WHAT IF IRAN WON....

Imagine the year is 2030, after nuclear war and a bunch of soft cock leaders in the west handed themselves over to Mahmud like Czechoslovakia on a stick, the world is dominated by Iran.They actually succeeded in their jihad! Imagine what the world would be like.

Well apart from the obvious renaming of London to New Gaza, Milan to Milanabad and Queen Elizabeth to Shah El-Izahabet, the world would be a very strange place.

Mach 3 jnr, Dee jnr and Jon Hoffman jnr would all be studying law at the University of Lenasia (formerly wits). They wouldnt be studying western evils such as contract and delict but instead would be studying Sharia Law 101 and Intro to Jihad 102. The only place you would be able to know anything about a Jew is in the ancient civilisations course. And on that note, Hollywood, Goldman Sachs, doctors and Woody Allen would no longer exist.

But there is the bright side to all of this. Firstly, petrol would be alot cheaper. Air flights would be alot quicker, as there would be no need for security checks. You can get away with being with an ugly chick as you'll never see her again (she'll be veiled in black).

But, for all you whisky lovers out there, the only way you can get a shot of Jonny Walker would be from a Nigerian in Hillbrow...

So on second thoughts,i'll rather have a Big Mac, high cholestorol and Mtv. GO TEAM USA!

I'M SO WHITE I'M BLACK

It’s 1 in the morning. There is a sound outside; it could be an over-revving car or a cat on the roof. It catches everyone’s concern but the night settles the stir. But then there is that dog that always starts barking, and persists on yapping long after the noise has calmed. This dog is the DA. After 5 minutes of non-stop barking, the dog alerts other dogs on the street and the neighbourhood becomes an orchestra of howling. It is an uncoordinated chorus of dogs from high pitched squeaking to those deep grumble barks. This is the rest of the opposition parties.

And that’s the problem with SA politics. There are so many groups playing their own tune that an opposition to the ANC can’t be pulled together. The DA is considered the ‘official opposition’ but in reality are they?

The DA was traditionally a white left of centre party but because of the shift in SA politics in the 1990’s, they have now become the bona fide right of centre white party with the NNP fading away. But if they remain a right of centre party, they will never grow beyond the 15% bar in elections.

At the same time, there are many factions of right of centre coloured/black parties. There is De Lille’s ID, Bantu’s UDM and the Minority Front to name a few. They, including the DA, all are arguing on the same thing at the end of the day. It’s to break the ANC hegemony, fight corruption, crime…have you not heard this all before? But they can’t do this effectively if all are playing their own tunes.

Let’s face it, a leopard can’t change its spots and Tony will never be a comrade or be invited for tea with the PAC and other lefties. The only way the DA can grow is if it consolidates its power on the right of centre by amalgamating the centre right parties. Some may say this can’t be done because the race card is too divisive. But think about it, why not? There are many uniting issues and concerns which cross this colour barrier, such as crime, the economy etc.

Imagine if an opposition grew to include conservative whites, coloureds and the spillover of the black middle class from the ANC. This is political maturity where a two major party state could emerge like America or Britain to an extent.

But in order to do this, the DA must make a sincere attempt to place people of colour in the top brass of their leadership. Does this mean De Lille should become the new Tony? Does mean that ipso facto, Tony has to step down in order for the DA to grow? As much as I don’t like Patricia and as much as I like Tony, I’m afraid to say this dog has had his day.

POSH & MBEKS

The Zuma trial has shown us that JZ has been in bed, not only with his rape accuser, but with Cosatu, the SACP and certain elements within the ANC. The trial revealed a rift in the ANC which was inevitable, the showdown between Mbeks and JZ.

Revolutions come in two, the political and economic revolutions. The ANC was at the forefront of the 1990’s political revolution and has comfortably placed itself as the hegemonic power in SA politics. Whether we like it or not, the economic revolution is coming. The question now posed is how? The answer lies in the present fork in the road of the ANC.

