Creationism and today's freedom day in South Africa

Perfection was compromised, God placed Adam in Eden he never went to sleep without anyhing to to eat. He lived large and in opulance. After he was removed from his exalted place, his glory taken, he experienced pain and inadequacy so are the generations that followed. True Christians understand that their contribution is limited to charity and prayer because nothing will ever fix the current administrative inequity except the return of Jesus and the re-installation of order of Eden. Therefore freedom charter, liberation struggle and ultimately this 'freedom' are mere expressionism but with an intent to produce a ruling class which will in turn do the same things that were done by apartheid ruling elite which in the name of white people carried out unfathomable attrocities against those considered inferrior. An ordinary man cannot possibly free other men. Ruling class is there for themselves, their children are in private schools, they use private hospitals, use luxury cars for supposedly 'public duties', book expensive hotels, use business class on aeroplanes,  live in elite suburbs, are guarded by men in guns and mostly no matter how they violate country's laws they neither go to jail nor subjected to proper legal processes. In the slimmest chances where they are caught they do not spend even a year behind bars. Since 1994 in South Africa prominent people do not serve their full sentences except poor people.  Principles embedded in the constitution or freedom charter are a fantasy, a drug that  induces false hope on poor people.

Evoking history may be a good beginning for the DA

It may sound absurd yet it is true, the DA strengthened its support base by attracting white right wings that are now entrenched into the political business of the party. It would be naïve of any observant or participant in the South African politics to believe that when the alliance failed all the NNP members migrated with Marthinus Van Schalwyk to join the ANC.  

Politically, blacks are not easily taken for a ride. SA political history is an attestation to this fact, all homelands failed because black South Africans understand how to make political choices. Some choices may have been questionable but in the main they have been consistent with South African political history. Blacks understand that DA was an alliance between the New Nationalist Party, Freedom Alliance and the DP; also they understand that the failure of the alliance arrived as a result of the rejection by the DP to rename some of the roads after Mandela and De Klerk in Cape Town. This is subject to corrections: Peter Marais of NNP wanted to name Adderley Street as Nelson Mandela Avenue and Wale Street as FW de Klerk. This proposal did not sit well with the DP which felt proper consultation was not made. This started the rift in the alliance then the seams started cracking which led to finger pointing and exchange of insults between Leon and Marthinus. In fact what could have been a good gesture and a great political opportunity turned out to be the bitter ending of the Alliance. This opportunity should have been exploited as it could have summarized the DP and NNP as progressive forces that were committed in a non-racial inclusive society but they missed the prospect. The question therefore is ‘if they frustrated such gesture what else can they frustrate in the new South Africa were they given a chance to run the country?’

Again the DA’s commitment to liberal principles became questionable on November 14 when the parliament passed the Civil Union Bill into law. As a liberal party it was mandatory of them to be seen to be unleashed. Instead they took a weak position to let their members to vote according to their conscience. This could mean one thing; they did not want to upset their conservative component of the party. Democratic Alliance is a party at odds with itself; it cannot flounce like a horse or stand in front of the mirror proudly to enjoy its look. This contributes a lot to its failure to attract black majority. 

Ideology is what defines any political party; it is the basis from which they attract support. It defines who they are and what they stand for. Civil union between two people is a private matter regardless of sexes who decide to enter into it. This bill gives individuals power to decide how they want to be seen and with whom they want to be seen with.  It is a truly liberal undertaking by the current government but it was difficult of the party that claims to strive for an open opportunity society to openly support it. The DA claims that “In such a society, everybody has the opportunities and the space to shape their own lives, improve their skills and follow their dreams. The government’s key role is to expand and promote equal opportunities for all. People are not held back by arbitrary criteria such as gender, religion, or colour, or the prejudice of those in power. In the open, opportunity society, outcomes are linked to opportunity, effort and ability, not special favours dispensed by a ruling clique in the ruling party”. Could it mean that these are just words real concrete plans and missions are hidden behind?  These are some of the questions that frustrate many black people who want to join the party.

