http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=11102&


[This is the most important article I found on the web in my more than 5 years on the web. The original discovery was by a military friend of mine overseas. He found the book, and then later, I found this article.

An alert reader in the UK found this. This article is the follow on by Dr Cummings to his book, "The Pied Piper" (1985).

Dr Cummings was a CIA agent in the Middle East. This is an extremely important article and it explains what went on behind the scenes in this country. Jan]


Nelson Mandela is the president of South Africa, an event of

monumental significance in world history. This great personal

triumph is for him a vindication of his struggle. But now that the

South African elections are long past, the record must be set

straight about what really happened and why. The press has

concealed as much as it reported; ideologues of all stripes have

rushed around to rationalize their hypocrisies, and American

politicians have been spreading around largesse as if the money

were their own. That the results were so perfect, historically so

symmetrical, is rather remarkable.

That explains something I've been wondering about for a while:"How is it that South Africa's economy remains in the hands of white plutocrats?"

All of the leaders are bought men, including those of the SACP.

Everything I've heard about the current situation there is horrible. Johannesburg, Lima, Peru, Singapore, the models of the future.

IMF-Backed Decolonization

By Mandisi Majavu

I find myself, invariably, having to explain whenever I'm discussing South African politics with a white person, especially white South Africans, that just because the government is black does not necessarily mean that as a black person, I share the same political ideology as the government.

But no, every time I critique the South African government and make a comment on the social structure of the South African society, I'm told, "Well, it's your own black government that's letting people die or starve."

Apart from finding this response racist - for I do not think that phoney logic would be applied to the French opposed to Chirac, I think this statement reveals ignorance about global politics.

In this essay I want to discuss global politics in relation to South Africa and, thereafter, I want to talk about racism in post-colonial South Africa.

One of the reasons the African National Congress (ANC) decided to pursue a neo-liberal policy agenda instead of sticking to the socialist 'Freedom Charter' that they went to prison for and many died for, is because of the pressure from the IMF. You will note that I started my previous sentence with one of the reasons? to denote that I realize that there might be other reasons the ANC chose the capitalist route - reasons that remain a mystery to me. After all, the ANC had all the support they could have asked for, but still they sold out. Be that as it may, what I want to explore in this essay is the IMF's role in the whole process.

During the 1993 negotiations between the ANC, National Party (NP) (in power at the time) and the corporate sector, the IMF granted the Transitional Executive Council (TEC) $850 million on the condition that the TEC committed itself to a neo-liberal, export-oriented economic policy . Furthermore, the corporate sector would be left intact and granted all the freedom, so as to facilitate a 'free market' and integrate South Africa into global capitalism.

Thanks to agreements like these, about 100 000 jobs have been lost nationwide since 1990 because of privatisation, according to the Congress of South African Trade Unions. And, owing to the government and pharmaceutical companies' reluctance to provide free anti-retroviral drugs to the poor, about 41 percent of all deaths between 1997 and 2001 were attributed to tuberculosis, flu and pneumonia -- diseases that are commonly associated with AIDS - as well as AIDS itself, according to Statistics South Africa.

While the incomes in black households fell by 19 percent, according to a study done by the University of Western Cape, between 1995 and 2000, white incomes rose by 15 percent.

Not only that, poor people find themselves unable to afford staples such as maize, because the price of maize is now set on world markets, meaning poor households are directly affected by international currency changes and global trade liberation. Hence, 40 percent of the 45 million South Africans lives in poverty.

As if to mock reasonable people and poor people, we are then told to celebrate democracy, for contrary to our belief this is not a farce but ten years of democracy.

What kind of democracy leaves oppressive institutions intact? What kind of social revolution leaves racist social structure intact? What kind of decolonization does not call into question the entire colonial situation?

It is this kind of compromised democracy that Frantz Fanon was referring to when he wrote: "These concessions are no more than sops; they have no bearing on the essential question; and from the native's point of view? a concession has nothing to do with the essentials if it does not affect the real nature of the colonial regime."

The institutions of that colonial regime are still as racist as they were ten years ago. A study conducted by the South African Department of Labour revealed that white people still dominate training in the managerial, professional and technical categories. About 71 percent of those trained in the managerial and professional categories were white, while 83 percent of those trained in operative occupational category were black.

In the background of this systematic exclusion of black people is the talk about incompetence - a new term that has replaced white superiority. As a result, now you have white people wanting to emigrate because they refuse to be governed by an 'incompetent government'. This is not different from the concept created by the European colonizers that Africans are lazy - a racist notion that resulted in expanding most of the colonizers' languages with racist charged terms such as 'African-time'. In his book The Colonizer and the Colonized Albert Memmi, reasons that: "The mythical portrait of the colonized therefore includes an unbelievable laziness, and that of the colonizer, a virtuous state of action."

<snip>

http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/ ... majavu.cfm (http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-07/20majavu.cfm)

Many radicals here pride themselves on being able to cleverly see how democracy is a sham in South Africa, as a result of the power and machinations of the IMF, and the imposition of neo-liberalism on the people. They might describe that as "we are f-ing with them. Ain't it awful. Something must be done."

