Issue No 201 Private subscription only Nov/Dec,1996



Like baby napkins, so the saying goes, politicians should be changed often, and for the same reason. This, we are embarrassed to admit, was our first lucid response to this month's exchange of fire between Kader Asmal and Prof. Hermann Giliomee on the subject of the "uniquely evil" status of apartheid.

Our reaction was probably sparked by irritation that Giliomee, one of the sharpest academic minds in the country, should have considered it worth his while to react at all to Asmal's self-serving, emotive and factually suspect treatise on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: "Reconciliation Through Truth: A Reckoning of Apartheid's Criminal Governance", co-authored by Louise Asmal and Ronald Roberts (David Philip, Cape Town).

What, after all, does it matter whether Asmal, his wife, their collaborator and their printer, jointly and severally, consider apartheid to be as "morally repugnant" as the so-called Holocaust? History may in the end decide that Asmal, who has spent as many years of his life advancing the murderous cause of the IRA as he has the inhumane cause of international communism, is morally repugnant himself.

It was at this stage that we changed our minds. Since so few seem outraged by Asmal's cynical, opportunistic effort to influence the TRC, in particular the sycophantic legal and human rights associations, let me raise a small voice in support of Giliomee. Had more people exerted themselves to deal with Marx or Hitler, both rabble-rousers, we might not be bothered by Asmal, et al., today.

There are certain things about Asmal that we should know. By no means can he be regarded as a disinterested party. Although this today is not over-emphasised in his publicity material, we should not forget that he played a key role in helping found the British Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) in 1960. In 1963 he founded the Irish AAM. He was intimately linked with the Irish Communist Party and Sinn Fein, In late 1980 he was made vice-chairman of the British Haldane Law Society, an affiliate of the former Soviet front organisation, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (ADA).

Back home and in power (he is a key member of the Indian "cabal" exercising such undue influence in the Mandela Cabinet) he was in the forefront of the ANC demands for the establishment of a truth commission, specifically to expose "apartheid crimes" committed by the former state security apparatus. To help things along, he has in his disquisition, thoughtfully provided a compendium of apartheid atrocities. Obviously nothing he would welcome more than a round of Nuremburg trials, with their attendant hangings.

His book is therefore designed to promote a witch hunt against the perpetrators of apartheid and against all who, in his opinion benefited from it. That is to say, all Whites in SA.

Giliomee expresses it more politely: "There is in fact a political subtext behind all the frantic efforts to "prove" that the National Party and the Broederbond were influenced by the Nazi party, and that apartheid was an atrocity of the Nazi kind. That subtext is to force perpetrators on the regime side, and perhaps all of white South Africa, to acknowledge that apartheid was uniquely evil, both in intent and execution, and to compel them to express remorse in the terms dictated by the ANC". (APN italics).

Asmal has written the subtext just as clearly as he has written the book. And he has written it as a politician... i.e as a Hitler or, in his case more appropriately, as a Stalin. It is, in fact, his "Mein Kampf". He says: "The struggle for human rights is a struggle of humanity against misuse of power. It is also a struggle of memory against forgetting". He seemingly has no difficulty in forgetting his earlier masters' own misuse of power.

"The issue", as the Financial Mail succinctly puts it, "is the extent to which there were no "sides" in the apartheid conflict -only state sanctioned human rights violators and their camp followers on the one hand, and a morally justified resistance on the other". The ANC/SACP insurgency against apartheid was, in other words, a struggle between good and evil. We need to examine that thesis.

According to Asmal, in that struggle any and all actions directed against apartheid were "entirely just". In his view, the ANC at all times held the moral high ground, its cadres being involved in a just and heroic struggle, while all resistance by the security forces was morally reprehensible.

The only intelligible proof for this is that, in 1976, apartheid was declared a "crime against humanity" in terms of a UN convention because the application of apartheid policies violated the "human rights" of Black people. The ANC has ever since proclaimed that its part in the long and bloody struggle was legitimised by that ruling.

Giliomee has repeatedly pointed out that this convention was ratified at the behest of 21 countries in the Communist bloc, led by the old USSR and Guinea, (both states being outstanding exponents of crimes against humanity) as part of the propaganda of the Cold War. Asmal, naturally makes no mention of its communist origins. Nor of the fact that both the US and Britain refused to ratify the convention on the grounds that events in SA did not meet the legal requirements of such a ruling.

In any event, the fact that the UN declared apartheid a crime against humanity does not make that this ruling any more infallible than the tens of thousands of other UN resolutions, most now beyond recall even of those who designed and voted for them. What the convention does, however, is offer the opponents of apartheid immunity from criticism for their actions in perpetuity beyond the reach of any earthly jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, faded memories, like smelly old socks, are usually full of holes. Often forgotten is the ugly history of the ANC "struggle". Throughout it was a two-part war: a terrorist was and a propaganda war. The latter they won hands down: and as Asmal demonstrates, still do.

ANC terrorism had no rules. Cataclysmic and extraordinary violence was regarded as a primary instrument, an acceptable instrument on the path to power. In its efforts to make SA "ungovernable", the ANC sanctioned acts of utmost bestiality, perpetrated by - the word cannot be avoided - savages. The depth of depravity was surely reached with the grotesque necklace, mob executions with petrol-filled tyres, usually wired to the victim's body. Sometimes the arms were hacked off to obviate struggle.


Not only were the supposed "enemies of the people" subjected to this monstrous cruelty, but also old women, babies, small children even dogs and goats. Today it is claimed that some 370 died in these burnings, but that cannot be right. We know that by 1986 the necklace had become the biggest cause of death in the Black conflict. On October 26, 1987, Brigadier Herman Stadler testified in the Natal Supreme Court that necklace murders totalled at that point 400, with another 200 persons burnt to death in other ways.

