Brown-envelope journalism rife at Independent

Revelations that journalists at the Argus and Cape Times accepted money in exchange for influence have rocked the media over the past week. Being paid cash “in brown envelopes” to write and influence news stories for ­political ends is really just the tip of the iceberg. The international media group has a serious problem with sponsor representation at board-room level and has been caught a number of times with its pants down, juggling conflicting interests amongst its media, advertising, entertainment and public relations assets.

Despite criticism, Independent hold steadfast to the belief in its own virtue and ability of editors to tell fact from fiction. Indeed, as I write this, the Cape Times continues to refuse to correct a news-story about yours truly, a story whose accuracy, dare one say, is not exactly in the realm of rocket science. Time for the Cape Times to fire Karen Breytenbach and come clean about the Robbie Jansen scandal?

The crafty footwork at Independent can been seen everywhere. Boardroom tycoon Sam Montsi, a wealthy black entrepreneur doubling as a Sasol and Gensec board-member. Where does the man get the energy to balance the conflict between publishing the truth and publishing glowing advertorials which merely promote business opportunities for his fellow executives whilst discriminating against ordinary South Africans?

If throwing ethics out of the window was of any concern, then surely nobody will raise an eyebrow when we learn that ex-politico Mac Maharaj (Remember the Transnet scandal) was recently appointed to the renamed Clear Channel Independent after an international fiasco involving Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mays. Oh the irony.

Mays, a staunch supporter of George W Bush and Republican financier is implicated in both the Halliburten and Blackwater scandals that ushered in the global housing bubble and economic problems of the Bush administration. For a period of at least five years Clear Channel Independent was the worlds’ largest influence peddler of outdoor advertising, public relations politics and theatre entertainment complexes, representing popstars such as Madonna and Elton John, sportstars like Beckham and the list goes on of who influenced who. But why should anybody care? Who really needs to know who determines what is news when the reality is the product called news is a global media empire that has created a world resembling George Orwells 1984?

The shenanigans of pro-war Clear Channel Independent really takes the cake, but second prize in the brown-paper-bag category surely goes to Brian Mulroney, he of the ongoing Canadian Oliphant Commission investigation into the affairs of the Independent director. Mulroney, once the former Canadian PM, still heads up the O’Reilly Independent’s “international advisory board”. In addition to receiving a hefty annual payment as a non-executive board member for the group, Mulroney’s exploits have received some scrutiny from rebel shareholder Denis O’Brien, who really couldn’t give a damn if all the Independent titles were sold off to pay mounting debt in a financial crisis that is partly O’Reilly’s own doing.

Mulroney’s crimes may not be as brown as they are made out to be – taking kickbacks whilst in office is really just the beginning. A web of dodgy international deals have been exposed by award-winning investigative news programme Fifth Estate. It is therefore not surprising that Transnet afficionado Mac Maharaj is now in bed with another scandal, and a man who has rather strange relationship with German arms-dealer Karlheinz Schrieber.

So enough of the charade. Independent ceased being a media company years ago. The stories which it publishes on a daily basis bare absolutely no resemblance to the truth. Most are the produce of a vast public relations entity wielding influence and exercising power behind the thrones of world leaders. Is this the face of the new media? Certainly not, you know as well as I do, that South Africa has a vast online presence with hundreds of blogs exactly like this one. Publish the truth. Share this article amongst friends. Don’t believe Independent’s lies

Israelistine – is a three state solution possible?

It strikes me there is something pitiful about the two-state tango in which both Palestine and Israel are caught in an existential embrace from which neither country can extricate itself.

Sure, recognition of a Jewish State contingent on there being a democratic Palestine in which human rights are preserved. But this leaves out an important third grouping. Those citizens who identify with a broader social project in which both Jews and Muslims (as well as Christians) may find a home within the context of a secular/democratic society.

Such dreams of an Israelistine or Palesrael refuse to die out. They abound in the cherished ideals of those who seek a unitary state or one-state solution modelled upon the South African federal experience. South Africa is a unitary state with provinces that have a remarkable semblance of autonomy despite constant attack by those who wish to centralise power.

Could a tripartite or federal solution work in Israel? What exactly would a three-state solution entail?

First off one would want to grant the Jewish people a state in which the halacha was practised and where Judaism was the dominant religion and legal code.

Next, you would want to ensure a state for Palestinians, in which democracy and human rights was guaranteed.