As I have (ineffectively) pointed out before, that use of the word "we" is very telling. Most political radicals unconsciously identify with the ruling class. Otherwise they would say "they are f-ing with them."

The beginning of true radicalism is to see that we here are much more under the thumb of the IMF than the people in South Africa. That requires recognition and acknowledgment that we chronically, and automatically and unthinkingly always identify with the ruling class, and that this contorts and corrupts all of our thinking.

"We" aren't doing anything. "They" are. You think the democracy in South Africa is a sham? Take a look around. You are living in the very heart of the beast, and that beast is not "ours," it is "theirs."

What is the difference between here and there? We are more comfortable. Poor them, lucky us. Tsk tsk. So how come we aren't suffering the same terror and deprivation as the victims in other countries? Now that is a damned good question. We are relatively safe and cozy to the exact degree we are willing to comply and obey, and to the exact degree that we persist in identifying with the ruling class. We are no threat to them, no matter what we flatter ourselves about what we are able to "see" and no matter how "radical" we think we are, or how clever we think our insights may be,and no matter how progressed along the path of political awareness we imagine ourselves to be.

Talk about a sham - handmaidens to the ruling class here looking over there at the terrible things the ruling class is doing and clucking our tongues in disapproval.

Many radicals here pride themselves on being able to cleverly see how democracy is a sham in South Africa, as a result of the power and machinations of the IMF, and the imposition of neo-liberalism on the people. They might describe that as "we are f-ing with them. Ain't it awful. Something must be done."

As I have (ineffectively) pointed out before, that use of the word "we" is very telling. Most political radicals unconsciously identify with the ruling class. Otherwise they would say "they are f-ing with them."

The beginning of true radicalism is to see that we here are much more under the thumb of the IMF than the people in South Africa. That requires recognition and acknowledgment that we chronically, and automatically and unthinkingly always identify with the ruling class, and that this contorts and corrupts all of our thinking.

"We" aren't doing anything. "They" are. You think the democracy in South Africa is a sham? Take a look around. You are living in the very heart of the beast, and that beast is not "ours," it is "theirs."

What is the difference between here and there? We are more comfortable. Poor them, lucky us. Tsk tsk. So how come we aren't suffering the same terror and deprivation as the victims in other countries? Now that is a damned good question. We are relatively safe and cozy to the exact degree we are willing to comply and obey, and to the exact degree that we persist in identifying with the ruling class. We are no threat to them, no matter what we flatter ourselves about what we are able to "see" and no matter how "radical" we think we are, or how clever we think our insights may be,and no matter how progressed along the path of political awareness we imagine ourselves to be.

Talk about a sham - handmaidens to the ruling class here looking over there at the terrible things the ruling class is doing and clucking our tongues in disapproval.

I was posting this because I wasn't sure every did know about this. I didn't really.

I was posting this because I wasn't sure every did know about this. I didn't really.

Thanks, no problem. Pretty much the same story everywhere.

Presuming it's true and it's hard to doubt it. But here's one reason I believe it. I caught a brief bit on the network news, totally by mistake since I never watch it. It showed a happy Johannesburg with blacks and whites at the same restaurants etc. I thought, what bull shit. So what if they're eating at the same restaurant, owned by an English guy blabla, he's done this for ever blablabla... Tell me about jobs, education, incomes, etc. Well, I had to go look that up and ... here I am and I believe this. Great post Kid, I'm surprised that in your impetuous youth, you were able to find something so profound;)

Presuming it's true and it's hard to doubt it. But here's one reason I believe it. I caught a brief bit on the network news, totally by mistake since I never watch it. It showed a happy Johannesburg with blacks and whites at the same restaurants etc. I thought, what bull shit. So what if they're eating at the same restaurant, owned by an English guy blabla, he's done this for ever blablabla... Tell me about jobs, education, incomes, etc. Well, I had to go look that up and ... here I am and I believe this. Great post Kid, I'm surprised that in your impetuous youth, you were able to find something so profound;)

I just lifted it from somebody else actually. I'm in Da Nile (ask Mike ;) )

"And Buthelezi had good

reason to believe that he was, at the very least, part of the

solution and not the problem."

How can the knowledge revealed in this really interesting, new to me, article be used? What are its applications to the problems at hand? What can I do with this on a practical level? I'll mull on it, but any thoughts would be appreciated, good find, kid.

"How can the knowledge revealed in this really interesting, new to me, article be used? What are its applications to the problems at hand? What can I do with this on a practical level? I'll mull on it, but any thoughts would be appreciated, good find, kid.

One humble suggestion, FWIW. People scrupulously avoid a few things when discussing politics. "Follow the money" addresses the main blind spot. In all of our conversations, about the mundane and daily things as well as about world affairs and national politics, we can insist that "who benefits" and "follow the money" and "haves versus have-nots" are not excluded from consideration. Much of the general public is fed up with greed and corruption, and this will always resonate with them and lead to deeper consideration and enquiry. It is the lever to use to topple the whole rotten structure. Much easier than trying to bring people up to speed on arcane and esoteric knowledge of political events. They will find that stuff on their own, but they first need to be pointed in the right direction. Try it and see for yourself how effortless and productive it is compared to what we have been doing.

