Why the world needs more divorces

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

Introduction

In South Africa, the 2012/2013 Annual Report of the Department of Justice reported that in 2012/13, there was a 28% increase in new divorce matters. There were more females than males who instituted divorce (plaintiffs) during that period. This seems to be an increasing and interesting trend these days. Many moralists hold the view that the reason for the increase in the number of divorces is the decay of the ‘good’ norms and values that have been in place in society since ‘time immemorial.’ However, this world needs more divorces than ever before if we are to see real women emancipation. Divorces are therefore a condition without which the liberation of women is impossible. They are a conditio sine qua non for the liberation of women.

[ALSO READ: Who is the real head in the family? The wife or husband? Apostle Paul responds]

This world has been a patriarchal society since, to use the moralists’ language, time immemorial. Patriarchy is much older than capitalism. It is even older than feudalism and slavery. Patriarchy is rampant even in many Socialist and Communist parties of the world. As such, when the priests, pastors and their moralist buddies claim that divorces are caused by the decay of societal norms and values they refer to patriarchal norms and values. Seen in this fashion, one then needs to praise this high prevalence of divorces. It is a good thing. It is a clear sign of progress in so far as the women’s struggle for liberation is concerned. It is an act of rebelling from the dictates of the oppressive world-wide patriarchal system. Rebelling against patriarchal norms and values is a good thing which everyone, men included, must do.

God and Ancestors want people to get married?

Perhaps we also need to question the very idea of marriage. Marriage has set principles and processes. It does not matter whether it is a marriage based on religion or culture or other system, or whether it is a marriage in Africa, Europe or America. Whilst on the one hand the pastors and priests claim we should marry because it is what God wants us to do, African traditionalists, on the other hand, claim that we must get married because marriage is one of the precious institutions that our ancestors left us and which they want us to continue doing.

But whose principles and processes are these? As stated above, the world has been a patriarchal world for many centuries. That means all the marriages of this world are firmly based on the rules, principles and processes underpinning patriarchy. Hence we have the ‘Mrs’ title, for instance, whilst in many societies the woman must leave her family and join her husband’s family after the wedding ceremony where she will practically become the husband’s minor child. In some societies, when the woman is raped by a man their principles state that the rapist man must be forced to marry her. Nothing about the raped woman’s right is in issue. All they are worried about is the embarrassment that the rape has caused on the woman’s family, a family which also has a male as its head and ultimate ruler. In a nutshell, marriage as it stands today, is nothing but a tool which is used to keep women in bondage and perpetuate the nonsensical belief that a woman is not a real woman unless and until she is married to someone (a man) and lobola is paid for her.

Therefore, all the marriage principles, rules and processes are nothing but a way of strengthening patriarchy. Patriarchy has developed to such an extent that even women themselves are its champions and thereby contribute to the subjugation of women; hence fighting against it is difficult. Even men have found it extremely difficult to fight against the backward principles of marriage such as the payment of lobola and other backward principles. Many times the opposition against such rebelling has come from women themselves. They seem to want to keep themselves in this perpetual disease of patriarchal marriage system and, like wild animals which always fight veterinarians who want to heal them of their infectious wounds, many women will fight even the men who have rebelled against this patriarchal system of marriage.

Conclusion

Women and men must, despite the challenges mentioned above, rebel against the current system or form of marriage. When one investigates the trend that divorces have taken, it becomes clear that the more women get their independence the more divorces we shall see. Women independence has contributed in the increase in divorces. More women are making their voices heard and stand by them. They are questioning the very institutions in which they find themselves. Unfortunately they are in a patriarchal world where pastors, priests, evangelists, traditionalists, lawyers, human rights activists (yes, them too!) and all other moralists are always armed with powerful weapons against this independence that these women seek. When the women make their voices heard and stand by them the one thing that they consistently receive is violence and condemnation by society. Nevertheless the struggle must continue. More divorces mean the goal towards women liberation is getting closer.

Let there be more divorces! 

[ALSO READ: Ten steps towards being the Perfect Revolutionary]

Imprisoned PUDEMO President Mario Masuku denied medical care by Mswati regime

The People’s United Democratic Movement’s (PUDEMO) President Mario Masuku has fallen critically ill at His Majesty’s Correctional Services at the Zakhele Remand Centre. He is suffering from pneumonia due to a combination of various horrible conditions he has been exposed to. He has grown physically weak, pale, lost weight and has lost part of his eyesight.

Having to be subjected to a poor diet of porridge, beans and the occasional poorly cooked cabbage has contributed to his deteriorated condition.