Were those legitimate acts of war? Were these not crimes against humanity: crimes, indeed, against any concept of civilisation? It would be interesting to have Asmal's views on this. But this was scarcely the beginning. Barbarity piled on barbarity. From 1984 on we saw the "People's Courts", thug justice often applied by ad hoc tribunals of radicalised youth, some eight to ten years old, with power to arrest, try and punish any alleged miscreant in their local fiefdom.

With these self-appointed lawyer comrades, sentences up to 500 lashes were not uncommon, alternating with necklacing and stoning. The record of people's courts in South Africa will go down as one of the most sordid in this country's history. If we are honest, the nastiest feats of brazen brutality would be hard put to match these vile acts.

What about the consumer boycotters, who forced pregnant and old women to eat soap powder, washed down with paraffin? What about the atrocities and torture killings in the ANC's foreign detention camps? What about the thousands of policemen, township councillors, clinic workers, teachers and anti-revolutionaries grusomely murdered in the effort to make SA "ungovernable"? What about the Shell House massacre? What about the 450-plus chiefs and leaders killed in an effort to destroy Inkatha? What about so much else?

What exactly were these? Minor inconveniences of a great crusade to defeat "evil"? Unlike Mr Asmal, I have great difficulty in accepting that any or all of this was done in the name of "freedom". It is beyond belief that the ANC could now decree all these acts beyond reproach. Do they really believe, as Asmal proclaims, that they can walk away from all the charred bodies, the murdered children, smelling of roses?

Was Asmal not outraged in some tiny corner of his mind about necklacing and these other atrocities? Surely the perpetrators owe the country an explanation? And what has it all achieved? Despite all the mind-bending, the end of apartheid has not meant freedom, prosperity, jobs, peace. Has the violence stopped? Where has it stopped? Neither stability nor economic progress are visible. Rather we see a once stable, prosperous country increasingly reduced to a chaotic, impoverished wasteland.

Asmal's book must be seen therefore as nothing more than a case of special pleading: "forgive us our trespasses and join us in seeking our revenge against those who trespassed against us," preferably with extreme prejudice, as the KGB used to put it. Unfortunately, this does not take us the whole way.

SA, unlike most other countries where political hypocrisy and humbug get short shrift, is a very special and rare case of a duplicitous international hypocritical conspiracy. Many governments did indeed consider it to be in their commercial or political interests to support the international campaign against apartheid, even as the phenomenon evaporated in South Africa. Why? Because race was at the centre of the debate, just as it lies at the centre of the most serious threats to the stability of many modern governments.


It was important to be seen to ritualise the condemnation as an antidote to incipient racist infection in their own societies. What anti-apartheid has effectively done is to become the moral successor to Hitlerism, itself done to death by all who have so brilliantly exploited its propaganda potential for their own moral elevation or enrichment.

To say that fascism and Nazism are boring in 1996 may overstate the case. The potential remains, but the novelty and excitement are gone. The symbols no longer strike terror, and have in some respects, been pressed into the service of farce. Think of the recent British comedy on our TV screens, "Allo, Allo". TV, of course, remains the litmus test of fashion in villainy. No one makes films about the Nazis any more; and the wicked Commies have simply become pathetic. Race is another matter, as almost every production, including the sitcoms, demonstrates. Race in South Africa is pure gold.

To pursue the point a little further. If we ask the question "What is right?" (and "What is what wrong?") the answer invariably depends on what values appear to be in vogue. Small questions of right and wrong seem to leave us cold. Gone are the days when conscience (what's that?) troubled us about accepting too much change in a shop. Gone also is principled concern over marital infidelity or even public lasciviousness. Bill Clinton is not shamed by disclosures of his squalid conduct along the entire spectrum of human weaknesses. He is re-elected: by a land-slide.

Gone are the days when crime was wrong in the large sense. We know that even bloody, premeditated murder is less reprehensible than enforcing capital punishment on a convicted multiple child killer. The latter is front page news: the former barely worth a full column inch.

The great questions of the past, as is suggested above, no longer appeal. Who could choose these days between a Jew, a Muslim and a Christian in the scale of religious rectitude? Does anyone go to hell any longer when he dies? Probably not. Right and wrong, good and evil have no longer have anything to do with God.

What about Adolf Hitler? Where does he spend eternity? And where does Verwoerd spend it, murdered by a SACP operative? Who cares?
If Gorbachev consoles himself by writing his memoirs attacking Yeltsin, Khruschev, Breshnev and others, his moral equivalents ...again, who cares?

Religion and ideology are, it seems, effectively dead. Yet there is life somewhere in our moral universe. There are crimes which arouse passion and the desire for revenge. Asmal knows about them. That's why he feels he can lecture us "A Reckoning of Apartheid's Criminal Governance", while ignoring the sordid actions of those whom he serves now and has served in the past. He makes it clear that the only crime recognised by the ANC is racism itself. In a world where everything else is mere human frailty - bordering on innocence - only racism, ultimately, is a crime.

The IFP from the beginning said it would have nothing to do with the Truth Commission because most of its officers were either ANC/SACP supporters or fellow travellers. Now, despite Desmond Tutu's pleas, ANC leaders again pronounce their organisation above the TRC law. So much for truth, justice and reconciliation. The process has become a mockery and the IFP's position completely vindicated.

Giliomee concluded: "The book will please those who want to criminalise the apartheid regime regardless of consequences" Agreed. It is flagrantly designed to give unqualified support to the supposed moral superiority of the ANC over the "apartheid" era.

We should not underestimate the damage it might do to our country. Not to mention still further paralysing our guilt-ridden society's already groggy immune system.


In seeking to defame, vilify and crush SA Whites, in particular the Afrikaner, the ANC/SACP learnt their lessons well from the old Soviet psycho-offensive wars. Here are excerpts from a speech made by Lavrenti Beria, the head of the NKVD, to a group of US communist students at Lenin University in 1953. This will explain exactly the motives behind Kader Asmal's treatise:

"Degradation and conquest are companions. To be conquered, a nation must be degraded ... degradation can be accomplished insidiously ... and effectively by consistent and continual defamation ... continued and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices and national heroes must be systematically carries out.