In addition, the position of the DA on recent Land reform propositions leaves much to be desired. After the land summit this is the position adopted by the party “The DA is fully in favour of a sustainable, equitable and just land reform programme. However, we reject most of the recommendations that emanated from the recent Land Summit”. Furthermore the party maintained “The DA believes that the land reform programme can be speeded up by allowing for more market, less state – not the other way round. As such, we commit ourselves to the constitutional provisions bearing on land reform and the retention of the willing buyer, willing seller principle”. Remember this is the party that refused gesture by NNP to rename street by country’s freedom icons De Klerk and Mandela, a liberal party that failed to stand for its ideology on Civil Union Bill and how can it now be trusted on land question? 

There is sometimes inconsistency in the manner in which the DA deals with some of the most sensitive nail biting political questions of our life time. To appeal to the majority the DA took the historical route yet on questions that affect the majority the party just ‘glide’ over history not considering the details of what transpired in order to understand an appropriate remedy. Such historical position makes them naïve over the ambiance of the majority on land questions. Perhaps what the DA has to do is to find few old people who were direct victims of land grabbing and land removals. These people do not just trivialize the land question; the hurt on their faces is still there.  Black history, until the recent past, has always been oral therefore many younger generations that many would like to call ‘the born frees’ understand what happened. They may not openly show their anger and frustration but least we should be fooled that they are not. 

The DA needs to stop talking about the constitution as the body of truth: a God prearranged document. It was created by fallible beings that may have deficiencies like all other mortals. South Africa’s constitution is a most liberal constitution but it is the supreme law that its coming had to suppress and squeeze the majority into accepting the status quo. As a nation we can no longer pretend that all went right during negotiations. Black majority were given a raw deal, liberation movement’s negotiators failed dismally to get a better deal for black people. Therefore in the spirit of Nation Building before it all erupt a balanced solution need to be navigated. Already there is, yet negligible, reverberation as it happened in Zimbabwe over land question. It is therefore imperative and mandatory of the current leadership to prevent a foreseeable threat to the future peace and stability. 

Cosatu has already raised eyebrows over the land question. The constitutionality of Cosatu’s argument is a debate for another day but the concern here is that they have raised the issue then who else out there has the same feelings? Cosatu articulated its position through Malikane “By sunset clauses we mean the package of compromises that were entered into pre-1994, at the centre of which is the protection of private property rights, which limits the democratic state from decisively dealing with the legacy of colonialism in terms of property ownership”. He also expanded “Cosatu is of the view that section 25 of the Constitution needs to be amended, to make expropriation along the Freedom Charter lines easy and not be subject to such conditionalities (sic) as currently is the case in the Constitution.” This surely a potential threat to the future national security especially if poorly handled. The main responsibility of the current political office bearers is  to maintain peace and stability to ensure that future generations enjoy the same, if not better economic opportunities, freedom and civil liberties.

The DA needs to create a truly liberal open opportunity society that is truly based on substantive touchable liberal ideology. Some parts of the constitution especial on land question are anti-liberal. How do you exercise your individual rights in the space that is not mutual inclusive?  Basically the current constitution says through your own money(taxes) you will buy the land from the willing seller. Since the compromises are part of the South African political as well as economic landscape; will country’s land owners compromise to sell their land at a compromised value? Guess not, therefore who is fooling who here? 

  

Evoking history by the DA needs to be holistic; it should not be the history that favours the party. Its prominence should be around how it relates to a creation of non racial inclusive society. It will also be appealing if it mention a few liberal activists who were jailed for fighting apartheid if there are any.

It is indeed true that disgruntled members of the United Party, in 1959, seceded from the party when it endorsed non-reforms on land policy. It is also true those members, under the leadership of Dr Jan Stytler, formed Progressive Party. However, substantively, it is not clear how their breakaway group assisted black majority. Of course they opposed apartheid and took a stand on constitutional reforms which included a stand an entrenched federal state and free market enterprise. 

It was until 1961 that a significant shift from the United Party was observed.  Mrs Helen Suzman fought against whole lot of political inaptness. She meaningfully placed herself in harm’s way. She opposed racial discrimination, pass laws, job reservation, group areas act and many more remorseless laws. Nevertheless, what stands out about her was her political and humane compassion towards the oppressed. It is on record that she visited prisons to assess the conditions under which prisoners especially political prisoners were subjected to. She just didn’t visit prisons but also fought for better prison conditions. However, who did not do the above among liberation movements at the time?