Zakhele remand centre has refused to put President Masuku in a cell well secured in terms of cold and bad weather conditions since his arrest on the 1st of May 2014. He has been further denied warm clothes and access to his private medical practitioner. Visitors who come to check on him have been made to wait for nothing less than five hours, including refusal of his own son to consult him in his capacity as a lawyer .The latter has been classified as a normal visitor, much against the law itself.

Some of his comrades have been banned from visiting him. The ban was constituted after they brought him and Maxwell Dlamini newspapers deemed too political by warders. The reading material included nation magazine which is a Swazi monthly publication that is normally critical of the authorities, city press and Sowetan which are both South African newspapers.

Maxwell Dlamini still in academic limbo

Maxwell Dlamini, the Secretary General of Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO), who was arrested alongside Masuku, continues to be denied the right to sit for his examinations at the University of Swaziland where he is doing his fourth year in Commerce. Much against the dictates of the laws of the country Justice Mpendulo Simelane overturned his own judgement that Dlamini should write his examinations. In what appears to be two shades of Justice, a convicted fraudster, a known king’s praise singer Chawe Mamba is allowed to further his studies while the 23 years old Dlamini’s future has been abruptly curtailed.

As the Commander in Chief of the Correctional Services, PUDEMO holds Mswati III responsible for the abuse perpetrated on both President Mario Masuku and Maxwell Dlamini. It will also hold him answerable in the eventuality that the condition of the President worsens to the point of death.

PUDEMO demands that Mzuthini Ntshangase as head of the prisons should personally attend to this matter as soon as possible because it has become clear that his subordinates have not even the least regard for the law. As an awaiting trial detainee President Mario Masuku remains innocent until proven to the contrary. He should get fair treatment as per his health condition. His son should be allowed to consult him like any other lawyer. He must be allowed visitations and his visitors must not be intimidated with harassment and banning.

PUDEMO demands that Maxwell Dlamini should be immediately allowed his right to education by being allowed to write his examination.

PUDEMO remains deeply touched by the levels of cruelty and inhuman conditions that these prisoners of conscious are daily subjected to.

Issued by: The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO)/ Office of the Deputy President

PUDEMO-ANC Alliance: Is it dead?

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

Introduction

All members of the People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) grow up with the knowledge that there is an unbreakable historical alliance between PUDEMO and the African National Congress (ANC). This teaching has come under immense scrutiny especially from young comrades. We have seen some of these younger members of PUDEMO going to the extent of openly advocating for political parties that are opposed to the ANC in South Africa and daily alleging that the ANC has sold out its own friends in the Swaziland struggle. These comrades allege that the ANC has chosen to act ignorant on the brutalities committed by the royal regime of Swaziland.

Brief History of the alliance

[ALSO READ: Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) in exile – Swaziland]

PUDEMO was officially born in 1983. Before that year underground ANC cadres who were based in Swaziland worked together with other Swazi nationals in the struggle against apartheid and in the organising of the trade union movement in Swaziland. As such, there are many unsung Swazi heroes who fought in the struggle against apartheid, some of whom even went to exile with the ANC. In the years leading to the launch of PUDEMO the relationship between the ANC and Swazi comrades became cemented. PUDEMO was formed by Swazi comrades in unity with South Africa’s ANC comrades.

Towards the end of the 1980s the PUDEMO-ANC alliance was so strong that the Royal regime in Swaziland was more willing to cooperate with the South African apartheid regime when it wanted to arrest or murder some important ANC cadres who were based in Swaziland. Some of the Swazi comrades had to go to exile, escaping from both oppressive regimes. The maintenance of this alliance meant that if any of the two movements attained freedom before the other, this would present fertile ground for the one which would not have attained freedom to find root in the independent state. Thus, for example, if PUDEMO had attained freedom before the ANC could, PUDEMO would be duty-bound, in strict revolutionary terms, to assist the ANC in its fight against the apartheid regime, and vice-versa.

The ANC- King Sobhuza II alliance

It is important to mention at this point that the ANC did have a strategic alliance with King Sobhuza II, such alliance having commenced during the reign of Queen Regent Labotsibeni, to such an extent that Sobhuza had an ANC membership card. ANC leadership would sometimes send delegations to Sobhuza to meet with him and discuss important issues with an aim to strengthen their strategic alliance. This alliance was, in my view, important for the ANC, for at that time South Africa was surrounded mostly by colonies such as Mozambique (Independence: 1975.), Angola (Independence: 1975), and Namibia (formerly South West Africa – Independence: 1990). Thus, it became important for the ANC to have at least a temporary strategic alliance with the independent Swaziland state (Independence 1968). This strategic alliance also made sense because they had a common enemy: colonialism.