There are two schools of thought. Mbeks is of the diplomatic, educated Fort Hare crowd. This school subscribes to the creation of a black middle class, an outward economy, NEPAD, elitism, whatever you may call it. Then there is the other school of thought which has made JZ the icon of its cause. This school is still in the umkhonto liberation mould, where JZ is being portrayed as the hero of the man in the street. It more likely the striking security guard in the street he is portraying. But the point is that the youth league, Cosatu and others who are not eating from the BEE pie are looking for a brawl with the new black elite, who, as they believe, have betrayed the cause.

Looking to the future, nothing will happen until 2010. South Africa’s economy will boom, excluding external factors, and everyone will be in shipshape to look our best when the World Cup comes. But after that, the economic revolution will have to be addressed. These are some of the scenarios that could happen in the ANC.

The JZ camp could gather support and South Africa will adopt more ‘socialist’ land reform and distributive policies like Robbie Mugabe. But ceterus paribus, that camp does not have the support necessary to take government and it is most unlikely.

More importantly, the question is how will Mbeks leave the ANC? He is stepping down next year as head of the ANC ahead of elections in 2009. Will he have enough power to put on his prodigy or will he have to compromise to keep the tripartite alliance in order?

Let’s consider the former. If Mbeks leaves his legacy on a future government of his school then we can expect pretty much the same as we have now. A drip drip effect of BEE and a rising middle class. While this is good and addresses inequality, some may argue it is too slow and not reaching the working class. This could become a divisive issue in the long term future which may force the government to adopt more leftist policies to appease the masses.

Now let’s consider the other scenario of a compromise situation now, where Mbeks steps down and is replaced by a mix of his school and the tripartite school. Well then in time, more affirmative action policies would come into place. Having said this, it would not be comparable to the radical change if the JZ school had total power.

Two things are clear. First, the ANC is at a cross-roads. Two, the economic revolution will have to occur. The open ended question is how? Will it be gradual based on keeping status quo or will it be radical.

So there’s no conclusion. But the one thing I can say for sure from the Zuma trial is that showers cure AIDS. The irony is he should have had a cold shower before and not after

THE CLOCK IS TICKING

Are we not beyond Munich already? This is an article found by the honourable Jon Hoffman from an interview between Mahmud and Spiegel. No not what you all are thinking! Spiegel is a German magazine and not Sharon Spiegel who is Bach's object of affection.

SPIEGEL: First you make your remarks about the Holocaust. Then comes the news that you may travel to Germany -- this causes an uproar. So you were surprised after all? Ahmadinejad: No, not at all, because the network of Zionism is very active around the world, in Europe too. So I wasn't surprised. We were addressing the German people. We have nothing to do with Zionists.

SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage? Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don't know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?

SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60 years' historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans -- unfortunately -- bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews. Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe. On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn't take place, why then did this regime of occupation ...

SPIEGEL: ... You mean the state of Israel... Ahmadinejad: ... come about? Why do the European countries commit themselves to defending this regime? Permit me to make one more point. We are of the opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms to the truth, this truth will be revealed all the more clearly if there is more research into it and more discussion about it.

SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany. Ahmadinejad: We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present. Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to a certain group? Of course, I don't mean you, but rather the European governments.

SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?" Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.

SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust? Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international and impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison.

SPIEGEL: Who is that supposed to be? Which researchers do you mean? Ahmadinejad: You would know this better than I; you have the list. There are people from England, from Germany, France and from Australia.

SPIEGEL: You presumably mean, for example, the Englishman David Irving, the German-Canadian Ernst Zündel, who is on trial in Mannheim, and the Frenchman Georges Theil, all of whom deny the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad: The mere fact that my comments have caused such strong protests, although I'm not a European, and also the fact that I have been compared with certain persons in German history indicates how charged with conflict the atmosphere for research is in your country. Here in Iran you needn't worry.