"By attacking the character and morals ... by bringing about, through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree. The attack on the mind of a nation involves changing loyalties, we must have a command of their values. In the animal, the first loyalty is to himself. This is destroyed by demonstrating to him ... showing that he does not remember, cannot act or does not trust himself.

"The second loyalty is to his family unit ... this is destroyed by lessening the value of marriage, by making and easiness of divorce. The next loyalty is to his friends and local environment ... this is destroyed by lowing his trust. The next is to the state ...and this is the only loyalty once the State is founded as a Communist State ...

"In re-arranging loyalties we must have a command of their values ... supporting the propaganda to destroy (all trust in established institutions) will in the end create the chaos necessary to communism. By making readily available drugs of various kinds, by praising (a teenager's) wildness ... by stimulating him with sex literature and advertising ... the psychological operator can create the necessary attitude of chaos, idleness and worthlessness into which can then be cast the solution ... if we can effectively kill the national pride and patriotism of just one generation we will have won that country ... therefore there must be continual propaganda abroad to under the loyalty of the citizens.

"By perverting the institutions of a nation and bringing about a general degradation ... a population can be brought psychologically to heel..."

Recognise anything familiar there?




HISTORICALLY, at this time of the year, a great SA tragedy is enacted. This is when the Black matric results are announced, invariably reflecting devastatingly disappointing results. This year? Well, we saw SA's first "affirmative action" matric, with all races, Black, White and Asian, writing the same papers. A greater educational fiasco has never been seen, the most chaotic matric examination in history.

Throughout the year the Black education protest industry again worked overtime: protests, marches, boycotts, widespread - often violent - disruptions by student provocateurs, vandalism, unionised but often poorly trained teachers: none of this improved in Gauteng by Mary Metcalfe's half-baked, restructured, incompetent and inexperienced Education Department.

To top this abominable mess, we also had matric papers stolen, leaked or sold to pupils at prices ranging from a modest R 30 to R 2 000 a subject and, reportedly, R 35 000 for a full set. English, physics, algebra, geography, literature, Afrikaans, history, accounting all were in some way or other compromised.

Add to this a general lack of proper control and even postponement of examination dates, and you will readily understand the widespread dissatisfaction, misery, confusion and frustration among students and parents alike. It may well prove that, when the results are published, the overall "success" rate will be substantially better than previously: but only, I am assured by teachers, because papers have been heavily marked up.

As The Citizen remarked, certificates issued to Gauteng's matriculants this year "will be as worthless as any bought from one of those dubious institutions of higher learning in the American South."

All of it blamed on apartheid of course. That attitude was admirably summed up by the National Literacy Cooperation Board. In a submission to the Truth & Reconciliation Commission, the Board complained about " ... the gross violation of human rights, particularly educational rights, committed by the apartheid state in the past ... the gross and planned violation of educational rights ... and aspects of State policy that were consciously designed and aimed at the deprivation of south Africans who today remain the victims of this vicious and callous systems."

Not one word, of course, about the ANC's own role in all this. We have said before, and we repeat, the ANC has never shown any respect for Black education. In 1976, urgently needing recruits for its "liberation" forces outside SA, the ANC launched its criminal "no education before liberation" campaign, deliberately steering some 5- to 6-million Black children down the road to academic disaster.

Now we turn to Mr Jaap Marais, one of Afrikanerdom's leading intellectuals, who submitted a replying document to the TRC, challenging the charges made by the Literacy Board. In this he shows that, more than most industrialised nations - and more, indeed, than is appropriate for a country at our level of development - succeeding apartheid governments spent untold billions on Black education, most of it White taxpayer money and increasingly at the expense of White children.

One of these days SA Blacks, like the Russians before them, will realise that they have been the victims of one of the cruellest con jobs in history. That day is not yet - bit it will come.

Now over to Mr Marais:

WHATEVER the motivation for the overstated expression of partiality by the TLC board, it does not augur well for objectivity. One simply fact refutes the essence of the Board's antagonistic remarks. That is the establishment of separate universities established by a special Act in 1959. It would be fatuous to argue that a government would commit itself to enormous expenditure for the higher education of Blacks, Coloureds and indians if ti did not want members of these groups to qualify for higher education.

In 1976 it was reported that the cost per student at the Black universities was R 2 450 a year, against R 1 950 for White students. Although these universities were condescendingly termed "tribal colleges" by those opposing apartheid, they were quickly in place and grew rapidly in size. Further, many of the present ANC leadership are products of that educational systems. They do not appear to stand back for those educated in other African states where there was no "apartheid."

Education of Blacks was significantly inferior in the pre-1948 period. In The Native in South Africa, by Leo Marquard and Julius Levin, published in 1948, it was stated: "Bantu education has to manage on very little money and expansion is almost impossible. The average amount available for Bantu pupils is just over £2 per pupil a year; for Europeans it is about £18 a year. With such meagre funds it is to be expected that school buildings and equipment will be poor and salary scales low. There are almost no library facilities and very few educational aids with which a modern school is equipped."

The apartheid state took up where their predecessors left off. In Black and White African, the historian Dr C J Scheepers wrote: "One of the changes with most far-reaching effect is undoubtedly the advancement of Bantu in education. Today (1967) 85% of the Republic's Bantu of school going age are literate, an increase of 600% since 1925. Some 32 000 Bantu teachers are employed in 8 500 schools with 2 million Bantu student teachers in training, and 3 000 Bantu university graduates have taken up positions in various walks of life."