Post 1994

PUDEMO members must have understandably believed that when South Africa had its first democratic elections in 1994, especially with an expected ANC victory, Swaziland would immediately follow and attain democracy. In 1994 I was too young to understand the mood of our PUDEMO comrades, but it must have evoked some spirit of freedom from within them. This, sadly, was not to be. South Africa celebrates twenty years of democracy this year, whilst Swaziland, on the other hand, seems too far from freedom and the ANC seems neutral on the struggle for freedom in Swaziland.

The ANC has had three presidents since 1994. Some of our comrades claim that President Jacob Zuma will never speak out against the Swaziland regime because he is directly related to King Mswati III. It is public knowledge that Zuma was given a woman, Princess Sebentile, as a gift from the Swazi royal family, to marry, although he now seems reluctant to officially marry her. Thus, Zuma is King Mswati’s brother-in-law. Princess Sebentile is King Zobhuza II’s daughter. Further, it is believed by many people, some of our own comrades included, that Zuma received great help, specifically in the form of muthi, which helped him beat the academically-decorated former president, Thabo Mbeki, in the 2007 ANC elective congress in Polokwane. It is true that on the years leading to that congress Zuma was in and out of Swaziland, in most instances the Swazi media choosing not to report on the visits or the reasons for those visits. With these facts in mind, some of our comrades are convinced that in order for our struggle to make greater progress, Zuma must vacate the presidency.

I do not entirely agree with my comrades’ narrative, however. Firstly, none of the previous two presidents, Thabo Mbeki and Nelson Mandela, has ever publicly condemned the Royal regime for its atrocities. In most cases it was just praises for King Mswati, with Mandela being the main culprit here. Mandela went to Swaziland and publicly proclaimed, in praising King Mswati, that the king was not just a king for the Swazis but also a king for all people in Southern Africa (Ingonyama akusiyo nje yamaSwati kuphela. Ingonyama eyethu nathi sonke eMzansi Afrika).

Secondly, Mandela is also related to King Mswati. His eldest daughter, Zenani, married Swaziland’s Prince Thembumuzi, a son of the late King Sobhuza II, in 1973. Zenani is still known in Swaziland with the title “Her Royal Highness” due to that marriage, although she has separated from her Swazi husband. Therefore, Mandela and Zuma find themselves in the same pot. Thabo Mbeki never condemned nor praised King Mswati. He was forever silent until the last days of his presidency when he committed the utmost blunder of visiting Swaziland.

There are many other reasons why I disagree with the above-mentioned anti-Zuma narrative. The main thing is that since 1994 none of the presidents has actually come out to condemn the regime. In fact one must boldly state that the greatest progress that has been seen in the ANC with regard to our struggle has been under President Zuma’s presidency. In the Mangaung conference in 2012, for instance, the ANC resolved to not only support the struggle for Swaziland’s democracy, but went on to form a special committee that would concentrate on the democratisation of Swaziland. Well, the fact that the committee is toothless and filled with too many pro-monarchy members is an issue for another day.

ANC in business with King Mswati III

[ALSO READ: ANC Conflicted on Swaziland: Can it be trusted?]

Today we have all accepted that the ANC is in business with King Mswati. Sadly, some of our comrades would not like to see us raising this issue repeatedly. They must close their eyes and ears, or better yet shut down their brains! I wonder what they stand to gain in this evil business partnership. The ANC, through its investment wing, Chancellor House, owns a large part of Maloma Colliery, with the other part being owned by King Mswati’s Tibiyo Taka Ngwane. Practically this means the ANC is in bed with King Mswati. All their business partnerships are simply about profit, bigger profit and more super-profits. All this happens at the expense of the oppressed people of Swaziland and the liberation struggle as a whole, whilst they proclaim the now-tired diplomatic phrase, “we will not interfere into the internal affairs of another sovereign state.”

It is known that many other rich ANC cadres do visit Swaziland and even go on to play golf with King Mswati. They even enjoy exclusive dinner with him in his extravagant palaces. No political program is ever attached to their visits. It is just great friends visiting one of their own great friends on great days. Some ANC comrades, such as Siphiwe Nyanda, have even supplied the regime’s army with guns and ammunition which the regime has proceeded to use for the murder of our comrades. Some ANC comrades make it a point to visit Swaziland during the Marula season and drink with Mswati whilst some prefer to take part during the reed dance ceremony. At one point Baleka Mbethe also took part in the Marula celebrations at Buhleni Royal Kraal, where she was also able to secretly meet and discuss with the king and other government officials such as Mr Lutfo Dlamini. At another point, Julius Malema, then an ANCYL president, visited Swaziland. He was reported by the Swazi media to have been on a tour of Swaziland and was later caught by the Royal Swaziland Police for drunken driving. He had gone to Swaziland to have some nice time with his Swaziland-based friends. Just like his elders’ visits, there was no political program attached to his visit as well.