The DA has to be decisive; it should either nurse the current white folks who by default joined the DA through strings of alliances or risk being seen as a great well oiled machine loaded with ‘possible weapons of mass destruction ready to compromise everyone who buys the machine”. It is time to play hard ball, it may be wise to study the ANC but getting support from black people has nothing to do with the ANC but entirely depends on how the party project itself. The DA needs to avoid being defined by the ANC because anyone who controls your image has the power over your future. Again the DA needs to start having honest, strong but humble debates around issues that affects people and stop taking pictures with poor people like the ANC do. Many black people are complaining about this. Who wants to appear on television in mud or rusted zinc shack? It is surprising that many of the country’s top political leaders do it. 

The DA has the potential to run this country in the future but it has a serious image problem and a serious double standards issues. Evoking history is a great beginning but history has a way of damaging the present if poorly handled. Honest debate that speaks to the real concerns of the majority may assist the DA. Mostly the DA needs to stand their ground on liberal principles as a liberal party; conservative elements must shape up or ship out. It should be about the party nothing else but about the party; no narrow politics that nurses hard liners hiding under liberal blanket. 

Mthandeni Mhlongo-MA (University of Natal)

25/04/2013

Favorite quotation: History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Vengeance an antithesis of progress and development.

What is the measure, in the political sense, of correctness? Anything that serves the greater good or that serves the majority or anything that does less harm to the minorities? Again, could it mean that correctness in any nation is shaped by history? I intend to crisscross on subliminal issues that seem to delay and compromise the realization of our true self as the nation. This depiction tries to interface between what is considered to be correct for us by our political principals, how our political leaders have turned us into cabbages and how I see future from the historical lens. I also intend to show how seditious vengeance is to the creation of a nation that is bigger than itself. Also, vengeance seems to be regressive in nature yet unconsciously observed by the bitter as progressive.The question of correctness is a daunting one because one can not sensibly give a conclusive objective answer. Rather there would be many none related scattered subjective suppositions which instead of providing close analysis to yield an agreed package there would be value laden insinuations that will lead to nothing but  a complete paralysis of the debate. Hence, this is my conclusion; correctness heavily relies on who is saying it. My friend may be more correct then the stranger or my comrade may be more rational than the rival. Even in courts where justice as correctness need to apply they would hide their lack of understanding by strong, hard and confusing legal jargon. For example, why would a person who stole a property go to jail?

A correct and fair judgment would require a victim to be placed back to the position before transgression occurred. How would it assist a victim to take away for hundred of years a person who took away uninsured car? Why not make the transgressor work for the car and later on courts decide at the legal implications by the transgressor of removing the victim from exalted place.

Therefore, if courts fail to restore the victim to the original position why are we contradicting ourselves as constitutional democracy. I stand to be corrected all acts and precedents relating to criminal procedure draw their mandate from the highest law of this land which is the constitution. Our constitution is not primarily restorative in nature but liberal: meaning it places at its core the protection and advancement of individual liberties, protection and enforcement of transactions and the rule of law. Any other things are secondary.

One would wonder where I am going with such ‘three eyed or seemingly retarded’ obsession about correctness? In an event where one takes by force someone’s pen only to make a timeless classic painting, does it by any chance make the painting that someone? Or should I say the signature of the original painter on the painting need to be replaced with that of the owner of the pen to indicate that the pen was for that someone? In any case does it make that someone a painter?

This country is preoccupied with replacing signatures on creations that were not theirs let alone destroying historical memory. Sometimes to build does not necessarily need demolishing hence skyscrapers.  Also there is a room in the development of any nation of new roads and new cities. Any nation is advanced by dreams which are carefully nurtured to make a great impact on the life of that nation. Unfortunately in the distant past someone was entertained who woke up with a catastrophic dream. We are busy erasing memories that would have made historical studies and lessons easier to understand and follow. As bad as our past may seem the reality is ‘it was someone’s painting’. In pain we need to stand, together in our differences forge a platform of understanding to map our future. The correctness of removing names of streets, buildings and bridges do not tally with how future needs to look like. Even at universities and colleges plagiarism is punishable yet in our daily lives we make it looks like a justifiable act that emits dignity and pride.