It is true that expenditure on Black education was much lower than on Whites, but it is also true that this disparity was reflected in White and Black contributions to the exchequer. The 1970 Census showed that Whites made up 17,5% of the Population, Blacks 70%, Coloureds 9,4% and Asians 2,9% - a total of 21.448.169 in all. The Auditor-General's report for 1970/71 reflected that per capita direct taxation in that year was: Whites R 126; Indians R 10; Coloureds R3 and Blacks 85 cents.

In other words, Blacks paid 1/130th of the tax paid by Whites, but they certainly did not get 1/130th of the total education budget. It is interesting to note that from 1973 to 1983 expenditure on Black education increased at an average of 160% a year, from R27 million to R475 million, and from 1980/81 to 1985/86 from R 255 million to R 950 million.

This included the period of the Soweto riots. The Star, 5.4.77, reported that a total of R 1 085 million of the State's budget from 1986/77 went to Blacks, though this group's contribution to the exchequer was only R213 million. This meant that 80% of the amount allocated to Black budgetary expenditure was carried by Whites. Professor J L Sadie of Stellenbosch estimated that 99% of income tax was paid by Whites (Sunday Times, 25.7.75).

Whites paid R4 367m in income tax, but received only R1 170m for their education - that is, 23%. The government in that year took from the 1 565 313 White taxpayers a total of R1 733m averaging R1 107 per White taxpayer for Non-white education. Yet the Whites are being attacked for " gross and planned violation of educational rights"!

Personal tax from Whites in 1980/81 amounted to about 13% of the government's income. By 1986/87 it had grown to 28%. Had this tax burden remained constant, the Whites would have saved more than R5 billion, working out at an average of R3000 per head. Additionally, White contributions by way of GST in 1980/81 was 7.5%. But in 1986/87 it had risen to 16.5%, taking further millions from whites in money that could have been saved.

The discrimination against Whites is clearly shown by the income tax scales for Whites and Blacks in this period. On a monthly income of R150 a black paid R2.26 (1.5%). A married White earning the same amount paid R4.31 (3%), and an unmarried White paid R10.75% (7%). On a monthly income of R300, a Black paid tax of R11.06% (3.7%) while a married White had to pay R24.18% (8.1%) and an unmarried White paid R37.56 (12.5%) On R500 a Black paid R54.77 (11%) and an unmarried White R82.15 (16.4%).

In 1992 the IMF reported that the SA White population was one of the highest taxed populations in the world.\, contributing 75% of the government's income. On 11.6.92, Prof. Sadie said that the average White was already working four months of each year for other people and government, paying 32% of his or her income to the exchequer.

This was one way in which income and wealth were redistributed through a deliberate policy which laid down the economic growth rates for the various population groups and discriminated against Whites as follows: Whites, 0.4% a year, Indians 2.55%, Coloureds 2.74% and Blacks, 3.56% It is revealing that the actual economic growth rates for these groups in the decade 1980/90 correspond more or less with those figures.

For the Whites, the figure was slightly lower at 0.356% a year, for Coloureds and Indians also fractionally lower, but that for th Blacks considerably higher at 4.88%, or around 15 times that of the Whites. The result was that the Whites were being penalised and impoverished, as "The Star" reported 28.7.91. "Half of all white South Africans have net assets of less than R100 000 and one in five SA Whites (22%) have assets of less that R10 000 ...18% of this population group can muster possessions and cash of less than R5000."

So from a situation in which under a policy of apartheid the nation was "suffering from a surfeit of prosperity" as stated by the old "Rand Daily Mail" in July, 1966, half the White nation had been reduced to poverty under a policy of racial integration and equalisation of living standards. But it was not only the Whites who were impoverished.

The country itself was impoverished. The total national debt at the time of Dr. Verwoerd's death in September 1966 stood at around R3,5 billion. By 1984 it had grown almost tenfold to R30 billion. By 1996 it had grown tenfold again to R300 billion. Average economic growth rates for the 1960's declined from an average 6% a year to 3% a year in the 1970s and zero in the 1980s. From 1985/91 only one year showed zero growth, the rest negative.


What makes this meaningful is that the employment rate for new labour in the formal sector in 1966 stood at 73.6%. As the rate of economic growth declined, the rate of employment in the formal sector fell to 1%, increasing slightly thereafter to 6%-7%.

That in this context is pertinent, as naturally there could be little sense in educating young people for useful employment, then leaving them jobless to enter the "informal" sector in frustration or becoming involved in crime or addicted to drugs, as now in the New SA. This clearly is a matter of major concern and national importance. In Britain the eminent academic and political leader Enoch Powell, dealt with a similar situation in the 1960s. In "Still to Decide", he wrote:

"... the margin by which public expenditure has
overshot the growth of the national income is the major cause of the disastrous financial events of the last four years, which still pursue us.: internal inflation, external devaluation and foreign indebtedness. The most important single driving force in all this has been the upward thrust in expenditure in education. Both in size, in prestige and in momentum, educational expenditure is the key sector of public expenditure, and to address oneself to the problem of inflation, let alone to the reduction of taxation and of the relative burden of public expenditure, without a critique of educational expenditure is wilful blindness."

This is an almost exact description of the SA situation in the 1990s. In 1970 the SA Rand exchanged at a rate of US$1.39. By 1991 the Rand had lost 74% of its value and was exchanging at one rand for $0.36. Presently it trades at about $0.25. Interest payments on the national debt and the cost of education are the two main items of expenditure on the government budget.

In trying to formulate an indictment against the Afrikaner government on the issue of education and losing sight of economic and social laws will not solve any problems ... but rather cause new ones, as the British experience shows. Powell made his position clear on this issue: "It is time that it was stated, quite categorically, that the growth theory of education is bunkum. Economic growth is no more caused by the increase in education than by the prevalence of cars or leisure time. If there is a relationship between cause and effect at all, it is the other way round: there is more education because there has been economic growth and therefore more of this good thing can be afforded".