Additionally, the ANC-led government has a deal with the autocratic regime of Swaziland to have a rail-line operating from South Africa, which will go through Swaziland and reach Richards Bay, a business venture aimed at cutting costs for the South African government. None of the projects being carried out either by the ANC or individual ANC cadres or the ANC-led government have any political program attached to them. None of them is of any benefit to PUDEMO or the struggle. They are all about business and making as much profit as possible for the ANC, the ANC-led government and some individual ANC comrades.

The ANC is today in warm blankets and comfortable bed with the brutal royal regime. It is as if they have forgotten about the people of Swaziland’s role in the South African liberation struggle. It appears as if they have forgotten the historical alliance between PUDEMO and the ANC. The myth that Swazi exiles receive refugees’ status in South Africa because of the existence of an ANC-PUDEMO alliance must be debunked. It is international law, not any PUDEMO-ANC alliance, which forces the South African government to issue refugees’ status to Swaziland exiles. If it were due to the alliance, then that would mean the ANC is also in alliance with Zimbabwe’s MDC and other opposition parties in countries such as Angola, Pakistan, Iraq, DRC, etc, as well. The truth is that Swazi exiles receive refugees’ status because there is a political crisis in Swaziland, a crisis which is well-acknowledged by the international community. Even people who are not members of PUDEMO have received such refugee’ status.

The relationship that the ANC has with the royal regime has muddied the PUDEMO-ANC alliance. Thus, whatever resolutions the ANC has taken in the past, when one views the relationship that it has with King Mswati, it becomes clear that those resolutions were nothing but cold water on the back of a duck. The ANC gives us hope whilst at the same time taking away the little hope that we have. This year PUDEMO was invited by the ANC-led government to president Zuma’s inauguration at the Union Buildings. All this was being done, in my view, to keep us quiet about the Mswati-ANC seemingly unbreakable relationship. I dare say that if Swazi guerrillas could attack King Mswati and aim to overthrow his regime by the barrel of the gun, the ANC-led government would interfere and attempt to save the monarch, partly in order to save its own economic interests, despite the non-interference rhetoric!

[READ: Umntfwana Longakhali Ufela eSwatini]

Conclusion

It is sad that a revolutionary alliance that had a great promise has disintegrated to such levels. Some Swazi comrades seem to have given up on the struggle because of such a seemingly-dead alliance. If there is any life in this alliance it is important that drastic measures are taken to energize it. As things stand, the ANC looks like any of the other political parties in South Africa in so far as the struggle for freedom in Swaziland is concerned.

If it is not possible to resuscitate the PUDEMO-ANC alliance, then we should remove the wool in our eyes and start opening up to the fact that we no longer have an alliance and instead start treating the ANC as just one of the organisations of the world from which we can accept any kind of assistance, but with the knowledge that they are not our friends. We should wake up to the fact that they will not stand with us when it matters the most. As things stand the alliance looks dead!

Communist Party of Burma turns 75 years old

Communist Party of Burma turns 75 years old

Message from the CPS to the Communist Party of Burma

The Communist Party of Swaziland congratulates the Communist Party of Burma on the 75th anniversary – 15 August 2014 – of the founding of the CPB.

The example of the CPB in its immense struggle against fascism and dictatorship in Burma, one that has shaped the emergence of the party as well as the character of the current challenges it faces.

We have paid particular attention to the discipline you display in party building and organisation, and hope to learn more about your forms of struggle and mobilisation.

Our party, the CPS, is a very new player on the scene, and we take inspiration from your history and struggle. Swaziland is also essentially a one party state – the monarch being the ruling party – as all political parties are banned. We are struggling to put an end to this monarchic autocracy, and to put an end to the feudal-capitalist order.

It is therefore with particular interest that we follow the work of your party, and we hope that we can create a basis for practical solidarity between our two organisations.

We wish you a very auspicious anniversary, one that points the way to the victory of your struggle.

Long live the Communist Party of Burma!

Long live socialism!

Long live working class internationalism!

In Solidarity

Kenneth Kunene

General Secretary

CPS

12 August 2014

In Solidarity

Kenneth Kunene
General Secretary
CPS
12 August 2014

Trust and Betrayal

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

It takes a very long time to build trust, but only one small stupid act to destroy completely. Once trust is destroyed it is impossible to rebuild to the point in which it was before. 

