johnson slapped an economic embargo on that country (seeThe United Nations Conspiracy by Robert W. Lee). It must be noted that Rhodesia's crime, as was South Africa's, was not its racial policies or political system, but its "go it alone" tendency in a world that was becoming more and more "interdependent" (whether it liked it or not).
The current policies of government in South Africa do not reflect the personal political philosophies of Nelson Mandela or the ANC leadership. For years Mandela's staunchest supporters were hard line communists and it was his stated goal to nationalize key industries such as mining, should he come to power.
A couple of years before his release from prison in 1990, the South African government began implementing a policy of privatization. Public highways, the state owned transport services, and other publicly owned entities were passing into private hands. This was in compliance with the demands of the World Bank who was servicing South African debt and was making similar demands of other Third World debtor nations.
When Mandela was released from prison, he changed his tune from nationalization to privatization. When he was elected State President in 1994, there was a seamless transition between the white-ruled government and his own in regards to economic policy. It was evident that Mandela had undergone a pre-election conversion.
With the death of communism in the world, it was evident that the communist ANC was going to have to change its appearance to fit in with the "New South Africa" and the emerging "New World Order". A new ANC emerged that supported the "free market" system and other "progressive" policies, but Joe Slovo, a leading South African communist leader, recognized that socialism had merely changed its exterior, perhaps to placate the fears of the white minority. "We say loud and clear that history has not ended (for communism)....The corpse they are trying to bury is not true socialism" he proclaimed at the party's Eighth National Congress, Dec. 1991 (Chained Together by David Ottaway). This was about the time Gorbachev was signing away the "old" Soviet Union.
The "new" ANC's economic policies were not the only things being molded and shaped after the new order of things. So were its social policies. Abortion on demand is one of the pillars of this renovated socialism and, after the ANC took power in '94, agitation for abortion rights began in earnest. Abortion was strictly illegal in the old South Africa except to save a mother's life until the recent Termination of Pregnancy law was passed. Now abortions may be performed on up to full term pregnancies, under certain conditions.
Just a few weeks after abortion was legalized in January, 1997 by the ANC government, the South African Department of Health issued a shocking directive. The Mail & Guardian reported, "Babies who survive abortion attempts should be left to die even as they gasp for breath, according to new guidelines for the termination of pregnancy laid out by the Department of Health, and sent to all major hospitals last week...." (3-27-97). The directive itself reads, "if an infant is born who gasps for breath, it is advised that the fetus does not receive any resuscitation measures." This order is in line with the general trend toward infanticide as practiced in China, the U.S. and promoted worldwide under the auspices of the United Nation's population control program.
This same directive lamented the fact that more than half of South Africa's health professionals refused to participate in the abortion procedure, and hinted that botched home abortions might force reluctant doctors to get involved to save the mother's life. It is evident that abortion will not long be a matter of choice for health care professionals, as is already the case with ANC members of parliament. Jennifer Ferguson, an ANC MP whose religious beliefs would not allow her to vote in favor of the Termination of Pregnancy bill, faced expulsion from the ANC after she abstained from the vote. "Essentially the political climate in this place is intolerant of true democracy," she was later quoted as saying in the Mail & Guardian (3-27-97).
This new age system of socialism would not be complete without "death on demand", and the new ANC has taken the first steps in legalizing euthanasia in the "New" South Africa. Draft legislation has been released by the Law Commission recommending new legislation allowing so-called "passive euthanasia "- the withholding of life support or life-saving treatment to a terminally ill patient. Active euthanasia - the deliberate killing of a patient with a drug overdose - is also being considered, but stiff opposition is requiring a gradualist approach to legalizing and implementing it.
Another item on the ANC agenda is the promotion of homosexuality. South Africa's new Constitution prohibits the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which makes outlaws out of churches that refuse to ordain homosexuals or accept them as members. Most churches have made it clear they will not compromise on this issue. "The general worldwide trend is not to allow government to dictate to churches," Wits University law lecturer and human rights specialist, Tsepho Mosikatsana, told the Mail & Guardian , "but our Constitution goes further than any other in that the spirit of equality in it would prohibit churches from excluding gays and lesbians." He went on to say, "I find a great deal of support in this document for the fact that churches may no longer exclude homosexuals from becoming members or even clergy." Interpreted this means that any person who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible may have to go underground in order to worship according to his or her conscience. This issue will soon be tested before South Africa's Constitutional Court.