That is the logical approach to be followed in SA. Much of the present plight of this country and its various peoples is attributable to wrong decisions on matters of education and redistribution of wealth. Disproportionate spending on education has nor contributed to economic growth, improved social stability or academic standards.

Since the Soweto riots in June 1976, Black education has been in almost unbroken decline in regard to discipline and academic standards. In 1971 about 16% of the education budget was spent on Blacks. By 1991, that had risen to 58% but, significantly, there was no improvement in educational standards or in the examination results of Black pupils. ("Transvaler", 13.5.92).


If a count were taken of the victims of educational deprivation then those who were denied education as a result of terrorism in schools and the destruction of educational facilities, carried out for years in the name of "liberation before education", may add up to an unpleasantly large number, which has multiplied as a result of the cult of unruliness bred in those years.

NOTE: In an addendum to his letter, Mr Marais details the extent to which Black education was hampered by violence. "In the period 1.9.84 and 31.8.89, 1779 schools were either destroyed or extensively damaged during riots. In the same period, 10 318 buses were destroyed or extensively damaged, as were 152 trains and 12 186 private delivery vans; 1 265 shops and factories, more than 60 post offices, almost 50 churches and some 30 clinics.

"Even worse was that between Sept. 1984 and August 1989, there were 399 murders by the barbarous necklace and 392 deaths resulting from homes being dowsed with petrol and set alight. The psychological effect of these crimes on young children in the affected communities must have been awful. All these police statistics had a direct bearing on the loss of education opportunities for Black students. It is unrealistic to suppose that such a culture of violence could not have the effect of unsettling family life and damaging the educational process".



HOW do overseas financial analysts view SA's economic prospects for 1997? Naught for our comfort. This is what Allen Keyte, publisher of the influential, UK-based World Affairs Review, told overseas investors in his mid-November issue:

"The Johannesburg Stock Exchange has had a dismal year, with the all-share index falling 13,14% in sterling terms, the industrial share index by a shopping 20,13%, but the Gold Index only by a nominal 1,6%. The main problem has been the dramatic fall in the value of the Rand. This is seen as part of an adjustment process as the economy opens up to investors.

"The government is anxious to allow exchange controls to be lifted but current conditions do not allow this. Paramount among these conditions is that foreign exchange reserves have sunk to $1 billion, representing only 10 days imports and are among the lowest in the emerging world. Growth, GDP, at 3,5% is forecast for this year and actually falling to 2,5% next year. Meanwhile inflation, because of the currency weakness, is set to reach 7,5% this year and probably peaking at 9% in 1997.

"In June I indicated that investment monies were likely to stay on the sidelines and that even resource stocks were likely to be dumped before 1999 - at the latest. This was based not only on the deteriorating economic situation but also, more importantly, on the political situation created by the new constitution.

"Sadly, nothing has changed. The economy is going from bad to worse, and lawlessness and crime are mounting in what is a thoroughly dissatisfied country. That is the problem of politicians building expectations ahead of economic realities.I have to say that you should ignore South Africa in your investment strategy, unless you want to take a gamble on resource stock." (APN italics).



AS all South Africans now know, every nation has its Quislings, its De Klerks. This month saw the death of one of the most monstrous of all this grisly breed: Alger Hiss, America's most notorious traitor of the century, a man whose name will for ever be synonymous with subversion and betrayal. If ever a man deserved to burn in everlasting hell, Hiss was that man.

In WW2 this Harward-trained lawyer, in appearance a gentleman, a scholar and a patriot, occupied one of the very highest positions in the US State Department, guiding, influencing and shaping his country's foreign policy. But, in the manner of many British and US elites of his day, Hiss was also a confirmed communist, blindly pro-Soviet, seeing the Soviet system - the gulags, the mass starvation and massacre of millions of Kulaks who resisted Stalin's policies, the awful show trials notwithstanding - as a "noble experiment" worth supporting.

It is one of the most fantastic stories of the 20th Century, a weird story, utterly incredible. But it happened. And the stark fact is that Hiss, more than most, must rank among the great political criminals of all time. Between them, he and his like sentenced almost a billion billion to communist totalitarianism.

In February 1945 Hiss was part of the huge US delegation to the infamous Yalta conference, where the already ailing, near-death Roosevelt, together with Churchill and Stalin, were to iron out plans for the post-war world. Even before they sat down, the russians knew they had it all stitched up. Both Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's closest advisor and the architect of his New Deal, and Hiss were Moscow's men, Stalin's witting and willing agents.

Together with Roosevelt, and ardent admirer of his friend, "Uncle Joe," and no friend of Churchill, they made a fine team, all ready to wrap up one of history's most disgraceful sell-outs. Stalin was given Eastern Europe as a free gift: 100 million helpless, innocent people, signed away by the President of the United States. Eleven sovereign nations were delivered without so much as a by-your-leave into slavery by a stroke of the pen ... Franklin Delano Roosevelt's pen.

Three sovereign nations and part of Poland were given to Russia outright. Immediately people of these once-proud nations were shipped away in cattle trucks by the millions to every corner of the Soviet empire.

Hack it as you please, the Yalta Agreement represented an American endorsement of human slavery. First, by recognising that German labour could be used as a source of reparation and, two, the agreement that Soviet citizens who were found in Western Europe should be handed over to the Soviet authorities effectively, the enactment of a fugitive slave law.

Though this is not the way most US historians tell it, the fact remains that despite the proclaimed ideals of the earlier Atlantic Charter, the Americans at Yalta, led by traitors, were responsible for the downgrading of freedom and the upgrading of communist totalitarianism on a gigantic scale. Not only was Eastern Europe abandoned to the Bolshevik wolves, but Yalta also helped in the defeat of Chiang kai-Shek. Soon Mao's communist forces were overrunning the entire chinese mainland.


