The denialism of the NDR
Africans were better off under Apartheid, according to UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) Measurements; but ANC unable to confront this reality. ANC's attachment to NDR: outmoded Soviet concept
RW Johnson | Politicsweb
19 July 2011
In the mid-1990s the SACP, with Joe Slovo much to the fore, became enamoured of the Human Development Index (HDI) pioneered by the UN Development Programme because instead of ranking countries by GDP per capita the UNDP was interested in a broader measure of welfare which would include the quality of life in that country, life expectancy, child and maternal mortality rates, social equality, achievements in education and health, gender equality and so on.
The UNDP measure had two immensely appealing features for the SACP. First, it promised to rank countries like Cuba a lot higher than usual because they enjoyed equal poverty, a goodish health system and more gender equality. So this would be a better measure for what the SACP was planning to achieve in South Africa. Accordingly, the SACP paid enormous and positive attention to each successive Human Development Report (HDR) of the UNDP and emphasized that what the government was most keenly interested in was human development.
Thus in 1997 Jay Naidoo, then heading the RDP secretariat, declared that "The challenge is to meet the basic needs of our people and at the same time strengthen economic growth. These challenges are vital but the real issue that needs attention most is human development." (Emphasis added.)
Secondly, the UNDP was a very weak agency, highly dependent on local buy-in from the client's end - which meant, in practise, that it would be easy for the SACP to take over the local operation in South Africa. This duly occurred. I remember attending one UNDP report presentation in Pretoria where those thanked included a long list of SACP figures and where the speech given was a standard Party rant. It was somewhat weird to imagine that these fiery declarations denouncing Gear and "the 1996 class project" were somehow meant to emanate from the UNDP.
The intention was clearly that the SACP, leading the Alliance, would be able to show the effect of the RDP in gradually transforming South Africa for the better with a rising HDI number which would reward all the ideological initiatives of greater empowerment, gender equality, better preventative health care and so on. Helpfully, the UNDP had calculated its indices retrospectively and these showed South Africa improving from a score of 0.66 in1975 to a score of 0.741 in 1995. If improvement like that could be achieved in the last twenty years of National Party rule, surely the figure would race ahead under ANC rule?
South Africa's Coloureds Better Off Under Apartheid - New Zealand TV3 (03:01): NZ TV3 news: Former anti-apartheid activist, Ryklieff is starting to believe he was better off under apartheid.
Well, no actually. The 2001 UNDP Report showed that South Africa had slumped to 0.604 due its high Aids rate and lower per capita income due to the (then) weak Rand. The fact that South Africa under ANC rule had slumped even behind its 1975 figure was so much the opposite of what the SACP (and ANC) wanted to hear that they promptly lost all interest in the HDR. After 2001 each successive new HDR was largely ignored.
In fact they were objective measurements all right and by 2010 the HDR showed that South Africa's score had fallen again to 0.597, placing the country 110th out of 172 countries surveyed. (Zimbabwe was in 172nd place.) Had South Africa maintained its 1995 score it would have been 59th. That is, under ANC rule South Africa has fallen 51 places, a fair measure of the catastrophic failures this period has seen.
And this is not just due to Aids. Poverty, inequality, unemployment the health services and education have all got worse and even the Aids figures would have been a lot better but for Mbeki's Aids denialism which the ANC did not in any way counter or contradict. The straightforward fact is that ANC rule has been an awful failure not just in terms of this measure, the HDI index, which the ANC previously embraced, but when judged on any objective terms at all.
Yet this is not acknowledged by the ANC. Instead the standard line is that the ANC has achieved an enormous amount but that much remains to be done. To the extent that things are not as they should be, this is due to the inheritance of apartheid. Yet the HDI figures mock this view for they show beyond dispute that South Africa's HDI figure was far higher in 1995, after nearly 50 years of apartheid, than it was in 2010 after 16 years of ANC rule. Moreover, the trend continues to be downward. Yet few members of the black ANC elite are willing to face this fact.
A little while ago I watched a BBC "Debate" about the state of South Africa. The cast involved all the obvious suspects and included Bridgette Radebe, the multi-millionaire mining tycoon married to Jeff Radebe. The BBC compère introduced the subject with some of the same sorts of data I have used above and said, right, so it's not working. What exactly has gone wrong?