Finally, and crucially, you would want to accommodate those who fit into neither camp, either because they were not Jews per se, (not observant enough), secular Israelis or Palestinians who wished to live in areas not granted to the autonomous number 2 state. This would be the state on paper which together with the two states above, created a new state of Israelistine, a state which for now only exists in the imagination.

Now all three entities (and the citizens they contain) might argue as to the exact meaning and terms of independence. Undoubtedly the Jewish State and the Palestinian State would be independent and autonomous, however they would find themselves agreeing that the neutral third state also had rights and responsibilities necessitating some form of nation-building – a national anthem, even a new flag which might be an amalgam of both the current Israeli and Palestinian flags, or as some have found, a piece of white cloth with two blue stripes and instead of a lone Star of David, the Cross and Crescent Moon on either side.

Has time run out for the lone star state? Do we need a huge rethink about Israel and Palestine? Can there ever be security behind borders?

Such an Israelistinian affair would necessitate a constitution, a federal parliament in which all three states could meet an enact laws.

Since all three states would have enormous levels of autonomy, they might evolve like the European Union, as an economic entity first and foremost, with political issues secondary.

However which way it was organised, the new state of Israelistine would allow for the full expression of Jews, Israelis and Palestinians in a co-operative and non-violent manner. It would allow all three states to coexist with the Arab scene as well as the International community and Jewish Diaspora.

Godsell is looting South African energy sector

The arguments given by Eskom CEO Bobby Godsell for increasing tariffs are an insult to the intelligence of consumers. The former mining boss is quoted by Bloomberg as saying “South Africa needs to set electricity prices at levels that will attract companies into the industry and encourage funding for necessary expansion by the utility.” In other words, the tariff increase has nothing to do with providing consumers with cheap, economical and environmental-friendly energy. Rather the tariff increase is all about profit-making and the creation of a lucrative energy market in which capital will be able to make a sizeable return on investment.

In a country in which the majority of South Africans are still living in abject poverty, in which a disproportionate amount of income is spent on basic services such as water and electricity, Godsell should probably be shot. It is one thing to attract investment and open the market to competition but guaranteeing high tariffs so that capital expenditure will be guaranteed a fixed term on investment is a bit like taking the worst aspects of socialism and capitalism and banging them together into a new beast which is far worse.

At least under the former monopolistic regime prices were kept low by limiting consumer choice. White South Africans and the economy benefited from cross-subsidization. Although Black South Africans were essentially excluded from many economic activities, they benefited from low food prices as a result of the subsidisation of agriculture by the utility. Now Godsell is arguing the subsidies need to be removed, so that a new tariff structure can be introduced. One which will benefit foreign investment and the so-called “private entry” to the sector while pushing up input costs in a variety of key industries especially agriculture. (There is currently no feed-in tariff for less than 1MW projects. The new tariff scheme is solely for the benefit of projects which exceed 1MW.)

All good and fine, we need to find ways of expanding the base electricity available to the national grid, but surely not by forcing consumers to subsidise large capital projects which will not return profits to the consumer, but rather end up repatriating investment along with a guaranteed escalation and interest to parts unknown. South Africans are therefore likely to see an enormous outflow of Rands and increase in inflation because of Godsell’s decision, money which is taken out of the pocket of the consumer, merely because, like so many wealthy South African capitalists, Godsell refuses to distinguish between investment, and the duties of the utility to provide for the common good or benefit of all.

Eskom under Godsell will also be engineering its own demise, with aggressive capital expansion projects that do nothing more than shift power from government to a foreign banking sector, through a variety of unnecessary and capital intensive projects such as Nuclear Power and PBMR, while funding an unsustainable form of competition dependent upon a captive market – you the consumer. We should demand an open market in which energy providers can fail or none at all. We must also demand unsustainable projects such as PBMR be shelved.

Eskom, as the nation’s energy provider of last resort, has a mandate to provide cheap and affordable electricity for all. This can be seen by the relevant clauses in the constitution. It is all very well to open the market to competition but at what price? Our telecommunications sector has a similar history of phased deregulation, and provides us with lessons on what not to do. A big bang is preferable to a phased period of deregulation in which an artififical market is created which in turn acts to prevent the transition to the next phase. South Africa could end up with the worst energy sector in the world. One in which consumers pay triple or are overcharged for the same unit of electricity, merely because contracts entered into by our government no longer see to the best interests of the consumer.