Imagine a sixth generation post apartheid young adult passing at Kruger House on ‘Church’ in Pretoria which would then be called ‘Mandela House’. Why this house looks old the boy would ask? The uncle or father answers “no before it was called Mandela House it used to be ‘Kruger House’” The next logical question would be “what is the significance of the house to Mandela?” Personally, I do not want to dwell on possible line of question but I think we are embarrassing ourselves to the future generations. We are trying to hide our forefathers’ defeat by putting our signatures on the masterpieces which were and are not our own creation. It is not the African way. Our forefathers went to war and were found wanting.

Africans admit their defeat and make peace, as boys we fought many battles when we were young as part of growing up. As adults we harbor no anger against those who defeated us. Instead we cherish each others’ presence. Sometimes we even make jokes about how one was defeated. This is what define and makes a true warrior to stand out.  Name changes are an antithesis of what the liberation struggle was about. The exercise removes all the footprints of the life lived, evidence of the scale of oppression, how excluded the majority were to the urban life and ultimately it makes some part of our history a joke.

Imagine that very sixth generation post apartheid young adult being told for the very first time the history of pass laws and the group areas act. He will be fascinated by the story and confused by the reality in front of him. Confounded, he would want to know how would white regime name most streets with black names and refuse them to walk on them. Name changes not only distort history but will also require our introduction to political history story telling to be preceded by justification. It will have to start with what the street was, why it was changed and what it is now called, then the history that occurred on that street.

Name changes may be historically justifiable but lack good judgment. The masterpiece was penned with absolute precision portraying painter’s inviting imaginations using pen and ink that was forcefully taken from defeated great grand father. Does that make great grandson to have any claim to that painting? In the first instance, why the great grandfather failed to defend his pen and ink? Plainly this is revenge than anything else. Do I say apartheid was okay? Hell no! , the whole rationale behind my position is that any piece of land at some point was occupied by someone who either decided to move south, north, west or east depending on the pastoral needs at that time. Clans, and then Tribes were formed because someone smart and brave hated to work and decided to marshal everyone and appropriated material means unto himself and placed all under his command. No one can claim to have an inherent right over any piece of land. All we need is to be civil to each other nothing more nothing less. In the event you want to take more from the rest at least be decent enough not to insult them. Let them be their own masters, do not give them handouts.

Vengeance is an amateurish vision to frustrate progress. It stems from the failure to see opportunity ending up eating away what is available around. South Africa is a constitutional democracy that inherited a country that had a resilient populace. People had hope, enthusiasm and a ready mental infrastructure to make this country great. Instead this current regime turned them into couch potatoes. There is no incentive for education and hard work. Everyone is waiting for an RDP house, free water and electricity. This regime has created a population of ‘numb’ hands-less, people who are waiting to be fed. Money that supposes to go to investment, expanding existing industries and creating new employment opportunities is snowed under in the form of all sorts of grants.

This meticulous failure is further polished by the existence of BEE, affirmative action and all sorts of so called non functional enabling policies. The reality is, jointly, if public and private sector can create sound and meaningful economic opportunities there would be bread for everyone. Statistically whites, Indians and people of mixed races combined are fewer than African majority. Therefore if all energies and expertise are harnessed to create economic opportunities without any favor in the end all will have a room in the economy.

Numbers will then start playing their magic. In the event where economy absorbs at least 80% of the population more black people will be working then any other race in this country. Representation will only be required in the decision making platforms.

Vengeance is like a get rich quick scheme. In the end it hurts many involved in it. This country is run on a welfare ticket which in the end will not be sustainable. We need to start to be seen to want to win. Public sector salaries need to be capped at least at fifty thousand rand a month. It is selfish, cruel and inhumane for any person in the public sector to earn more than this figure when there is someone earning nothing. Private sector should be used as the only vehicle to wealth accumulation not the public sector. When the public official feels it is not enough what is being paid that servant need to be released from his duties to join private sector. In any case many high profile public servants are over rated some do not even posses those skills which they are over compensated for. Some are just pompous, slander junior civil servants and have no shame of saying they do not know when they are required to give direction.  