Black man: Life Was Better under Apartheid (BBC) (00:30): Black man says Bring back Apartheid: Even though he may have been discriminated against under apartheid; he never struggled to find a job.
Ms Radebe jumped in, speaking with great anger and conviction. It was she said, wholly impermissible to frame the question that way. That discussion simply could not be had. The fact was that all that was wrong was the inheritance not only of apartheid but of hundreds of years of colonialism. The ANC was struggling against this terrible inheritance and it was far, far too soon for anyone to judge it.
So vehement was she that not only the compère but everyone else was clearly shaken and so instead the "debate" was abandoned by tacit agreement. Instead the participants had the usual vacuous sort of discussion about what needs to be done and how it was "urgent" to do something about the usual long list of subjects.
A tougher-minded compère might have asked Ms Radebe whether her keenness to prevent debate was related to her position as one of Africa's richest women or her being the wife of a minister who has served continuously since 1994. Liberation has certainly worked very well for her, after all, if not for most.
This sort of social denialism is just as pernicious as Thabo Mbeki's Aids denialism. But the real point, of course, is that what is true of Bridgette Radebe is true of much of the state-sponsored black elite - of everyone who has got a civil service job since 1994, or got rich through their political connections or through BEE.
For all these happy folk it's a case of never having had it so good. Unfortunately, their good luck is the other side of the immiseration of the majority and the worsening inequality figures are in large measure due to the determination of this new elite not just to be prosperous but, if at all possible, to accumulate what the French call la richesse insultante - extravagant wealth ostentatiously displayed.
If you want to see people driving Ferraris and Lamborghinis, it's no good looking at the old white monied class. These are almost exclusively the toys of the new black super-rich. They behave like playboys, dress like gangsters. In purely economic terms it's tragic for they don't invest their wealth, they just waste it.
Now, such characters have their own stern critics within the Alliance and none sterner than Zwelinzima Vavi, the head of Cosatu. However, Mr Vavi has his own form of denialism, the National Democratic Revolution. Virtually all sections of the Alliance pay lip-service, at least, to the NDR, a Soviet-era concept whose own inventors within the Soviet Communist Party have long since disowned, saying the whole concept was a lot of rubbish. But within the ANC and particularly within the SACP and Cosatu, people continue to believe in the NDR.
Functionally, it appears to be a substitute for socialism. When the NDR arrives the government will enact sweeping land reform and return the land to those who work it (without compensation) and something similar will happen with the mines, banks and "monopoly capital" of any kind. The result will be a massive redistribution towards the People and with it there will be a wondrous banishing of inequality, poverty and unemployment. We are not, you will understand, quite at the NDR yet but we have to work towards it, to build it - and lo! - it will occur.
Now, anyone who is seriously interested in doing something about poverty, inequality and unemployment will quickly understand that the prescriptions of the NDR would quickly result in the Zimbabwe-ization of South Africa. And do just remember that Zimbabwe was plumb bottom of the entire UNDP list, making even places like North Korea seem desirable. That is, it would result in mass starvation, industrial decline, debt default and enormous immiseration as well as torrential social unrest.
It would be a short cut to the country's complete destruction, nothing less. And this is what is so odd about Blade Nzimande, Jeremy Cronin, Zwelinzima Vavi and those others who continue to assert their belief in the NDR. They are not fools. They do not, one assumes, believe in Father Christmas or that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. Yet there is something indubitably magical about their theory.
The land is given to the masses who do not know how to do commercial farming. The mines, banks and various other industries are taken over by government which has proved quite incapable of running public corporations of any kind. And yet - hey presto! - there is a magical moment of transformation and we all come out happy, equal and employed. The mechanisms by which these happy results are achieved remain unexplained, nay unexplored. They are just magic and no one should enquire further into that unless they want to be turned into a frog. Personally, I would find it a whole lot easier to believe there are fairies at the bottom of my garden.
It may be objected that this is an unfair and unduly satirical description of NDR, but listen to Mr Vavi. Last week he spoke of the significance of 2014:
"This will be 20 years after freedom and at that time people will no longer care about history. There will be a new generation of voters who know nothing about Chris Hani's blood flowing in the streets. By that time we should have dramatically narrowed the gap of inequality in the country, created jobs and removed poverty."Vavi adds "There will be no better life for all unless we change the economic structure of our country."