Locking consumers into an aggressive expansion programme in which there are no conceivable benefits for at least another generation will doom South Africa to unsustainable and unfordable electricity for the foreseeable future. It would be far better if the utility was raising money to fund the purchase of hydrogen fuel cells, solar panels and wind generators for domestic homes. Instead, Godsell like so many in the ANC elite, is simply feathering his own nest and entrenching his class position.

Tony Weaver you are a disgrace to the human race

Tony Weaver who epitomises the macho gun-slinging war correspondent, now wants to ingratiate himself with the End Conscription Campaign and its 25th Anniversary celebration. In a recent column in the neo-con daily Cape Times, Weaver relates his military career in the apartheid war machine. Listing several occasions in which he served in the same military responsible for dirty tricks against anti-apartheid activists and the death of Neil Aggett and David Webster, he then appears to regret “not having the opportunity” to join the ECC as an afterthought.

Well, Mr Weaver, it is surely too late to join the ECC now, not after 911. Maybe in a parallel dimension somewhere, another life, one in which you didn’t support the apartheid military-industrial complex? There is no going back now, no second chance to undo the damage — to make the right decision, to oppose apartheid, to cross the rubicon and to take a path which you never had the guts take. No, Tony, you are a disgrace to the memory of all those who died because of apartheid, all those who suffered in detention or at the hands of apartheid torturers. The fact that you are able to get away with writing your claptrap on a regular basis for the Cape Times is a testimony to the outright prejudice and wilful ignorance of the publishers — INM continue to maintain that having a military record is preferably to a dishonerable discharge.*

Your sterling record of service in the apartheid military which fought to uphold race segregation and class privilege has been noted. I thank you for making my life easier by allowing me to quote your pitiful misgivings at having participated in the slaughter of fellow South Africans in my case against the Independent Group. The company employs more than a few white soldiers and has continued to deny basic human rights to those who opposed the apartheid system.

When I suggested to the late Colin Howell that the newspaper publish an article giving the perspective of local COs on the war in Afganistan and Iraq (i.e an anti-war op-ed), I was excoriated and forced to fight a lengthy labour case against INM. Then when the CCMA found that I was an “Independent Contractor”, I sued the Cape Times in the Small Claims Court and won. The company still maintains that I do not have the right to contract my labour. I therefore intend suing for damages and defamation as soon as I am done with my case against another apartheid instrument, Media24, the former National Party mouthpiece. So much for reconciliation, but the system no longer resembles the country I fought for during the Struggle against Apartheid, and you and I were never on the same side.

*Section 59(3) of the Defence Act determines that: A member of the Regular Force absent from official duty without permission of their commanding officer for more than thirty days is regarded as having been dismissed if an officer,(or discharged if of other rank), for misconduct .

Send International Space Station to Mars

With all this talk about the recent discovery of water on the Moon, and now Mars it seems a new age of space exploration is upon us. Could the International Space Station be the answer to the USA failed Constellation programme?

Sending a self-contained habitat to the distant shores of a new world, where sufficient water exists to replenish supplies, may be the quickest and most economical solution. Colonists from Earth would be able to escape conflict on our home world, where earlier periods of exploration and discovery have resulted in genocide and tragedy for ethnic people.

The ISS would make an ideal spaceship and sending an international team could prove to be the kind of gesture that creates peace and friendship amongst nations.

In fact the ISS, with a footprint close to a conventional nuclear powered submarine, is just the kind of size habitat needed for extended journies of human exploration to the outer planets. The ISS could even begin the slow journey to planets in the solar system, with a crew knowing full well, that return to earth was highly unlikely.

Another war in the Middle East, you kidding me!

Here are 10 ways to stop the war in the Middle East. Hope you enjoy them.