The communist victory was now complete. A black cloud of tyranny now settled over huge areas of the world. In his memoirs Churchill described his reaction to the Roosevelt agenda: "This ... was to me a most unhappy time. I moved amid cheering crowds with an aching heart and a mind oppressed by foreboding."

As well he might. The lone conqueror, thanks to American perfidy, was Stalin. A divided Germany was smashed and in ruins. Britain and the US gained nothing and lost everything. The US, a million casualties and billions of dollars in was expenditure. Britain lost most of its empire, endured huge casualties and many of its finest young, faced post-war bankruptcy and heavy-handed socialism.

In that respect it can be said that, for the West, all the blood, sweat and tears of WW2 were in vain. The US received war legacies in Korea and Vietnam, communism in China, Cuba and many places else. In place of the world peace for which so many had sacrificed and died, the main outcome for the West was 45 years of Cold War.

It was the greatest communist victory since Lenin seized power from Kerensky in 1917. It changed the world for ever: very much for the worse. And this is what Hiss and his fellow traitors had sought. The sheer wickedness of it all is appalling, so appalling that it is difficult to credit. The question is: Who sewed these odious seeds in Roosevelt]s sick mind?

The answer is simple, Hopkins and Hiss sat directly behind FDR at the Yalta meetings and kept up a continuous exchange of notes with him. Hiss was later to tell a US Congressional committee that " ... it is an accurate and no immodest statement to say that I helped formulate the Yalta Agreement." Fate soon caught up with Harry Hopkins. He was assaulted in the US Congress as "the Rasputin of the White House."

Hiss, with his incredible power of mischief, was by no means done yet. Still wielding tremendous influence at the State Department, in 1945 he played a key role in launching that international monstrosity, the United Nations. And, again, through Hiss, now the UN's Acting Secretary-General, Stalin got his own way. As Hiss had agreed with Molotow at Yalta, the USSR was given three votes in the General Assembly to one for the US.

An entire book could be written on the single subject of Hiss and the UN. Together with such as Andrei Gromyko, Hiss wrote the UN Charter. In his 1955 book, The UN Record, author Chesly Manly stated: "Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were the founders of the UN, but its architect, the man who designed, fashioned it, manned it, launched it and set on its ideological course on the voyage to a Socialist New World Order was Alger Hiss."

Nor did it end there. Harry Dexter White, Hiss' friend and co-Soviet agent, served as chairman of the committee that established the International Monetary Fund, of which he later became Executive Chairman. The marriage between Roosevelt's New Deal and Stalin's communism was complete.

But, it is said, there is an inexorable law greater than man-made law. It is that the truth will prevail. In 1948 Hiss, now president of the prestigious Carnegie Endowment for World Peace, stood accused of betraying his country to the communist cause.

Whittaker Chambers, then a senior editor at Time magazine, identified Hiss as a communist spy who had served with him in the Washington underground apparatus of the Soviet Union. Hiss held his ground, categorically denying that he had ever been a communist or a spy. He went further, not only denying the first charges, but claiming he had never seen Chambers. When Chambers produced irrefutable evidence, Hiss was convicted of perjury (the statute of limitations had run out on the espionage charge) and spent 44 month in jail.


James Burnham, in his book, The Web of Subversion, said that it had been conclusively proved that the US government had been deeply penetrated at the highest level and right across the board. However, to the US left, particularly such left/lib publications as The New York Times and Washington Post, Hiss to this day remains a hero and a martyr.

You would think that 48 years might be enough time for a news-gathering organisation such as Associated Press to get a grip on the Hiss case. Yet this great agency, with its far-flung bureaux and stable of hot shot reporters, again displayed a remarkable incapacity to tell the truth in its Hiss orbit.

Once again cloaking Hiss, AP described Hiss, (Citizen, 15.11.96 as "a patrician public servant who fell from grace in a Communist spy scandal that propelled Richard Nixon to higher office." After recalling his imprisonment, AP concluded with this astonishing statement: "For the rest of his life, he worked for vindication both in court and in the court of public opinion. He proclaimed that it had come in 1992, at the age of 87, when a Russian general in charge of Soviet intelligence archives declared that (Hiss) had never been a spy, but rather a victim of Cold War hysteria and the McCarthy Red-baiting era." End of story. A more shameful example of fake propaganda could hardly be found.

True, the Russian historian, the late General Dmitri Volkogonow, initially did declare he had examined KGB records and could find no trace of Hiss as a KGB spy, that his friends could therefore tell him ... "that this heavy weight should be lifted from his heart."

The acquittal did not last long, Only a few weeks later Volkogonov recanted his declaration of Hiss's innocence, saying he had been misquoted, that he had only checked selected facts in the mountains that exist, that his intentions had been benign. Hiss' friends having suggested to him that an old man like Hiss "should die in peace."

The Hiss case has of course become one of the great causes celebre of the century: not surprisingly, because Hiss by his betrayal helped radically to change history. By any standards, Yalta was an atrocious crime. And, perhaps most disgraceful of all, no one can deny that the US Government at its highest levels did not know it had a traitor in its ranks. The FBI had solid evidence on Hiss' communist activities as far back as 1939. When this was brought to the attention of those in the White House, it was the FBI investigator, not Hiss, who was fired.


What can we expect form the 21st Century, now roaring towards us at rocket speed? The Royal Institute of International Affairs, the British establishment think-tank, also known as Chatham House, has issued a 100 000-word report entitled "Unsettled Times", painting a bleak picture for the West in the first two decades of the new century. Joseph de Courcy, of the highly esteemed "Intelligence Digest" has this to say:

The report says that the West will face a situation that "perpetually threatens to spin out of control". It speaks about the threats from China as it rises to superpower status and from Islamic fundamentalism. With Islamic fundamentalism spreading its influence into Southern Europe it is seen as a possible magnet for those sections of Western society that are unable to find a place in an increasingly hostile environment.