There you have it. If the political leadership is simply determined enough to install the NDR - and there's no doubt this is what Mr Vavi is thinking of - they can magically cut inequality, create jobs and, yes, "remove poverty". Mr Vavi's belief that this can be achieved within three years can only be ascribed to a belief in magic, for it can be ascribed to nothing else.
Belief in the magical formula of the NDR is a critical form of denialism, for it means the Left can simply ignore the merely sensible. For example, any number of educationists have emphasized that progress in education cannot be achieved unless the power of the teachers' union, Sadtu, is broken in much the same way that Mrs Thatcher crushed the miners'. This can be gaily ignored by Vavi and others because Sadtu is a highly "progressive" union (it votes the Left ticket) and is thus a key building block of NDR which will, by the way, solve educational problems as well as others.
The key point is this: if you give up the millenarian dream of the NDR, what are you left with? You are left with a middle income country which is achieving results worse in many spheres than those of many of the least developed countries. It is doing this largely because its governance is so exceptionally bad. What is shows, in a nutshell, is that African nationalism is incapable of governing a country as complex as South Africa and that it requires help from the other racial minorities to do so.
This is quite unwelcome enough but one could go much further. One could, for example read a study by J.P. Landman, Haroon Bhorat, Carl Van Aardt and Servaas van der Berg, Breaking the Grip of Poverty and Inequality in South Africa (2003) in which they typify South African society at that time as a 55/45 one - 55% being well enough off and 45% in poverty. The full extent of their not inconsiderable ambition was to make that into a 70/30 society by 2014.
They point out that to achieve that there will have to be 3 million extra jobs and that to generate those there will have to be a sharp and continuous improvement in labour productivity, without which the economy will not be internationally competitive, and that that will also require steady 4% growth for ten years and thus an economy which is 48% bigger by 2014.
As an empirical study this is as favourable as Mr Vavi can possibly hope for (Landman et al. also welcome a degree of redistribution) but it will immediately seen how entirely unacceptable this is. This prescription would insist that South Africa has to be internationally competitive (Cosatu's hackles rise) and, worse, that it must sharply increase productivity (major Cosatu heart attack), and all this to achieve a situation where 30% of the population still live in poverty (Vavi expires).
This, it must be emphasized, is the very gentlest and most politically correct of studies available of the real economy. Yet even this is unacceptable if you have bought into NDR. Another way of putting it is that the best reason to buy into NDR is so that you don't have to face the facts. Once you buy into the NDR all sorts of magic is possible.
If you want to live without magic you accept that South Africa is appallingly badly governed, that there needs to be a substantial white input into government if the system is to work, that the economy can be made to work to produce greater equity, higher unemployment and less poverty but that to achieve that Cosatu has to accept it or play dead, and that the improvement of health and education requires the emasculation of the teaching and health unions. We will arrive at this point one day but immediately you can understand the appeal of denialism.
This article was published with the assistance of the Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für die Freiheit (FNF). The views presented in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of FNF.
» » » » [Politicsweb]
Were blacks better off under apartheid?
Jewish World Review Jan. 9, 2001 / 25 Teves, 5762
Walter Williams | NewsandOpinion.com
MORAL crusaders have the habit of heading off to their next crusade without bothering to see whether anything went wrong on their last one. During the '80s, TransAfrica, NAACP, Black Congressional Caucus, Hollywood glitterati, college students, and other groups held massive protests on college campuses and at the South African Embassy, built shanty towns, and called for disinvestment and sanctions against South Africa for its racist apartheid system.
There's no longer apartheid and there's black rule in South Africa, but what's the story there now? Andrew Kenny writes about it in his article, "Black People Aren't Animals." The article appears in the December 15 issue of the British magazine The Spectator, the world's oldest continuously published English language magazine (est. 1838).
Each South African day sees an average of 59 murders, 145 rapes and 752 serious assaults out of its 42 million population. The new crime is the rape of babies; some AIDS-infected African men believe that having sex with a virgin is a cure. Twelve percent of South Africa's population is HIV-positive, but President Mbeki says that HIV cannot cause AIDS.
