South Africa: Hidden agendas and an economic war

population.
This is done by strategically tearing at the fabric of society. Structured poverty, blatant sabotage, no service delivery, xenophobia and “black-on-black violence”, increasing unemployment with no access to the country’s economy, privatisation of state and parastatal organisations through amongst others, infiltration and plundering are efforts of destabilisation.
Hard working moles seem to be everywhere, more particularly in strategic key positions, making life difficult for the average South African.
To add insult to injury, the same oligarchs of colonial-apartheid and their minions in the middle class abuse the much-hailed liberal constitution and the judiciary to divide and destroy.
South Africa’s oligarchs have always owned and controlled agriculture, business, finance, industry, the academia and civil society including the corporate media and all its lobby groups.
Those oligarchs are also the architects of colonial-apartheid. They are quite easily identified. The concerned citizen would simply have to research the “captains of industry” in the libraries of the corporate media and publishing companies. It is they, who reject the current structure of the ANC as the ruling party in government.
The above-mentioned architects of apartheid and federalism have one mission and one goal in common — to destroy South Africa’s economy by collapsing the Rand, create a scorched earth and bankrupt the country in order to buy the assets for less than a song.
This seems the reason for having deployed moles. Yet, they present themselves as the “white knights of the day”.
Interestingly, Nelson Mandela applauds South Africa’s “economic growth”. However, the doyen of Harvard economists, Joseph Schumpeter, described such “growth” as “creative destruction”. This is documented in John Pilger’s book, “Hidden Agendas”.
Against the above-sketched background, the hidden agenda of a “Third Force” within the ruling African National Congress, the government, the parastatals, the city councils and the media becomes clear.
It would explain the countrywide positioning of moles in many of the strategic key positions in the public and private sectors. It takes a genius not to note a common hidden agenda.
In order to enlighten the above described analysis, the difference between “reportage”, “propaganda” and “corporate media’s soft power” should be defined. It would shed some light on the modus operandi of the owners of the corporate world.
The “New Oxford American Dictionary” defines reportage as follows:
“Reporting of news, for the Press and the broadcast media, also factual presentation in a book, or other text, especially when this adopts a journalistic style.”
The “New Oxford American Dictionary” defines propaganda:
“Chiefly derogatory information, especially of a biased misleading nature, used to promote or publicise a particular political cause or point of view.”
The “soft power” corporate media wields, comes in the form of continuous propaganda, misrepresentation of situations, dressed up as real reportage. Real facts would not be allowed to stand in the way. It promotes its own hidden agenda only.
“Their reporters have become the hit men and hit women to tarnish the images of dissidents and discredit those, who do not fit into their agenda”, a retired former editor explained.
Respected journalist and author of the book, “Hidden Agendas”, John Pilger comments on the media, “The space is only for sound bites, which are frequently merely rhetoric, not so much ‘concise’ as sanctioned. Statements and assumptions that are part of a received wisdom are regarded as ‘facts’, whilst those that are critical are rejected as ‘opinions’ (also conspiratorial theorists and/ or dissidents, this author).”
Pilger observes further, “Language plays a vital part; popular concepts like ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, ‘choice’ and reform are emptied of their dictionary meanings. In the late twentieth century (and early twenty first century) it is reinforced by the facility of technology and the illusion of an ‘information society’ which in reality, means more media owned by fewer and fewer conglomerates. There is minimal public discussion about this.”
This also means, the media talks to itself and the intelligentsia only at the cost of the majority of the population and democracy.
Taking keen interest in global current affairs, this author would need to add that Western imperial propaganda successfully uses the corporate mainstream media to propagate and motivate criminal activities as well as direct and indirect interventions to enforce regime change.
The “media platform” has no space for pluralism, least of all for a fresh and different voice. South Africa’s corporate media is a case in point. It has become a central pillar of establishment. It is the biggest in Africa by far, also owning media interests in Asia and South America.
To strengthen the above observation, it is important to reflect what is orchestrated for and co-ordinated on the front pages and “debated” in political talk shows immediately after one of the most important conferences of the ruling ANC in the week of June 25, 2012, to June 29, 2012, the “Policy Conference”.
Instead of factually reporting on the policy conference and what came out of it, South Africa’s corporate mainstream media focused on one isolated incident, when one individual grabbed the microphone from another and the other, when two individuals expressed their views rather loudly. But, the rest of the 3 500 ANC delegates took their conference seriously, listening and participating attentively.
They debated serious issues such as land, the banking industry and the economy.
The front pages of the Sunday newspapers, the news bulletins and talk shows of the privately owned electronic media leave no stone unturned to frustrate, embarrass and discredit president Jacob Zuma, the ANC and government. Corporate mainstream media embarked on grossly misrepresenting facts in their papers for Sunday, July 1, 2012.