With unemployment likely to reach 15% across the West, and with Western states unable to meet the ever=growing demands of an aging population, including pension liabilities, the pressure will be on for quick solutions. This will be an environment in which unscrupulous demagogues could once again flourish.

These problems will be compounded by having to deal with the Chatham house report refers to as "rough neighbours", that is China in the east and the Islamic nations to the south. This is all a very far cry from the rosy "end of history" scenarios painted in the early 1990s, as the Soviet empire collapsed. Few people would now seriously argue that everyone is set to live happily ever after as free market liberal democracy triumphantly sweeps the world.

The economic problems faced by an ageing, welfare-addicted and uncompetitive Europe will increasingly undermine the attempt to create a united Europe. Britain will be the first member-sate to break with the European Union (EU), but other peripheral European state will follow.

Sometime during the first two decades of the new century dictators will begin to re-emerge in Europe, peddling easy solutions to difficult problems. Social cohesion throughout the Western world will be tested to breaking point as a result of earlier unwise immigration policies and the growing gap between those who are able and those who are unable to be economically useful in a highly technological world, The rising class of malcontents will increasingly turn to terrorism as a means of redressing the balance between the haves and the have-nots.

There will be serious instability in East Asia as a consequence of China's rise to superpower status. with possible clashes between China and Japan and between China and Russia. Russia will revert to a semi-barbarous autocracy as it sees the victors of the Cold War struggling to maintain their economic and military supremacy.

With the world balance of power shifting from West to East, the Islamic states of the Middle East will at some stage seek a final settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute on the battlefield.

Of course, none of this is inevitable, and there is hope in the fact that Establishment think tanks in the West have moved from their immediate Cold War triumphalism to considering seriously the major threats to Western security and prosperity that the new century will bring. France, Germany and the other countries of continental Europe seem to be looking for salvation in a protectionist, fortress Europe. Britain, on the other hand, and after a fierce internal political battle, will seek salvation through a floating currency, free trade and a balance-of-power foreign policy, whilst America is likely to steer a course somewhere between the two.

But whatever solutions are sought and found it is hard to see the early years of the new century as being anything but turbulent.



For thirty years the high-powered US-led international fluoride lobby has sought to strong-arm successive SA Ministers of Health into legislating fluoridation of SA's domestic water supplies. Each time the SA Safe Water Association and its associates have successfully beaten this off. Target now, however, is the much more susceptible Dr Nkosazana Zuma, of "Sarafina II" fame. Backed by the Department of Health and the SA Medical and Dental Council, Zuma will table fluoridation consenting legislation in Parliament early in 1997.

What according to its proponents, are the purported benefits of fluoridation? Primarily, that it immunises children's developing teeth against cavities. Should Zuma and Co. indeed now succeed in ramming fluoridation through, so forcing its introduction into metropolitan water supplies, that means that every urban SA man, woman and child will be compelled to ingest a known toxic agent, initially used primarily for rat poison and insecticides. Why would Zuma wish to feed us rat poison?

Here I am privy to an official letter on the subject written by Dr F J Smith, Director General, Oral Hygiene, Department of Health, to a professional opposing fluoridation. To provide a clear understanding of the issues at stake, I will now present excerpts from Dr. Smit's letter, with recent rebuttal evidence from global experts:

SMIT: "There is no scientific evidence that water fluoridation causes cancer, AIDS, genetic hazards, Down's syndrome, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, immune system suppression, allergic reactions, etc. Drinking optimally fluoridated water is thus not harmful to human health"

FACT: Dr. Smit is merely being flippant. We have no reason to place unqualified trust in the medical profession. Again and again, this profession has recommended as "absolutely safe" a wide spectrum of insufficiently investigated drugs and therapies, thalidomide being the outstanding example. It would seem that the "experts", especially in SA, know about as much about fluoride as they did about thalidomide.

The adverse health effects of fluoride, a highly toxic waste product of the aluminium and fertiliser industries, probably constitute the best-kept secret of this century. While serious differences of opinion remain on the efficacy/ safety of fluoride, recent research has stimulated big shifts in scientific thinking. Earlier this year, Dr. Tony Lees, a practising dentist and spokesman for the UK National Pure Water Association, testified before the Bristol City Council, then debating fluoridating its water supplies. Lees described fluoridation as "outdated 1960s technology, which does not address the cause of tooth decay". Bristol rejected fluoridation.

David R. Hill, Professor Emeritus, University of Calgary, stated in 1993: "The risks are no longer debatable and the cover up has gone on too long. It is only a reactionary medical and dental establishment, apparently determined to justify its long support for water fluoridation and avoid legal consequences , that denies the obvious. Few doctors and dentists seem willing to examine how they came to support the measure in the first place".

Now for Dr Smit's claim that fluoridation "is not harmful to the public health." Dr. Dean Bork, retired head of cytochemistry at the US National Cancer Association, has stated unambiguously that fluoridation of water is linked to the US cancer rate. The suspected genotoxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic (fall-out) from long term fluoride intake, he said, has not been disproved. "Almost every research paper broaching these subjects calls for more research into these areas and states that the evidence of safety is inconsistent and unsatisfactory."

Between 1967 and 1984, Japanese scientists found that by means of submitting cells to relatively low levels of fluoride, they could transform normal cells into cancer cells. In 1988 Oregon National laboratories, among the most prestigious of US national laboratories, confirmed the Japanese study and said that not only does fluoride cause cancer but that it promotes the cancer-causing effect of other chemicals as well. The chief toxicologist at the Us Environmental {Protection Agency, Dr William Marcus, studies the date and reported in 1990/91 that there was no question that fluoridation causes cancer. His reward? He lost his job, but on court action won it back.

In November 1991 the New Jersey Department of Health released findings that fluoridated water was linked to a 3- to 7-fold increase in osteosarcoma (a rare malignant bone cancer in young males). Higher hop, wrist, spine fracture and increased rate of radial bone mass loss in women was linked to water-fluoride levels. Varying calcium levels in drinking water was not a factor, the study reported.