» » » » [Read Further]
The ANC is Not for US, Say Coloured Voters
Fadela Slamdien, All Africa
17 January 2011
Cape Town — Much has been said about the 'coloured vote' in the Western Cape being the ANC's Achilles heel. Being the one province in the country that does not have a majority black population - the ANC's traditional voter base - and the ANC's inability to woo coloured voters to provide them with an outright win has seen Cape Town swing between the DA and ANC until the DA gathered strength with the winning the province in 2009.
Not even Nelson Mandela's reign in the early days of democracy was able to grant the ANC an outright majority vote in the province. West Cape News hit the streets of Grassy Park in an effort to obtain insight into the mood ahead of upcoming local government elections.
Among the tens of coloured people canvassed during a day in Grassy Park, most elderly people said a lack of jobs and high levels of crime reflected badly on the ANC. Leaning toward the right, a number of people said their lifestyles were better under apartheid, despite the fact of forced removals.
"They should have left things as they were. Before, there was very little crime, the death penalty was in, and one could send your children to the shop at night. Everybody had jobs. People were given houses and not put out on the streets like now. In 1994," said a resident who did not want to be identified.
She said despite the Group Areas Act, the apartheid government provided for them. "People who were kicked out of Constantia were put in council flats. Look at the way people are living now. People are not put into flats. Now there is crime and drugs. Why vote for the ANC if all of this is happening?" she said.
» » » » [Read Further]
Black People Remembering the Past with Nostalgia
Matchbox beats 'sim card'
Once-despised township houses now preferred over RDPs
Jan 17, 2011 10:47 PM
Phumla Matjila, TimesLive
Phumla Matjila: Ahem, I get a lump in my throat the size of an egg when older black people remember pre-democratic South Africa with a whiff of nostalgia.
Surely, South Africa today can't be worse than during apartheid, I tell myself as I eavesdrop on the conversation of three generations of women, chit-chatting, bemoaning how some things have changed for the worse in our country.
Even the youngest of the women, in her late 20s, is sounding pessimistic about her future and that of her children.
Politeness takes a back seat as I strain to hear their conversation. After all, their story resonates with many South Africans: those who are unemployed, live in the poor areas of our townships - and, in rural areas, rely on public healthcare and transport, and survive on government grants - and, when they die, burden those left behind, usually children.
Sitting on the stoep, watching children play in a muddy puddle, the older woman tells the youngest of a time when they would wake up early in the morning to look for a job.
A grandmother reminisces about those days when she wouldn't return from a day of job-hunting without having found a job (even if was just for that day), or the promise of a job for a relative, or a neighbour, if she was not suitable for the job.
The other older woman nods in agreement. Looking for a job meant going from door-to-door in the "suburbs", she explains.
"It was never a futile exercise."
» » » » [Read Further]
Over 60% Miss Apartheid! Less Corruption, More Efficient Competent Goverment
'Things were better in the bad old days'
By Andrew Quinn, IOL
December 11 2002 at 04:35PM
Most South Africans, both black and white, believe the country was better run under apartheid and say unemployment and crime are the government's top challenges, according to two new polls released this week (2002).
The polls, part of the "Afrobarometer" series of public opinion surveys, found South Africans had generally positive assessments of how their country was governed, and were growing increasingly optimistic about the future.
But they also revealed a growing sense of "apartheid nostalgia" as South Africa grapples with high crime rates, increasing corruption and rising joblessness following the end of white rule in 1994.
» » » » [Read Further]
Abathembu's Support Secession: Things Much Better Under Apartheid
Why is the Transkei collapsing?
An open letter from Mbulelo Ncedana to Nelson Mandela
Mbulelo Ncedana, Cope
05 February 2010
OPEN LETTER TO TATA OMKHULU MANDELA ON NON-DEVELOPMENT
Non Development in the Community of Nelson Mandela
During the holidays I went to Eastern Cape, our home Qunu, made famous by your stature, tata omkhulu Mandela. For me it was heart breaking to see our people, especially the old, still needing to go to the bush or open fields to relieve themselves. To see that in Qunu there is no water and toilets; and that only those who can afford to install septic tanks had anything resembling basic services.
I subsequently attended a community meeting on 28/12/09 where we received a report of the situation in the area from the headman. He told us there were no real plans to develop the area, and that as the community they've lost trust in their ward councilor who came only once last year to the area during the General Elections. After promising them heaven and earth he disappeared with his name.