For lovers, the ultimate act of betrayal, I suppose, is cheating. When you have cheated on your lover and your lover has forgiven you for it, you must not be then act surprised when your lover doesn't see you the way she/he used to see you before the betrayal. The fact is that, notwithstanding that one act of betrayal, however small, the cheating will always be in your lover's mind for the rest of her/his life. Some days it'll be intense and some days will be mild, but it will be there. People who've cheated and got caught should never, therefore, expect that they'll in future be called the nice names and receive the warmest cuddling they used to get before the betrayal. It is absurd for a cheater to expect that her/his partner will continue with the purest excitement they exhibited before the cheating.

Hence when someone has cheated and got caught they have two choices;

1.    Stay in the relationship and live the rest of your life with the knowledge that your partner doesn't trust or love you the same way she/he used to, OR

2.    Leave the relationship and start a new one with someone you've never betrayed, someone who'll obviously have 'better' trust for you than the one you betrayed. 

For comrades, the ultimate act of betrayal is when one starts to sleep with the enemy, that is, the oppressor. It has been mentioned before that there is no prison for traitors. Hence they're usually, and should in fact be, killed when caught. Failure to do such risks the whole movement being delivered to the hands of the enemy where it shall be destroyed. Hence, comrades who've been caught working for the enemy must simply request that particular enemy to help move them far away, safe from their former comrades. 

I end with a warning that if you've betrayed someone or people, you should never expect that things will be as they were before the betrayal, no matter the amount of apologies and no matter the depth of the forgiveness.

ALSO: When Signing Autographs On Breasts Failed To Quench Our Thirst

Why most Christians, especially Roman Catholic Priests, are accomplices in the mass-murder of Palestinians

My Religious Me: Part V

The truth about the history of Israel and Palestine must be told. Christians, especially Catholic priests, must not hide vital information about this subject. I would understand that most of the fly-by-night churches may have zero information on this. Catholics, however, have information at their disposal but they do not want to share it with the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the people of Palestine are being butchered daily by apartheid Israel under the pretext that the land of the Palestinians is a land that was promised to them by their God. Nonsense!

Today I share an enlightening article, first published in Umsebenzi Online, written by Future Msebele regarding this question.

The question of Palestine in historical perspective: What does the Bible say?

By Future Msebele

We have seen on our television screens image after image of Israeli planes and heavy artillery bombarding the narrow coastal strip dominated by the city of Gaza. Hamas, the dominant party in control of Gaza has retaliated by relatively harmless rocket attacks against Israel.

Why is Israel attacking Gaza? Who are the Israelis? Who are the Palestinians?

In Zimbabwe there is a strong body of opinion which says “This land belongs to the Jews because the Bible says so.” This is indeed a very short-sighted and misinformed statement. When the Christian religion began, it adopted wholesale the Jewish scriptures which we know as the Old Testament. Read the relevant historical portions properly and you will find that there were many different peoples there long before the invasion by the Hebrew tribes who were to adopt and introduce what we now call the religion of Judaism.

18: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates;

19: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,

20: And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,

21: And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Genesis 15 vs. 18-21 (KJV)

Two things are obvious here: firstly that there were other people already living there; secondly, as all would know too well through the European versions of African history - history is mostly written by the winners. It is the Israelites, and not all the other people mentioned who are saying that the land was promised to them!

Further on, in the First Book of Samuel Chapter 15, we read that God ordered King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites!

1: Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

2: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Again, Jews regard Jerusalem as their historic capital. But they did not build it:

4: And David and all Israelwent to Jerusalem, which is Jebus; where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants of the land.

5: And the inhabitants of Jebussaid to David, Thou shalt not come hither.

Nevertheless David took the castle of Zion, which is the city of David.

1 Chronicles 11 vs. 4&5 (KJV)

What we read, then, in the Old Testament is about a group of warlike nomadic tribes with their herds of cattle, sheep and goats, conquering peaceful city dwellers and establishing themselves as rulers.

As we study the history of the Jews through the Bible and other sources we find that the people of Palestine/Israel, lying between the two great early civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia (Iraq) were of extremely mixed origin including in their gene-pool both fair-haired Hittites and black Ethiopians. Likewise, when it comes to religion we find that worship of the Golden Calf and of Baal went side by side with the worship of the one God - with different forms of religion being dominant at different times. People who did not originally belong to the Hebrew tribes began to practise the Jewish religion and people that were of Hebrew origin turned to other religions.

By the time of Jesus, there were more Jews outside Palestine than in Palestine, many of them proselytes, that is converts.

Following unsuccessful Jewish revolts against the Romans in 70CE - when the temple was destroyed and the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132CE, the Jewish leadership left Palestine, leaving behind the peasants who slowly converted - first to Christianity, then later to Islam. Many people do not know that about 15% of Palestinians are Christian - descendants of the earliest Christians. Most of the rest are Muslims.