Class struggle is not the product of a belief system, it is an empirical observation of objective reality. No need to convert anyone to new beliefs opr sell them on anything. Almost everyone is already on our side because almost everyone is working class. Almost no one argues against the reality of class struggle when you talk about it in terms of their own lives and daily experience.

It is not the general public that needs to be changed or reformed, it is we the political activists who need to be reformed. If we are failing, it is akin to failing to communicate to people something as simple as "the sky is blue." Something they can see for themselves once it is pointed out to them. If we had total conmfiodence in class analysis, if we had absolute clarity asd to the nature of the crtisis, it would effortlessly be communicated to the public. Most people are laready 90% pf the wasy there.

"Hey Mike, how are you and your brainiac friends coming with that third party idea?" - Vern. That may seem like an amusing little anecdote, but Vern, and millions like him, would lay down his life to throw off tyranny and dethrone the ruling class if we were holding up our end of the bargain as the thinkers, writers and organizers for our class - the working class.

"How can the knowledge revealed in this really interesting, new to me, article be used? What are its applications to the problems at hand? What can I do with this on a practical level? I'll mull on it, but any thoughts would be appreciated, good find, kid.

One humble suggestion, FWIW. People scrupulously avoid a few things when discussing politics. "Follow the money" addresses the main blind spot. In all of our conversations, about the mundane and daily things as well as about world affairs and national politics, we can insist that "who benefits" and "follow the money" and "haves versus have-nots" are not excluded from consideration. Much of the general public is fed up with greed and corruption, and this will always resonate with them and lead to deeper consideration and enquiry. It is the lever to use to topple the whole rotten structure. Much easier than trying to bring people up to speed on arcane and esoteric knowledge of political events. They will find that stuff on their own, but they first need to be pointed in the right direction. Try it and see for yourself how effortless and productive it is compared to what we have been doing.

Class struggle is not the product of a belief system, it is an empirical observation of objective reality. No need to convert anyone to new beliefs opr sell them on anything. Almost everyone is already on our side because almost everyone is working class. Almost no one argues against the reality of class struggle when you talk about it in terms of their own lives and daily experience.

It is not the general public that needs to be changed or reformed, it is we the political activists who need to be reformed. If we are failing, it is akin to failing to communicate to people something as simple as "the sky is blue." Something they can see for themselves once it is pointed out to them. If we had total conmfiodence in class analysis, if we had absolute clarity asd to the nature of the crtisis, it would effortlessly be communicated to the public. Most people are laready 90% pf the wasy there.

"Hey Mike, how are you and your brainiac friends coming with that third party idea?" - Vern. That may seem like an amusing little anecdote, but Vern, and millions like him, would lay down his life to throw off tyranny and dethrone the ruling class if we were holding up our end of the bargain as the thinkers, writers and organizers for our class - the working class.

Thanks, Mike, follow the money, and who benefits are two thoughts that have been foremost with me of late, I get lost in all the details, but can always follow those aspects.

Thanks, Mike, follow the money, and who benefits are two thoughts that have been foremost with me of late, I get lost in all the details, but can always follow those aspects.

Ain't that the truth.

I spent some time on a board today where 911 truthers were talking. Talk about a maze of details. They pile up mountains of content, and we are suppose to divine some context from that. "See? Can't you see?" they say.

I know from being a history student that you will never gain any understanding by merely stockpiling facts in your mind. On the other hand, without slogging through the detail a coherent picture will never emerge, either. You need both the facts and the framework to hold those facts in. The 911 maniacs think that more facts is what people need. They aren't sure which facts yet, but they are working on that.

The only point of the facts is to support the framework. The only point of the framework is to make sense of the facts. Many people seem to have a lot of difficulty separating out which is which - blending them together into a sort of mish-mosh - or are stuck in one or the other. Maybe the ability to reason and assess information is a learned ability, and people are no longer being taught how to do that?

There are lots of destructive and corrupting influences around us that could be impairing or threatening our ability to reason. Paradoxically, it is often the case that the more educated and informed the person is, the worse this effect is. Damn it is hard to get the simplest idea across to an educated person sometimes. It is an amazing amount of work! They demand big words, long and comprehensive arguments, documentation and references, and then when you do all that they are confused and overloaded. It is as though there is a built-in mechanism that prevents the intake and processing of information in a rational and useful way.

For example, you mentioned that were risks involved in revealing your beliefs and such at work. I suspect that this is the case in many white collar occupations. Merely revealing your beliefs! That isn't the case on the shop floor or on the farm.

One would think, logically, that in an educational environment, in a work environment of mostly educated people, that there would be a much more open atmosphere and a free flow of ideas - no? One would think that the very first thing that educated people would learn would be how to learn things - no?