6-12-08, 9:36 am

The article begins with a photograph showing the South African ANC leader, Jacob Zuma, dancing in full Zulu battle garb and animal skins, while beneath him the caption reads “Once the jewel of Africa, this nation is now going the way of the rest of the continent. The new leader of the ruling party won’t help matters.” Another prominent caption on the opposite page reads, sarcastically, “This is the man that the ruling party in South Africa has turned to to address the nation’s crushing internal crises.”

Thus begins a disturbing and racist article entitled “Don’t Expect Jacob Zuma to Fix South Africa” by Joel Hilliker, found in the March 2008 issue of the reactionary protestant periodical, The Philadelphia Trumpet. Published by radical Christian propagandist Gerald Flurry of The Philadelphia Church of God, this magazine, along with its associated television program “The Key of David,” unapologetically and even fervently purveys what would seem to be the dying last gasp of the old 19th-century philosophy of Anglo-American Imperialism, with its allied ideologies of Christian Manifest Destiny and old-fashioned colonialism.

Cover stories of previous issues of The Trumpet include such articles as “Royal Heirs: The Inspiring Story of the British Crown” and “Twilight for Britain: The United Kingdom Turns 300” – the overriding philosophy of the magazine being the importance of the triumvirate alliance of England, the U.S., and Israel, and their unity against what The Trumpet sees as the “enemy“ forces of Iran, Venezuela, and the Roman Catholic Church.

“No nation outside of ancient Israel has experienced more cases of divine intervention than Great Britain,” Robert Morley dubiously observes in one article in the same March 2008 issue of The Trumpet, “Just try to find one.” This same article goes on to further warn, however, that such miracles are ceasing for England and Israel- not because The Trumpet’s theory of “divine intervention” is invalid, but rather because, Morley argues, British politicians, through the “deadly delusion” of “negotiating with the people who want to wipe Israel off the map,” have “turned their back on that history [of “divine intervention”] and the countless miracles that have preserved their nation’s freedom.” Elsewhere in the same article, Robert Morley criticizes the “land-for-peace process” in Israel as being “almost unheard of in history, except perhaps for what happened in South Africa.” This same ideology likewise informs the basis of Joel Hilliker’s article on Jacob Zuma and the ANC in South Africa, in which the whites-only apartheid regime is implicitly and favorably contrasted with the present-day ANC regime, which, Hilliker writes, has consistently “sided with Arab and Muslim entities and against American and Israeli interests.”

The pro-colonialist and imperialist nature of the magazine’s critique of Jacob Zuma is firmly on display in the opening caption of Hilliker’s article, which speaks of South Africa as being “once the jewel of Africa” – South Africa’s former “jewel” – like status presumably being when the white racist minority retained authoritarian control under apartheid. As Hilliker goes on to observe: “South Africa is in trouble. At one time one of the most prosperous nations in Africa, today it finds itself in the jaws that are swallowing nearly every other African state…” “Evaluating the trend”, Hilliker goes on, “one is forced to an undeniable, politically incorrect conclusion” – namely that “Whatever problems existed under that much reviled system [of apartheid], they are simply being dwarfed by those multiplying under Marxist and ANC rule. And now, [with the election of Jacob Zuma] they are about to get worse.”

Hillier’s language here is worth examining in detail. For example, while Hilliker writes, “Fierce criticism of the white, apartheid-era rulers from which the ANC took control in 1994 has been widely publicized,” Hilliker here notably refrains from making any criticism of the white apartheid era regime himself; noting only that such “criticism” was widespread. Whether such criticism was justified, however, Hilliker pointedly refrains from saying. Hilliker goes on to observe that, in contrast to other former colonial African nations – whose “tribal” leaders have succeeded only in “driving their nations into the ground” – “South Africa has been a notable exception to this rule for several decades since becoming an independent republic. But now, that is changing – and rapidly. The true cause for this change is rooted in South Africa’s historical connection to the British Empire and the throne of England.”

Of course, if South Africa “has been a notable exception to this rule for several decades since becoming an independent republic” – and the ANC took control from the racist apartheid regime only in 1994 – this means that South Africa’s status as a “notable exception” on the African continent is firmly associated with the period of white apartheid and criminal, totalitarian rule – a regime which Hilliker avoids directly praising with the same agility that he avoids overtly criticizing it. As Hilliker observes, with characteristic ambiguity, “In clear contrast to the National Party that preceded it, the ANC is anti-West at its heart. From its earliest post-apartheid days under Nelson Mandela, it has routinely fostered relationships with dictators the world over, from Cuba to Libya to Iran.”