The Palestinians of today, then, are the descendants of the many different peoples that inhabited the land in ancient times - including Jews - since which they have also acquired ancestry from the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula, West European Crusaders and Turks - all of whom conquered that territory at various times. Israeli Jewish historian Tsvi Misinai states categorically in a piece written in 2009 that “90% of Palestinians are descended from Jews.”

At the same time, many people of non-Palestinian origin converted to Judaism. In the Acts of the Apostles:

Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

Acts 13 v 43 (KJV)

There are a number of other references to proselytes in the New Testament.

More than that, we know of many cases of whole communities which converted to Judaism in Yemen, Ethiopia and most spectacularly in the Khazar Kingdom which covered an area now in Russia and eastern Ukraine. In the 8th century CE, an entire Turkic-speaking kingdom, the Khazar Kingdom converted to Judaism, and, although estimates vary, it is definite that a considerable part of European Jewry have Khazar ancestry.

How then did Jewish settlers from all over the world come to claim Palestine as theirs?

During the 19th century in Europe, nation states began to be formed. Italy became one nation in 1851, Germany in 1871. Others, Poles, Czechs and Hungarians were seeking to form nation states. Some Jews began to ask themselves where they belonged.

In 1895, an Austrian Jew, Theodor Herzl wrote a book called The Jewish State. Two years later the First World Zionist Congress took place in Switzerland. Herzl approached the Turkish government for a Jewish settlement in Palestine (at that time part of the Ottoman or Turkish Empire) although permission to establish a Jewish state was refused (despite an offer to assist the Turks pay off substantial debts), small groups of Jews began to settle in Palestine. However, Palestine was not the only place thought suitable for a Jewish National Home, part of British East Africa (now Kenya) was also seriously considered!

In Russia in 1910, as the Tsarist Empire grew to a close, and only 7 years before the Russian Revolution. Pogroms - attacks on Jewish settlements by right-wing thugs (the Black Hundreds) took place. Some emigrated to America, a few to Palestine. This group formed a solid core of Jews in Palestine.

As fascism grew in Europe during the 1930s, more and more Jews, fleeing persecution, went to Palestine. Following the end of the Second World War, many Jews who escaped Hitler’s attempt to destroy them, fled to Palestine (by then under British control). They began to fight the indigenous people for their land. The newly formed United Nations agreed to partition Palestine into a Jewish and a Palestinian state. In 1948, the State of Israel was formed. They had already seized considerably more land than had been granted to them by the UN. The West Bank became part of the Kingdom of Jordan and Gaza was administered by Egypt.

In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization was formed and was given immediate recognition by many countries as the sole representative body of the Palestinian people. It obtained UN observer status in 1974. But in 1967, war had broken out between Israel and its Arab neighbours and the Israelis seized both the West Bank and Gaza.

Nevertheless, in 1987, the Intifada, the uprising against Israeli occupation, started. By 1993, the Israelis, led by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Palestinians led by PLO President Yasser Arafat signed an agreement to recognize both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.

In 1995, Rabin was shot dead by an assassin who represented the extreme right of the Zionist movement. Soon after that, Israel was ruled by a succession of extreme right-wing governments which refused to recognize Palestinian rights and continued to steal Palestinian land and build Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Yasser Arafat was humiliated in front of his own people and in 2004 was poisoned by a radioactive chemical. The Palestinians have been reduced from being the owners of the whole area of what is now Israel and Palestine to being confined to the tiny area of Gaza and a few even smaller enclaves in the West Bank.

The Zionist Jews who came to Palestine to flee persecution have now themselves become the persecutors - or as one commentator put it:

“The Palestinians are the last victims of Hitler.”

Future Msebele is President of Zimbabwe African People’s Union Youth Front (ZAPU Youth Front)

Thomas Sankara Quotes on Women Liberation – By Thandeka Tee Mkhonto

Thomas Sankara Quotes on Women’s Liberation – By Thandeka Tee Mkhonto

(First posted by her on on her Facebook Timeline)

A Contribution to Women’s Month Celebration

I am sharing quotes from one of the best speeches on women’s liberation and the African freedom struggle by one of the most extraordinary leaders of modern history, former Burkinabe president, Thomas Sankara.

"Posing the question of women in Burkinabè society today means posing the abolition of the system of slavery to which they have been subjected for millennia. The first step is to try to understand how this system works, to grasp its real nature in all its subtlety, in order then to work out a line of action that can lead to women’s total emancipation. In other words, in order to win this battle that men and women have in common, we must be familiar with all aspects of the woman question on a world scale and here in Burkina. We must understand how the struggle of the Burkinabè woman is part of a worldwide struggle of all women and, beyond that, part of the struggle for the full rehabilitation of our continent. Thus, women’s emancipation is at the heart of the question of humanity itself, here and everywhere. The question is thus universal in character."