SPIEGEL: Well, we are conducting this historical debate with you for a very timely purpose. Are you questioning Israel's right to exist? Ahmadinejad: Look here, my views are quite clear. We are saying that if the Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from. I believe that the German people today are also prisoners of the Holocaust. Sixty million people died in the Second World War. World War II was a gigantic crime. We condemn it all. We are against bloodshed, regardless of whether a crime was committed against a Muslim or against a Christian or a Jew. But the question is: Why among these 60 million victims are only the Jews the center of attention?

SPIEGEL: That's just not the case. All peoples mourn the victims claimed by the Second World War, Germans and Russians and Poles and others as well. Yet, we as Germans cannot absolve ourselves of a special guilt, namely for the systematic murder of the Jews. But perhaps we should now move on to the next subject. Ahmadinejad: No, I have a question for you. What kind of a role did today's youth play in World War II?

SPIEGEL: None. Ahmadinejad: Why should they have feelings of guilt toward Zionists? Why should the costs of the Zionists be paid out of their pockets? If people committed crimes in the past, then they would have to have been tried 60 years ago. End of story! Why must the German people be humiliated today because a group of people committed crimes in the name of the Germans during the course of history?

SPIEGEL: The German people today can't do anything about it. But there is a sort of collective shame for those deeds done in the German name by our fathers or grandfathers. Ahmadinejad: How can a person who wasn't even alive at the time be held legally responsible?

SPIEGEL: Not legally but morally. Ahmadinejad: Why is such a burden heaped on the German people? The German people of today bear no guilt. Why are the German people not permitted the right to defend themselves? Why are the crimes of one group emphasized so greatly, instead of highlighting the great German cultural heritage? Why should the Germans not have the right to express their opinion freely?

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we are well aware that German history is not made up of only the 12 years of the Third Reich. Nevertheless, we have to accept that horrible crimes have been committed in the German name. We also own up to this, and it is a great achievement of the Germans in post-war history that they have grappled critically with their past. Ahmadinejad: Are you also prepared to tell that to the German people?

SPIEGEL: Oh yes, we do that. Ahmadinejad: Then would you also permit an impartial group to ask the German people whether it shares your opinion? No people accepts its own humiliation.

SPIEGEL: All questions are allowed in our country. But of course there are right-wing radicals in Germany who are not only anti-Semitic, but xenophobic as well, and we do indeed consider them a threat. Ahmadinejad: Let me ask you one thing: How much longer can this go on? How much longer do you think the German people have to accept being taken hostage by the Zionists? When will that end - in 20, 50, 1,000 years?

SPIEGEL: We can only speak for ourselves. DER SPIEGEL is nobody's hostage; SPIEGEL does not deal only with Germany's past and the Germans' crimes. We're not Israel's uncritical ally in the Palestian conflict. But we want to make one thing very clear: We are critical, we are independent, but we won't simply stand by without protest when the existential right of the state of Israel, where many Holocaust survivors live, is being questioned. Ahmadinejad: Precisely that is our point. Why should you feel obliged to the Zionists? If there really had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in Europe, not in Palestine.

SPIEGEL: Do you want to resettle a whole people 60 years after the end of the war? Ahmadinejad: Five million Palestinians have not had a home for 60 years. It is amazing really: You have been paying reparations for the Holocaust for 60 years and will have to keep paying up for another 100 years. Why then is the fate of the Palestinians no issue here?

SPIEGEL: The Europeans support the Palestinians in many ways. After all, we also have an historic responsibility to help bring peace to this region finally. But don't you share that responsibility? Ahmadinejad: Yes, but aggression, occupation and a repetition of the Holocaust won't bring peace. What we want is a sustainable peace. This means that we have to tackle the root of the problem. I am pleased to note that you are honest people and admit that you are obliged to support the Zionists.

SPIEGEL: That's not what we said, Mr. President. Ahmadinejad: You said Israelis.