Most South Africans and the rest of the world were under the illusion that when the ANC came to power, it meant that the majority of South Africans would now be free to control their own destiny. This is a cruel hoax. Even from its beginning, black protest bore the markings of foreign origin. Communist dogma, union organization, strikes, boycotts, and now this new age world socialism, burdened with its culture of death and myriad so-called rights, have not had their origin with the ANC leadership, but have been imported into South Africa by hundreds of different channels, all originating in the realms of international finance and control. These channels include the globalist think tanks, headquartered in the U.S. and the U.K., who were responsible for shaping the fine points of the ANC platform for the '94 elections and for influencing the policy of the South African government since the elections, just as they do in the U.S.
"Top US aid agency accused of meddling in SA political issues" reads an article in a December, '96 issue of the Cape Argus newspaper in South Africa. The U.S. government's Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) has been the target of criticism in the U.S. Congress for using hundreds of millions of development dollars to direct the course of South African government policy. " AID has chosen all the wedge issues of South African politics" while not involving itself in the kind of routine development projects it carries out in other countries, according to a House Regulations Committee quoted by Cape Argus . "The agency has been involved in intensely political and controversial interventions in South Africa's domestic affairs," Cape Argus said, including " trying to shape the affirmative action agenda; forcing whites out of projects funded by the agency; attempting to influence and direct domestic political decisions; and making direct demands on the South African government for policy changes in projects AID has decided to support." U.S. foreign aid is one of the conduits used by internationalists to import subversion and instability into South Africa.
Like the rest of Africa after liberation, the majority of black South Africans continue to groan under the most abject poverty and all the curses that come with it. Many blacks grew up in the era of protest against apartheid which included boycotting government schools, resulting in one-half of black adults being illiterate. Strikes, protests and obstructionist behavior by blacks were praised by the international community under apartheid, and now those tactics remain the only tools they possess to deal with the problems of life now that apartheid is gone. Rather than deal with a work force that is unskilled, unruly and prone to unionized disruption, companies buy modern machinery or send their factories into Asia or Central America. The emerging global economy is siphoning off whatever material benefits the blacks hoped to obtain when they got to vote. Democracy has become a cruel reality for them.
White South Africans had hoped that in granting political concessions they would win the acceptance of the international community. Economic sanctions would be lifted and commerce would flourish once again. They are finding, however, that democracy means more than universal suffrage. It means the erasing of their Christian-based culture and replacing it with a post-Christian pagan culture and everything that comes with it - crime, fear, economic and political upheaval, and a gnawing uncertainty for life itself. The price for this so-called "freedom" increases day by day.
Whatever the crimes of the old South African regime, they are no worse than those of the Communist Chinese government which enjoys Most Favored Nation trading status with the U.S. In 1960, 69 blacks were killed by South African police bullets in what is called the "Sharpeville Massacre", an event that touched off international indignation and violent protest in South Africa. Fewer died in Sharpeville than died at the hands of the U.S. government near Waco, Texas in 1993, or the Red Chinese army in Tiananmen Square in 1989, yet there is no official outcry over those events because human rights are not the object. Control and domination by the world's ruling elite is the true motivation.
South Africans will now experience the results of their capitulation to international pressures and the falsity of the "liberation gospel" peddled by Anglican priests, American human rights activists, and other meddlesome carpet baggers. Instead of obtaining the illusory lifestyles dangled before them by American movies and television shows, they will experience the ever deepening slavery forced on all those who have sold themselves to the international system of finance and control. It is now too late for them to turn back the flood of confusion that has overwhelmed them.
South Africa, "ye have sold yourselves for nought...."
[The author lived in South Africa during the first two years of F.W. de Klerk's government.]
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This site is in the public domain.