   

Correctness therefore requires that we see each other as a whole not some as masters and others as ‘slaves’. Citizens do not want residues from politicians, they know what they want to eat, when to eat and where to eat. They do not want to be fed, it is demeaning, they want substantive positive living conditions that will make them principals of their own lives, families and are able to secure the future of their children.

Not all but many programs and exercises which have been adopted by the current regime are geared toward indoctrinating the populace in order to vote in a particular way. From children’s grant which by the way is not filtered correctly to target correct deserving children, temporary disability which is overwhelmingly abused due to the lack of laser focused monitoring, school feeding scheme especially in rural areas which is beyond disaster, RDP houses which have questionable distributive criterion where even managers will own not one but many and government infrastructure that is overtly deteriorating. 

As a country and the nation, to thrive we need to define correctness. There are things that need referendums, for instance salary increase in the parliament, cars that are driven by our ministers, suburbs that house our high profile public figures, schools where public officials’ kids need to go, health facilities that high profile public officials use  etc. These people are accountable to us voters. We therefore as a nation need to decide on what is correct for them to use not the other way round. In any instance when anything needs to be done its accuracy, relevancy and correctness should be defined by populace.  

          

In conclusion we also need to understand and define the relevance and correctness of voting. People need to understand that voting is not emotional, in fact it is truly about securing and aligning the future to your personal needs and protecting interests of the future generations. In voting, consideration of home land security, foreign policy, economic policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy, military policy and many more come to play. Simple: we do not vote people into position of power because we like them instead their correctness to manage current living circumstances and shape the future driven by us. For instance some of us would prefer an extra million available to be spent on advancing the plight of the poor than changing the name of the freeway or some building. The correct usage of money here is defined by whatever that provides positive economic conditions to the poor.

LET US PAINT OUR OWN MASTERPIECES NOT PUT SIGNATURES ON OTHER PEOPLE’S WORK.

Correctness is the subject of prosperity if correctly understood “Mthandeni Mhlongo,  MA University of Natal” (January 24/01/2013)

A World's new opportunity

It is rare to find people living through different empires, may be that is the reason among many that natural evolution of civilizations is often referred to as crisis. What is referred to as global meltdown, global economic crisis or global financial meltdown is in fact the transitional financial catastrophe that will either change the current empire’s strategic operational plans or yield to a complete new empire (s). Mostly, edifices of any empire(s) reside on the hands of the few, mostly dubious and dangerous individuals who do not hesitate to murder their way to what they want. Empire is often based on carefully constructed passive psychological lies which play into people’s minds. In order to forge national identity dubious individuals align their intentions with ‘national interests’. Citizens are then systematically made to believe that these plans are in their best interests, rewards are then put in place. Service, adherence and loyalty to these ‘national interests’ is then regarded as patriotism. All sorts of medals are designed; citizens and people in general under that empire are made to believe that these national interests are the main priorities to be defended.

Henceforth, in the making of the empire ‘dubious individuals’ begin to implement their individual selfish interests. This will involve conquering new territories, looting of resources and at some stage suppressing or complete annihilation of civilizations considered to be ‘inferior’. On their path they leave incomprehensible fear, pain, suffering and uncertainty. The conquered are also aligned but differently, either as labour reserves or direct slaves.

The survival of the empire requires all the principals to remain true to the original goals and secrecy. If one betrays the code empire crumbles. This brings me to what is now famously known as ‘global financial meltdown’. This is in fact an opportunity than a crisis for the world. It is the chance of the conquered civilizations to realign global affairs. It is an opportunity to define what they want and what they want to become. Currently the dominant empire is in trouble, all resources, both domestic and international need to be channelled back home. Therefore all the empire’s foreign covet operations or outreach programmes need to be stopped or postponed. As the empire’s resources shrinks, this gives the world an opportunity to realign itself, because they are less monitored.

My greatest fear is that the current empire is heavily armed. Our prayers should be focused on its recovery. Any further economic meltdown may cause this empire to opt to do weaponry business with dangerous smaller empires. This may make our world even more dangerous, volatile and possibly even more chaos.