"Women’s fate is bound up with that of an exploited male. However, this solidarity must not blind us in looking at the specific situation faced by womenfolk in our society. It is true that the woman worker and simple man are exploited economically, but the worker wife is also condemned further to silence by her worker husband. This is the same method used by men to dominate other men! The idea was crafted that certain men, by virtue of their family origin and birth, or by ‘divine rights’, were superior to others."

"From the first beginnings of human history, man’s mastering of nature has never been accomplished with his bare hands alone. The hand with the opposable thumb reaches out for the tool, which increases the hand’s power. It was thus not physical attributes alone–musculature or the capacity to give birth, for example–that determined the unequal status of men and women. Nor was it technological progress as such that institutionalized this inequality. In certain cases, in certain parts of the globe, women were able to eliminate the physical difference that separated them from men. It was rather the transition from one form of society to another that served to institutionalize women’s inequality. This inequality was produced by our own minds and intelligence in order to develop a concrete form of domination and exploitation. The social function and role to which women have been relegated ever since is a living reflection of this fact. Today, her childbearing functions and the social obligation to conform to models of elegance determined by men prevent any woman who might want to from developing a so-called male musculature."

"For millennia, from the Paleolithic to the Bronze Age, relations between the sexes were, in the opinion of the most skilled paleontologists, positive and complementary in character. So it was for eight millennia! As Frederick Engels explained to us, relations were based on collaboration and interaction, in contrast to the patriarchy, where women’s exclusion was a generalized characteristic of the epoch. Engels not only traced the evolution of technology but also of the historic enslavement of women, which occurred with the appearance of private property, when one mode of production gave way to another, and when one form of social organization replaced another…."

"Humankind first knew slavery with the advent of private property. Man, master of his slaves and of the land, became in addition the woman’s master. This was the historic defeat of the female sex. It came about with the upheaval in the division of labour and as a result of new modes of production and a revolution in the means of production. In this way, paternal right replaced maternal right. Property was now handed down from father to son, rather than as before from the woman to her clan. The patriarchal family made its appearance, founded on the sole and personal property of the father, who had become head of the family. Within this family the woman was oppressed…."

"Inequality can be done away with only by establishing a new society, where men and women will enjoy equal rights, resulting from an upheaval in the means of production and in all social relations. Thus, the status of women will improve only with the elimination of the system that exploits them…."

"Her status overturned by private property, banished from her very self, relegated to the role of child raiser and servant, written out of history by philosophy (Aristotle, Pythagoras, and others) and the most entrenched religions, stripped of all worth by mythology, woman shared the lot of a slave, who in slave society was nothing more than a beast of burden with a human face."

Why men still rule over women: The power of sexual intercourse::: August is Women’s Month in South Africa

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

Why men still rule over women: The power of sexual intercourse

August is Women’s Month in South Africa

Many people are still debating what needs to be done in order to undo the centuries-old subjugation of women and achieve equality between the sexes. It is well known that men lead in politics, business, including in social events that are meant solely for women to be the centre of attraction. Examples include beauty pageants like Miss World, Women sports, Ladies' Nights, etc. Well, I have mentioned in the past that this “Ladies’ Night” concept is one respectful tactic used by men to gather many women in one place so that they can have sex with them on that very night.

The role of sex in all this

In the context of an organisation, when a man has sex with one woman, he is guaranteed of a least one vote. If he has sex with a hundred of them he is 100 votes ahead. Men know this fact too well and yes they use it in furtherance of their individual or collective gains. This knowledge has been passed down from generation to generation, mostly in subtle ways. When one analyses the extent to which it has been internalised within men, it is now safe to conclude that such knowledge is now in their genes and no longer needs to be learned for the practice to continue. It is now a part of the male species.

In some organisations which I have been privileged to have been a part of, the message was often preached that we, the males, must recruit more women and that there's no better way to recruiting them than having sexual relations with them, be it is a one-night stand (or one-day stand) or a long sexual relationship that the men can manage. But the basic message was: HAVE SEX WITH THESE LADIES.

Concerning those that had already joined, the message was that the male members had to have sex with these female members so that their membership and loyalty could be maintained. The warning was always that if the males don't have sex with them then other males from other organisations will have sex with them and thereby steal them away from our own organisation.

Summarily, sexual intercourse is one of the many tools that are used to keep women “in their place” whilst men take major decisions in governments, organisations and business.

Jesus is not a king of kings: My Religious Me; Part IV

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

Jesus is not a king of kings
My Religious Me: Part IV

Many Christians constantly refer to Jesus as the king of kings. But I think he's not. 