I felt morose and embarrassed seating in that meeting listening to old people benching their hopes on food parcels that never materialise as promised during electioneering. I heard things I thought I'll never hear again; old people, with rheumy eyes, saying things were much better under the Bantustan government.
» » » » [Read Further]
Black Zimbabweans say life was better under White Rhodesian Goverment...
Postcard From Zimbabwe
By Nicholas D. Kristof
Published: April 7, 2010, New York Times
HWANGE, Zimbabwe: Here’s a measure of how President Robert Mugabe is destroying this once lush nation of Zimbabwe:
In a week of surreptitious reporting here (committing journalism can be a criminal offense in Zimbabwe), ordinary people said time and again that life had been better under the old, racist, white regime of what was then called Rhodesia.
“When the country changed from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, we were very excited,” one man, Kizita, told me in a village of mud-walled huts near this town in western Zimbabwe. “But we didn’t realize the ones we chased away were better and the ones we put in power would oppress us.”
“It would have been better if whites had continued to rule because the money would have continued to come,” added a neighbor, a 58-year-old farmer named Isaac. “It was better under Rhodesia. Then we could get jobs. Things were cheaper in stores. Now we have no money, no food.”
Over and over, I cringed as I heard Africans wax nostalgic about a nasty, oppressive regime run by a tiny white elite. Black Zimbabweans responded that at least that regime was more competent than today’s nasty, oppressive regime run by the tiny black elite that surrounds Mr. Mugabe.
» » » » [Read Further]
Blacks don't Want Black Rule; Liberals: Blacks Must Have Black Rule; Even if they Don't Want It!
Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self Deceipt: A Philosophers Hard Headed Look at the Dark Continent
by Gedaliah Braun
Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit: A Philosophers Hard-Headed Look at the Dark Continent, by Gedahlia Braun [AmRen]
Defining a Liberal: a conservative is someone who dislikes blacks as a group but likes them as individuals, and a liberal is someone who likes blacks as a group (i.e. vote-fodder for the welfare state) but dislikes them as individuals.
Horror At ‘Whites Only’ Sign
In 1987 I spoke with a Canadian academic (in Papua New Guinea) who had excoriated the govern-ment for doing business with South Africa. He mentioned how ‘horrified’ he had been to see a ‘Whites Only’ sign in a South African train station. (I had seen the same signs and confess that I was not hor-rified.)
He was more ‘savvy’ than your typical liberal and agreed that if blacks took power in South Africa they would sooner or later create ‘a fascist’ regime. Nevertheless there must be black rule because ‘even-tually’ they would progress in the way whites have.
But Africa cannot go through the same historical process of development as Europe, because the cul-ture Europe de¬veloped into already exists; and you cannot reinvent the wheel – especially when you know it’s already been invented! Western technology has, it is true, been copied by Orientals, but that is not happening in Africa and there’s not a scin¬tilla of evidence that it ever will.
This guy seemed to be asserting that no matter what South Africa must be ruled by blacks, end of story. But this presented a dilemma, for we both agreed that universal franchise eventually meant zero franchise. Given this, would he still insist blacks must run the country? Yes. Even if blacks them¬selves don’t want it? Well, if that were true it might make a difference; but he didn’t think it was.
‘Blacks Must Have Black Rule Even If They Don’t Want It!’
A few minutes later, however, he changed his mind. Even if they didn’t want it they must have it. In other words, for whites to deny blacks the vote is absolutely wrong, but for blacks to do the same is all right. Why does something become acceptable just because perpetrators and victims are of the same race?
Given the premise that black rule means oppression, such an absolute prin¬ciple of democracy means it is perfectly all right for blacks to oppress blacks yet profoundly wrong for whites to treat them de-cently –but with¬out suffrage. The idea that a ‘democracy’ guaranteed to become repressive must be supported at all costs, strikes me as paradoxical in the extreme.
Apartheid Is Not ‘One Single Thing’
Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa, by Keith B. Richburg [*Amazon*]
Ben is a Zulu, about 60, and works at a garage where I bought a used car; he’s been working there for 26 years and is a South African citizen. Ladybrand is in South Africa, across the border from Mas-eru, the capital of Lesotho (pronounced ‘Lesoothoo’), a small mountainous country completely sur-rounded by South Africa and where I taught from 1987-88.