A response to sabc documentary: what is an African

There is often a confusion who is and not an African which I find very funny. I find this to be happening only in Africa because in America they know who is American and who is African American. Africans wherever they go they seem to be known who they are no matter how long they have been staying in that part of the world. Amazingly whites wherever they go they seem to get away with murder. In America whites are called Americans even though their origins is either from England, Spain, Russia or Holland but  Indians, Chinese, and Africans are always called by their original countries.

Now here I want to make it clear who is an African. In my understanding informed by nature an African is anything from light, brown to pitch black human creature with soft steel wool like hair. In South Africa that includes Xhosas, Zulus, Ndebeles, Sothos, Pedis etc. It certainly does not include "Afrikaners and generally white people". Africanness is natural not political. It therefore says African is a person who look like Mandela, Oliver Tambo, Buthelezi, Mbeki, Mmoshoeshoe, Shaka, Sobhuza, Winnie, Adelaide, Ellen and many more precolonial Africans. Africans should not allow this patronisation or belittling. This is not an identity of convenience, it is us and nothing more. Frankly, Africaniness is not means to something but an end to itself. It is a complete identity which as genuine Africans have to protect and be proud of.

If crime has been committed especially by Africans everyone seem to understand and know who is African but when delicious political dishes are served everyone seems to want to be known as African, that has to stop. In Europe our Africans and those associated with Africanness face racial attacks including our prominent African players like Samuel Ett'o. Amazingly whites who by the way have oppressed us for generations want us to recognize them as Africans. Are we that cheap?

The documentary was about an English guy who claim that despite years of being in Africa, English have no African name as "Afrikaners". My answer to him is he is more African than the so called "Afrikaners". He is Anglo-African and I am proud to be part of him. He has a genuine identity more like Indians and Chinese. They have a culture that links them to their mother countries unlike "Afrikaners". In fact to be straight forward the question we should be asking is " what is an "Afrikaners"?. A generation from Van Riebeck, Van der Stel or generation that participated in great trek or from french origins like Tereblanche? Really what are "Afrikaners?'. During Paul Kruger Jameson and his men were called Uitlanders (Foreigners). It is amazing how some whites easily forget. 'Uitlanders' calling other Uitlanders Uitlanders, very funny and stupid.

I sincerely believe that English, Indians, Chinese and Greeks are, politically, more Africans than "Afrikaners". They have something to hold on to which is their origin.

Many might want to know why I do not say a thing about coloureds. Well in the first place I do not think there is anything called 'coloureds'. We all, as a human races, have colours why would one nation claim to have 'colour'?

African is natural not otherwise keep that in mind

Revisting sexual harrasment

It is unfortunate that women are being abused and some even loose their lives in the process. Yet there are, mostly educated women, who use sexual harassment as a method to get even with their boyfriend or husbands or settle scores. Women abuse not a perception but a proven reality in this country. Research shows that every hour a women is raped and a child is molested in South Africa.

The case in point is that of Lawrence Mshwana, a public protector. This woman wanted to diverge focus on her inefficiency as a manager by accusing Mushwana for harassment that never occurred.  Mushwana confronted her a day before about her management behavior and  her in-competencies  The following day she level accusations of inappropriate sexual advances against him. Accusations were later found to be baseless.Again rich independent women, as for rich men, should stop dating poor people's partners. This contributes to relationship instabilities and further escalation of abuse within relationship upon discovery 

Something is just not right with new South Africa and educated women. On that note I want to close by saying I support genuine gender equality and women's rights. However educated women have got it all wrong. 

Viva gender equality

Western barbarism

Each time I try to think of holiness of the "holy land" I feel sick in my stomach. What the hell is going on that part of the world? I might be a primitive primate or if you like a kaffir but I certainly can differentiate between a cause that serves a greater good. Arabs' cause to annihilate Israel will certainly breed nothing in as much as Israel's continued offensive will not bring any good but pain and suffering to both sides.

Schooling or formal education came to many Africans, if not all, from the western civilization. Hence terms like mutual-ism  sharing or jointly were introduced to us . Not to say Africans did not know about these terms. They did but in their vernacular languages. They were practicing them and continue to do so even today. However, very confusing is that many white people (western civilization) knowingly do not practice these terms.