1. Send everyone to Sweden, where the girls are easy and nobody has to worry about not being good looking.
2. Turn the map upside down, that way the Middle East will no longer be in the Middle East.
3. Convert Jews, Christians and Muslims to an open-source Religion like Yo. That way, nobody will kill each other over proprietary code, yes those funny books they carry around are filled with code, that’s why they called it the Bible Code.
4. Drop leaflets announcing a massive Turban and Veil sale in East London, the Muslims will flock. Then do something similar over Jerusalem. Drop leaflets about massive savings on Gefilte Fish and Herring with a map and directions to Iceland. Jews will find themselves compelled to leave the city. Finally, let on that Jesus was actually Chinese, the Christians will be forced to scoot off to Beijing.
5. Send the Palestinians on an all-expenses paid holiday to Mauritius. Then steal their shoes and make off with the return tickets. They will find themselves demanding an independent state in the Middle of the Indian Ocean.
6. Sponsor Indian head massages for the Holocaust Survivors and hope the Israeli Army flakes out on incense and candles.
7. Create an advertising campaign around the return of the Messiah. Schedule a date for his return but instead leave instructions on how to build a giant space rocket. True seekers will be compelled to blast off into space.
8. Build an exact replica of Jerusalem in the Karoo desert but made out of better quality material. Hand it over to the faithful who will thank you for fulfilling lousy promises of ownership in the good books, and giving everybody better plumbing.
9. Better yet, develop a wayward timeshare scheme in which Muslims and Jews get to own the whole of Jerusalem 15 times over, then when they all start kibbitzing, offer them all a Bigger, Greater, Opportunity of a Lifetime, an even Buffer Jerusalem in a Disneyworld Themepark. They will realise the miraculous and thank you.
10. Israel can be the Palestinian Homeland every other day and vice versa. Run the relevant flags up and down vigorously and demonstrate how two countries can actually live as one. It worked in South Africa, hey, we even had a flag made out of four whole flags and some stitching, but that was during apartheid. You kidding me? I guess nobody’s perfect.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a true post-modernist, or just crazy?

Been thinking about the problem with Mahmoud. Perhaps we should be putting up “I love Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” signs and calling for him to surrender to the infinite virtue and forgiveness of the universe. Then when he’s not looking, pack him off to the funny farm?

Not only does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad think that he is GOD, he is literally GOD. Quite obviously. I am waiting for the next sura to emanate from his very lips. The metaphysical truth – There was no Holocaust. The 20th Century is a myth. How very postmodern. I know a few people who sound like him sometimes, most of them are nuts.

Obviously if he was actually ON, speaking the TRUTH, he would be saying: There was NOTHING and there was EVERYTHING. THE HOLOCAUST MEANS NOTHING AND IT MEANS EVERYTHING at least from an existential perspective.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the all-powerful, all-knowing and all-seeing. Mahmoud the TRUTH. The unmoved mover, the causeless cause of all causes. GOD on EARTH. Surely the man is immortal? Able to prove to us his indestructible nature? I say, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can stop a bullet with his teeth?

Virtues ascribed to the Prophet Mohemmed, which can be ascribed to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – a man of good lineage, clear conscience, able to pass the various tests put to him. Let’s test him now.

Payments to disgraced INM board member under scrutiny

One can only wonder if the threatened closure of the London Independent newspapers, is a ruse to deflect attention away from a scandal involving non-executive director Brian Mulroney? Readers will remember that Independent, which publishes South Africa’s Star and Cape Argus, is in the process of being restructured amidst a controversy which refuses to go away.

Denis O’Brien, the telecoms billionaire who most recently bailed out the group has introduced a resolution calling on shareholders to stop a €100,000 annual payment to a company owned by Mulroney. Mulroney is under investigation by the Canadian police because of a bribery and kickbacks scandal involving German arms-dealer Karlheinz Schrieber.

O’Brien has also called on shareholders to cancel a €300,000 annual payment to former chief executive Sir Anthony O’Reilly in respect of his position as president emeritus of the firm. The current board under Hillary says O’Reilly is not entitled under contract to such a payment, but will argue that the resolution is moot.

The company’s board, on which O’Brien has minority representation, is also likely to refuse to put to the AGM O’Brien’s call for a detailed schedule of all board member expenses since the start of 2000 to be prepared by a firm of independent accountants and circulated to all shareholders.

There was no comment from O’Brien, the marauding minority shareholder who is apparently also seeking at the AGM to remove company chairman Brian Hillary and to replace senior independent director Baroness Margaret Jay, a tory conservative. One can only hope shareholders will come to their senses and realise the O’Reilly dynasty is over and the only way to save the company is to move on with doing business, which is about printing newspapers, not investing in Wedgewood crystal, 18 Century Mansions and chandeliers.

Charge Ahmadinejad with hate crimes.

Ahmadinejad remarks on Friday about the Holocaust brought swift reaction from European neighbours: “With his intolerable tirades he is a disgrace to his country. This sheer anti-Semitism demands our collective condemnation. We will continue to confront it decisively in the future,” said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Denying the Holocaust – carried out by Nazi Germany in World War Two – is a crime in Germany, punishable by up to five years in prison.