As we drove to the border I asked what he thought about the trouble in South Africa. Did he want to see blacks take over? His an¬swer was straightforward: No, he did not. ‘Our nation [i.e., blacks] is bad’. Why were they bad? I asked. Because they kill anyone who disagrees with them. Blacks could not run things; if they were in charge, nothing would work.
Does he ever go to Soweto. Often, he says; his family lives there. What do people there think about the ANC and black rule? Well, while many used to be for the ANC, this has changed because of ‘necklacings’ and suchlike. ‘If they are trying to help the black man, why are they killing so many blacks?’ he asked several times.
But then he began talking about how blacks were ‘oppressed’. I asked for exam¬ples; he said if a white man were to beat up a black employee, the police would do nothing. Suppose the boss was black and this happened under a black government? Would the police do anything then? No, he said; but at least you could fight back.
In South Africa a black man would be in big trouble if he hit his white boss.
He said that apartheid was bad, though it was changing. Before, blacks had always been separated from whites – separate toilets, en¬trances, queues, etc.. Everything should be the same for everyone, he said, since doing things separately meant whites didn’t like blacks.
Did that mean going to the same schools? Yes, he said. But since blacks were 80% of the popula-tion, whites would have to attend schools that were 80% black. Would such schools be very good? No, he quickly agreed. But how can you expect whites, who pay for the education of whites and blacks, to send their children to bad schools? He agreed you couldn’t. If everything should be the same, shouldn’t blacks be allowed to vote? Here he agreed with what he had said earlier: he was happy with whites running things and would not want to live in a country run by blacks.
By this time we were at the border post. He expressed great pleasure at our conversation and said he wished we could talk for two hours. I asked if he’d ever had such a conversation with a white man before and he said emphat¬ically he had not, though he’d worked with them for years.
The upshot was that while against apartheid, he was not in favour of blacks voting and controlling the government, nor did he necessar¬ily think everyone should all go to the same schools. He agreed that apartheid was not ‘one single thing’; some parts might be good and others bad. It is clear that many blacks who’ve been ‘persuaded’ that apartheid is bad and that they are ‘oppressed’ would also say they do not want black rule.
» » » » [Read Further]
Did Black South Africans want Black Rule:
Did ‘Evil Apartheid raise poor black living standards to the highest in Africa?
Boer Volkstaat 10/31/16 Theses
B. Politically Incorrect Truths About Apartheid Conflict
Executive Summary | Excerpts
4. No Proper Authority: Did Black South Africans want Black Rule:
Dr. Gedaliah Braun’s discussions and evidence compiled over 16 years of frank conversations with Africans, are detailed in his book Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceipt: A Philosophers Hard Headed Look at the Dark Continent. Dr Braun details his many brutally frank conversations with working class black South Africans from all walks of life; asking them whether they wanted black rule. He could not find one black South African who wanted black rule. He concludes that although many black Africans were very unhappy with particular aspects of Apartheid rule; they most definitely did not want black rule. They feared that black rule would be similar to black rule in the rest of Africa, which was far worse, than life under apartheid. Dr. Braun confirms Rev. John Gogotya’s allegations in ANC: VIP’s of Violence that “the ANC is not the authentic voice of the black people in South Africa.. does not represent the majority of blacks in South Africa”. It confirms that the ANC’s decision to embark on a violent liberation struggle, was to force the black population by means of coercion and terror, to support the ANC’s agenda of overthrowing white rule. Conclusions reached: The ANC lacked Proper Authority, did not have Right Intention in launching the ‘liberation struggle’; had no prospects of success and used disproportionate force against their own people.
5. No Right Intention: Did ‘Evil Apartheid raise poor black living standards to the highest in Africa:
The evidence proves that while Apartheid withheld political suffrage at the national level (not local, or regional) from black Africans, it did provide them with the highest living standards of all Africans on the continent of Africa. In fact Apartheid provided poor black Africans with higher living standards than middle class whites in any communist state, such as the Soviet Union. Consequently the ANC’s alleged outrage to justify waging war on behalf of living standards of poor black South Africans was not sincere, but fraudulent and hypocritical, considering the ANC’s endorsement of the far worse living standards of poor black Africans in African states under the direct political control of the ANC’s ‘liberation struggle’ Marxists political elite friends. Conclusion: The ANC lacked Right Intention.
» » » » [Read Further]