Let's put this issue in context. Jesus was born and grew up during the era of kings which is known as feudalism. The highest position in a country at that time was that of a king. Even King Herod became paranoid about Jesus' birth, according to the bible, because he thought Jesus would overthrow him and become a king.

The collections for the writing of the bible were also done during the era of feudalism. Thus at that time a real position of power was that of the king. It was therefore more logical for Jesus' disciples to refer to him as king. If Jesus had lived today, for instance, he wouldn't have been referred to as king. 'President' would most probably be the more accurate description because today the trend is to have presidents. But 2000 years ago the thought of a country having a president was just unimaginable. They knew about kings and nothing else.

Thus, the next time you refer to Jesus as the king of kings you must bear in mind that he's probably tired and ashamed of such a title. Jesus, in so far as his followers today is concerned, WAS the king of kings in the past but he sure has evolved from that past. Today he is not a king at all.

The Philosophy of Equality - By Mr Pius Rinto

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

The one who enters has been crowned by the world as the superior one. But on closer analysis one finds that the one who opens possesses enormous power. 

The one who has the power to open can decide if the one who wishes to enter can enter at all and for how long. Of course the one who enters must exercise a great deal of negotiation before entering. This person needs to learn the art of persuasion in order to make the owner of the entrance to open, whether widely or narrowly, with love.

In the final analysis, one notes that both the one who opens and the one who enters need each other. The owner of the entrance needs someone to enter otherwise the act of opening will be rendered useless without someone ever entering there and at that particular time when it has been opened and ready to be entered. The one who enters also cannot enter without the consent of the entrance's owner.

That's the equality we are talking about; different roles which complement each other for the common goal. Let there be equality!

ALSO READ: Young, Talented, Patriotic and Wasted Peoples of Swaziland

God is more forgiving today because his own beloved son, Jesus, committed many sins here on earth: My Religious Me; Part III

(By Pius Vilakati, writing as Mr Pius Rinto)

God is more forgiving today because his own beloved son, Jesus, committed many sins here on earth 
My Religious Me: Part III

We read in the bible that God was not an easily-forgiving God before Jesus arrival on earth. One mistake and he sends you packing, and even curses all your descendants for your wrong. He cursed Adam and Eve just for one mistake; eating a nice sweet fruit. He even went on to curse the rest of humanity for the wrongs of two people. Not a loving God.

Then he swept people with a great flood, so says the bible, sparing only one family. Apparently he even denied Moses the opportunity to get into the Promised Land simply because Moses at a certain point struck a rock angrily instead of just pointing at it as God had commanded. For this minor wrong he got such heavy punishment. How cruel!
Remember that he even punished Zachariah, with numbness for not believing that his very old wife would bear him a son, John the Baptist. The punishment was for the whole duration of the pregnancy.

But take note how God suddenly develops a soft and patient heart after Jesus’s arrival (and departure from this world). Suddenly everyone must forgive, and you can even apologise to God five seconds before your death and your sins will be forgiven. Now let’s interrogate this sudden change of God’s approach.

Before God sent Jesus to the world he did not have any experience how it was like to be a human being. He expected human beings to be so perfect and never to make any mistakes (For a deeper analysis on this, see my analysis on “How God failed to understand the process of evolution. My Religious Me: Part I” on one of my recent Facebook posts). See how he harshly punished many of his previous prophets who committed some errors whilst carrying his commands. When most, if not all, of his prophets could not carry out his commands exactly as he had stated, he decided to send his ‘beloved son’, Jesus to do the right thing the right way.

Jesus, we are told, took the physical form of a human being. That means he experienced everything that human beings experienced. This includes dreams (wet ones as well), pain, sadness, forgetfulness, tiredness, anger, foolishness and so on. He was thus a human being, though, if the teachings of the Church are to be believed, he had already pre-existed in heaven. If he was indeed a human being then he committed many sins here on earth. This obviously may have alerted God that living here on earth is not as easy as he had assumed. This practically opened God’s eyes. When Jesus, for instance, got angry and beat people up for selling in the temple, God understood the frustrations of this world.

Jesus even forgave a hard-core criminal next to him on the cross. Obviously he was also thinking that one should not throw stones whilst living in a glass house; he also had many sins of his own that he wished to be forgiven.

The bible says that Jesus then went to heaven to be with his father. With all these facts and analysis in mind, one then can imagine that Jesus constantly tells his father in heaven when he is angry with a human being here on earth that he should give that person another chance. Since Jesus himself committed many sins here on earth, he always was ready to forgive a person and even taught his disciples that they should forgive someone 70 times 70 times.

I could write a whole dissertation explaining the reason why God changed from being a harsh God to a sweet loving God, but the above is a summary of my thoughts on the topic at hand.

I now make another pause.