“Attempts to rewrite history, especially as the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II is being marked this year, are an offence to the memory of all victims and all those who fought fascism.” said a Russian foreign ministry spokesperson.

“Denying the Holocaust is baseless, ignorant and hateful,” said Barack Obama in an earlier address.

In South Africa Holocaust denial can be construed as hate speech. There is also a common law which protects citizens from “assault by threats’ or “intimidation”. The Iranian president’s remarks fit the bill, and are surely incitement to violence with all the power of injury alluded to by the statute book?

Another case to be made is one of defamation. Essentially Holocaust denial is an attempt to defame the Jewish people, and others, by claiming the well-organised genocide which occurred in Nazi Germany, was somehow a fabrication. Whatever the distortion of the truth, and the problematic Middle East issue, not formulating charges would be counter-productive.

Allowing the Iranian to escape our laws would set the tone that this kind of behaviour is acceptable. Our national discourse would cease to be consistent, having called for human dignity, to condone the idea that the advocacy of genocide or ethnic cleansing is somehow acceptable.

1989 Peace March: apartheid revisionism or memory playing tricks?

For Desmond Tutu, the 1989 Peace March was a “tipping point”, for Allan Boesak, it “wasn’t about getting permission, it was about marching for peace come what may”. Those who were in the front of the 30 000 gathering which became the last “illegal march” under apartheid, at least in the minds of the majority of people who were there — a supreme act of defiance against the regime of FW de Klerk — appear to contradict today’s revisionists who at once focus on the failure of the government to suppress the march as evidence of the man’s noble intentions (which had yet to manifest in tangible policy) while writing off an act of insurrection by Cape Town’s Mayor at the time, Gordon Oliver.

Oliver is a Unitarian and thus his views are not readily given the kind of credit they deserve, at least as far as the Anglican Church is concerned. I attended today’s commemorative event hosted by St Georges Cathedral and was swept up in the highly emotional interfaith service which appeared to unite various strands of the Abrahamic tradition. From a Call to Prayer by Yusef Ganief which utilised the supreme acoustics of the venue, to the closing hymnal of Birkat Khohanim, a Judaic paeon to Peace sung by Jessica Thorn, the whole event struck a raw nerve. I was simply and elegantly brought to tender tears by the Cape Cultural Collective, after a candid speech by the Cape Flats’ Cheryl Carolus who surely embodies the youthful rebellion of the time?

It is easy to forget the kind of political will which exemplified itself in People’s Power and which made the United Democratic Front (UDF) such a revolutionary force in South Africa. One can always slip into neat semantics of the kind which gets people Nobel Peace Prizes and forget the fortitude and determination which marked the crowd of “students, business people, domestic workers, civic and political activists; of every race, faith, age and class”, some of whom had witnessed the Purple Rain debacle ten days earlier and the chaotic start of a defiance campaign spurred on by an all-white election, and a velvet revolution which was occurring in Eastern Europe (which would result in the End of the Cold War and fall of the Berlin Wall).

South Africa was thus in the midst of its own purple revolution when progressive religious leaders got together and realised they had better do something or we would end up with yet another tragedy, the likes of which South Africans are all too familiar. Soweto 1976, Sharpeville, Boipatong. This country has its share of massacres.

In fact, an online biography written by Tom Wooten details the circumstances in which Oliver became involved in an ‘illegal march.

“Several days before Gordon’s inauguration, seven “terrorists” were shot by government police in the Cape Flats township of Guguletu. An outpouring of grief and anger from the black community ensued, which culminated in a massive memorial service … as the service concluded, Archbishop Desmond Tutu encouraged the mourners to join an illegal protest march that was to occur the following week. Gordon didn’t give this request much thought until he was approached by a reporter, who asked him if he planned to join the protest. Gordon quickly and confidently made up his mind, replying that he would indeed join the march. “It wasn’t an issue of ’should I’ or ’shouldn’t I,’” he remembers, “it was just the right thing to do.”

“The next day,” according to Wooten, the Cape Times “ran a huge front-page headline reading “Defiant Mayor to March.” Gordon’s phone rang nonstop all day. Even some of his fellow progressive City Council members were appalled that he planned to openly break the law. Nonetheless, Gordon held his ground. “I’m merely upholding council policy,” he told his fellow councillors

Oliver apparently assured the council that the march would be peaceful, although truthfully, he had no basis on which to give this assurance.