The criminal and terrorist nature of this “pro-West” apartheid regime which Hilliker describes as “jewel”-like and pro-West, was movingly described by Winnie Mandela in a Washington, D.C. speech, given shortly after Nelson Mandela’s release from prison. Winnie Mandela said: “Perhaps you have no idea of what apartheid actually means in practical terms. Very briefly, it means we have men and women who are imprisoned by the South African government for their political activities. These men went to serve prison terms, some of them, twenty-something years, eighteen years, etc. They were young when they left their homes. They were so young that they were dependent on their parents. They come back after about 20 years. This is apartheid South Africa. Most of them no longer have homes. We have no freehold rights. When you go to prison, there’s no guarantee that tomorrow the Boers will not erase your home. Those children who died – some of them died in their little tin houses – the Praetoria regime uses what we call in our country ‘the Saracens‘, and military vehicles, to sometimes just flatten out homes if they suspect they are holding the so-called ‘terrorists.‘

“We are talking here about mothers whose husbands died in the battlefield, who have to look after their children, without employment, without any assistance –because if you were a Communist in South Africa, no one wants to come anywhere near you. We are talking here about the practical requirements of over 20,000 refugees. In fact our exiles, our men and women and children who are in exile – some of them amongst you here – we need homes. This is the problem that is facing the women of South Africa. It is our duty to provide those homes. It is our duty to provide the welfare assistance which we know you will so kindly give us. We have come to thank you.”

Although Hilliker’s criticisms of ANC leader Jacob Zuma include such things as Zuma’s allegedly profligate sexual practices and his alleged ties to corruption, the main objections which he makes against Zuma are his proudly-displayed African Zulu heritage, and Zuma’s ties to the Communist Party – a party which was unilaterally opposed to the totalitarian apartheid regime. Hilliker observes, “In classic African big man style, the larger-than-life Zuma dresses in leopard skins, poses for pictures wearing a loincloth and holding a Zulu-shield, calls himself ‘100 Percent Zulu Boy’, and uses the anti-apartheid Zulu anthem ‘Bring Me My Machine Gun’ as his theme song.” This critique of Zuma’s Zulu identity is linked with a further, wider critique by Hilliker of tribal nationalism in the same article, in which Hilliker warns: “Watch South Africa. In state after state on this aged continent, the transfer of power from colonialists to local rule, hailed as a victory for black Africans, has produced devastating results. (…) …The continent’s history of tribalism has simply overwhelmed democratic instruments and bestowed power of the modern nation-state on men who are essentially tribal chiefs.”

“Zuma”, Hilliker also warns – in language which echoes that of Pretoria’s apartheid regime – “was brought up on the Soviet-era Communist ideals of the ANC and joined its terrorist wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (‘Spear of the Nation’), at age 16...” Zuma, furthermore, Hilliker goes on, “…owes his electoral victory to the ANC’s powerful allies in COSATU -the Congress of South African Trade Unions- and the South African Communist Party, both of which strongly oppose anything resembling free-market reforms… (…) …Among the likely payoffs is the Communist-demanded nationalization of the country’s energy and mining conglomerate Sasol and the largest steel in Africa, Mittal Steel. If Zuma begins to make such ideologically motivated moves, watch for the economy to fall off the rails.”

Hilliker’s critique of Zuma’s Communist connections, though, is but the prelude to a more central critique of the possibility that Zuma and the ANC are “flirting with the policies” of Zimbabwe, and the possibility of “stripping land and other economic assets from whites and giving them to blacks” (a policy which Robert Morley, elsewhere in the same issue, implicitly connects with the so-called Israeli “land-for-peace process”.)

Most worrying for Hilliker, though, about Zuma’s “anti-West” intentions, is the fact that, as Hilliker writes, “South Africa’s designs on cementing its position as the dominant power in Africa have put it at odds with outside powers – particularly the Pentagon, which has proposed a new command center in Africa.” Of course, Hilliker does not say why either South Africa or the ANC, which represent the interests of Africa, and not Western Europe, should support a “pro-West” position. Nor does Hilliker explain why a neo-colonial Pentagon presence in South Africa’s sphere of influence would be in any way preferable to, say, a purely South African command center, which would be, after all, indigenous to the region.

But, although Hilliker does not explicitly explain his reasoning within his article, the underlying reasons for Hilliker’s insistent and obscuritanist “pro-West” rhetoric are not hard to see. For if one reads between the lines, Hilliker’s argument is merely a continuation of the same anti-ANC arguments which were once promulgated by reactionary elements of the ruling class in the U.S. and England, which once saw the racist administration of South Africa as a bulwark against working-class Soviet power. As Hilliker observes, “True to its revolutionary roots, the ANC is proving itself increasingly driven by dangerous and shallow ideology rather than by what will best serve the country.” The fact that these “revolutionary roots” which Hilliker decries involved the overthrow of the fascist white apartheid regime, reveals that the true “shallow ideology” at the heart of Hilliker’s article is actually Hilliker‘s own – the same “shallow ideology” which made the U.S. and English ruling class find their allies in the reactionary dictatorship of the white South Africans during the 1960’s, 1970’s, and 1980‘s.