Colonization of Africa came with dismemberment, brutal slavery and even selling of people to other parts of the world. In India it came with Kashmir and Pakistan, in Southeast Asia it came with the partition of North and South Korea. In China it gave birth to Hong Kong as a separate state. In Irag it came with Kuwait. In Palestine is simply excelled, it took the whole state.In Australia, no words to describe, a complete uprooting of aboriginal people. In the process of all these many lives were lost and to some parts like Israel and "Palestine" lives continue to be wasted.

It therefore leads me to question as to what is civilize about western civilization?  I really would like to know. Africa never had Africa war but western civilization had "World war I and II" which was in fact stupid European wars driven by greed and selfishness.

If one could carefully look at parts of the world that remain not fully conquered by the west is middle-east. In my humble opinion Israel is being used as an excuse by the west to keep their foot in the oil rich middle-east. It is unfortunate that Jews are exploited this way and they do not see it.

Worse, Jews are simply justifying and christening holocaust. I just think that wherever Hitler's soul feels peace and accomplishment. He really feels he did Germans a great job because had he not did what he did Jews would be doing exactly what they are doing today to Palestinians to Germans.

Why can't they share the country? I believe Marx was right, indeed religion is the opium( drug) of the masses. Once they are on this drug nothing make sense and life turns into nothing. This is exactly what is happening in the middle-east. They are chasing god that do not exist leaving the One who love and care for life.

Unions are capitalists as well.

Trade unionism is the primary form of labour movement in fixed capitalism. It is base on the idea that the isolated worker is powerless against the capitalistic employer. And to overcome this handicap, the workers organise into unions and with the strike as their weapon.

I am not too much into labour movements but I believe they are important and to some limited extent do help workers. Striking though is their coming and the nature of their survival. When industrialization intensified in Europe in 1700 to 1800 AD this period witnessed the emergency of organised labour movements. Noticeably, unionism is directly proportional to capitalism meaning that capitalism is not an inverse proportion of unionism. They hate each other, but interestingly as capitalism increases so is the power of the unions.

The paradox however is that unions are capitalists as well. Unionism depends on membership at nominal fee. They take from already vulnerable in the form of membership money while capitalism buys labour from people at lesser price. Therefore both capitalism and unionism take from the vulnerable or poor. The only difference is that unionism play god and capitalism play devil's advocate in the eyes of the poor.

Practically, which is rather painful but a reality, no one is on the side of the poor. Indeed if COSATU in South Africa is the voice of the underpaid and exploited why if mine shafts are closing it does not take over. Surely they can do with the accumulated membership fees of over decades. It draws me to conclude that some things exist because they are just a “necessary evil”.

HIV and AIDS need to be declared as a matter of national security

Mbeki questioned the link between HIV and AIDS, arguing that it is not this virus that causes death. He quoted number of people who have been living with the virus for years. Instead he is convinced that it is poverty that kills people not the virus.

Now it is his deputy within the party who argues that after a "quickie" with an positive person one can take a shower to minimize chances of getting HIV. Not only that I am embarrassed as a man but feels that we are failing the whole nation. For mother nature's sake he doesn't even tell which shower, warm or cold, that helps to reduce chances.

I do not believe in media censorship but for the matter of national security the story was not supposed to be published. We have a very vulnerable society, traditional healers say their version of how the virus operate, gender issues-some women being forced to have sex without using condoms, alcohol and drug abuse, and now politicians playing into people's heads. I believe this is becoming too much.

I imagine the number of people who say "yes it is true the president said there is no relationship between the virus and AIDS, you can see even the minister of health doesn't take TAC serious and now the deputy president of the ANC has proven that HIV is not a problem"

Honestly for the sake of the country and many lives that have been put at risk by this irresponsible reporting the story was not supposed to be published. As a country we are facing a crisis. HIV and AIDS I believe has reached a point where it has to be declared a national security concern.

We also need an urgent legislation that will enable prosecution of people who make irresponsible speeches around HIV and AIDS and also to prosecute those who intentionally infect others.