“When the phone calls subsided, Gordon set to work ensuring that the march would be as peaceful as possible. First, he met with Cape Town’s Chief of Police, a gruff no-nonsense Afrikaner whose orders came directly from the national government. Gordon pleaded with him not to break up the march, insisting that the demonstrators would remain peaceful if left unprovoked. The chief listened to Gordon, but made no promises. Then, Gordon met with the UDF march organizers, and ensured that they would deploy uniformed marshals to keep the crowds under control. Gordon had done his best, but the march’s outcome remained far from certain. “

Wooten says: “Gordon was overwhelmed with joy when tens of thousands of demonstrators poured peacefully fourth from St. George’s Cathedral and for once, the government riot police merely stood by and watched. Gordon walked among the marchers, and the crowd parted ways for him as he made his way to City Hall. When he arrived, Gordon addressed the crowd with a megaphone from his office balcony. “Today,” he exclaimed, “you all have the freedom of this city!” From the crowd, Gordon heard overjoyed cries. “He’s our Mayor!” someone shouted. Another one called out “This is our city!”

Gordon Oliver is really the man in my mind who deserves a peace prize. Although present at the commemoration, he was out-gunned by Dan Plato the current Cape Town Mayor, and thus no words of deep reassurance of historical reason emanated from the lofts, but surely it was he who single-handedly liberated the streets of Cape Town by refusing to comply with the State of Emergency which outlawed public gatherings? I dare say the state would have been at a loss to explain what occurred when Oliver gave the go-ahead for the march and the state security forces found themselves unwilling to countermand the Cape Town police services which as we all know, would have fallen directly or indirectly under the Mayoral aegis.

At least this is how I, as one of the 30 000 rabble who marched, wish to see the event. Not “faith in a trusting president” as true believers such as Mary Burton, chairperson of the Black Sash would have it, which makes it all seem like a quaint Saturday morning picnic, an outing in which an all-seeing and all-knowing politician, casually gives the go ahead to a bunch of compliant lackeys one of whom happens to be the liberation theologian Allan Boesak, and the rabblerouser for peace, Desmond Tutu?

Saying FW did it, “because the people trusted him”, makes the struggle and defiance campaign all too easy. The tension between white officialdom and black clergy way too trite. The apartheid state was never that trusting nor pliable. No it was resilient, fortified by kragdadigheid and the certainty that God himself was on the side of the Afrikaner and nothing short of a revelation from on-high, or as some Jews might have it, a burning bush suddenly appearing in Adderley Street and talking truth to a modern Moses, could sway such conviction.

No, Ms Burton, doing so relegates not just our sense of the period but our strength of conviction to the puerile and adolescent. Perhaps somebody needs to give the Unitarians and the former President a call to find out exactly how different Christian perspectives influenced events? Again, there were more than one or two Jews and Muslims (as well as other faiths) involved in the picture. The historical record will surely support such conjecture.

In Tutu’s version, the defiance campaign made the Peace March go-ahead on Gordon’s authority, a fait accompli, an act of skilful defiance which lead directly to the events which saw the release of Nelson Mandela. In Mary Burton’s mind, as well as the minds of more than a few participants at the ceremony, FW de Klerk waved his magic wand in order to make things happen, as if the President was some kind of Hollywood producer bankrolling the struggle and paying for his share in the proceedings with the Nobel billions. Is this theological point/counterpoint or simply product placement of the worst order? Some might see the ruckus as mere wish fulfilment in a canon of popular memory that is slowly disappearing, but I doubt whether the truth of the matter is likely to be revealed without considerable chest-beating and bleating about necessary “sacrifices” and humility in the face of so much which is evil.

NOTE:: De Klerk waved the prohibition against illegal marches during a press conference held the night before the event, allowing the march to proceed unimpeded by security legislation. The point is moot, since there was no attempt by the organisers to gain permission, bar the personal intervention and pleading of the mayor, which can be seen by subsequent arrangements made to accommodate future “illegal marches” so organisers would not have to “ask permission”. There’s your flaming gun. The government capitulated. Slaves do not ask permission from their masters to be free.]

http://davidrobertlewis.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/wikipedia-%E2%80%93-home-to-white-supremacists-and-the-christian-rightwing/