In July/August 1994, a Danish report warned that Sodium fluoride (NaF) therapy for osteoporosis compromised bone quality. In late 1994 the great US Mayo Clinic announced that an extended two-year study disclosed that NaF-treated patients have more non-vertebral fractures than the placebo group.

Strangely, nowhere in his letter does Dr Smit refer to dental fluorosis, an adverse effect produced by over-ingestion of fluoride. Dr George Glasser, writing in The Sarasola/Florida ECO Report, February, 1995, said dental fluorosis is a "permanent condition," affecting 22% to 84% of children living in US fluoridated areas. Dental fluorosis, he explained, is caused by a failure of the enamel to crystallise properly in the permanent teeth.

"Cases range from very mild (barely discernible chalky, opaque blotching) to very severe (unsightly, rust-coloured stains, surface pitting and brittleness). children from six months to 12 years are most likely to develop severe dental fluorosis. The milder form of dental fluorosis can be superficially remedies by costly procedures such as Micro-abrasion, bleaching and cosmetic bonding. The more severe cases generally result in loss of affected teeth."

He pointed out that in 1994 Britain (for once preceding the US in class action suits) saw damage litigation lodged against paediatricians and dentists on behalf of children suffering dental fluorosis. Similar suits are now being heard in the US and Canada.

Dr Grasser concluded: "People with maladies such as kidney ailments, HIV/AIDS, immunodeficiencies, diabetes and heart ailments are at risk of consuming fluoride-laced products and fluoridated water. Other suspect maladies related to the long-term ingestion of fluoride range from Down's Syndrome, calcification of tendons, cataracts and many others."

A study entitled Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluoride (F) by the US Department of Health's Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology, 16.12.91, stated: "Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its components. These populations include the elderly, people with magnesium deficiency and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems."


A recent study reported in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) found that "low levels of fluoridation may increase the risk of hip fractures in the elderly. Another group likely to show damage from fluoridation is young males. Since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male children and adolescents has increased sharply in the US. According to the National Association for Health Statistics, the US hip fracture rates are the highest in the world." JAMA editorialised: "Clearly it is now appropriate to review the issue of water fluoridation." The New England Journal of Medicine reported that people given fluoride to cure their osteoporosis actually wound up with an increased nonvertebral fracture rate.

SMIT: "Water fluoridation is practised in more than 35 countries covering a population of approximately 300 million. Millions more are served by water that is naturally fluoridated."

FACT: Western Europe is today 98% unfluoridated, the practice largely rejected on the grounds that it is unsafe. In 1971, after 11 years of testing, Sweden's Nobel Medical Institute recommended against fluoridation and the process was banned. The Netherlands outlawed the process in 1976, after 23 years of tests. France decided against it after consulting with its Pasteur Institute. Germany rejected the practice because the recommended dosage of 1 ppm (one part per million, the rate also recommended for SA) was "too close to the dose at which long-term damage to the human body is to be expected."

The consumption of fluoridated water is also declining in the former European East bloc. Japan has reduced the amount of fluoride in the drinking water to one-eighth of what is recommended in the US (and proposed for SA). With much of the Western world now rejecting water fluoridation, we can expect supplies to flood the Third World, with SA a prime target.

Dr Smit refers to areas where the water is "naturally fluoridated." Numbers of areas in SA reflect high natural fluoride rates, including parts of the Cape and the Pilansberg. Doctors Zuma and Smit might find it illuminating to research the Chinese experience. In September 1994 the 20th Conference of the International Society of Fluoride Research was held in Beijing, sponsored by the Chinese Ministry of Health, the WHO and the Natural Sciences Foundation of china.

Some 200 Chinese researchers attended and 150 from outside. The major area of concern was the prevalence of fluorosis in China. The endemic areas of China contain a population of some 100 million. Of these, 43 mn have dental fluorosis of all degrees of severity; 24 mn have skeletal fluorosis, a severe crippling disease with bone deformities. The Chinese reported adverse effects not only on teeth and bone, but also soft tissue.

An association was shown between chronic fluoride poisoning and lowered intelligence as measured by IQ tests; chromosomal abnormalities, decreased immunity, increased senile cataracts and cancer. The November 1996 issue of Fluoride, the quarterly journal of the International Society of Fluoride Research, reports another scientific study from China, showing that children living in an area with high fluoride in the water supply have lower IQ throughout life when compared to those living in a low fluoride area. "In all cases mothers of those children lived in the same areas during pregnancy."


SMIT: "Water fluoridation has been endorsed by more than 150 scientific and health organisations, including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The National Cancer Institute, USA, received studies claiming a link between water fluoridation and increased cancer rates. The Institute found that investigators had failed to take into account widely accepted risk factors known to affect the death rate of specific types of cancer. Even the Cancer Association of SA supports water fluoridation."

FACT: There has been no blanket endorsement of fluoridation by the FDA stating that fluoride is safe and effective, or a proven cavity fighter. In 1990, the FDA ordered the manufacturers of tooth-paste and mouthwashes claiming that their products prevented plaque and other dental conditions to prove that their ingredients were safe and effective. Their advertising statements, the FDA said, amounted to drug claims because they dealt with the prevention and treatment of disease and because they affected the structure or metabolic functions of the body. The subsequent disappearance of TV commercials extolling the benefits of fluoride indicated that these claims could not be proven.

In June 1993 US Congressman John Kelly sought a ban on fluoride supplements after the FDA admitted that there were no studies proving that the drug is safe or effective for children. Ample scientific evidence existed, he said, that the benefits of fluoride had been greatly over-estimated ... and that many of the classical studies on the benefits of fluoridation were so badly designed as to be worthless.

In 1988 the American Dental Association (ADA) professed that a 40% to 60% cavity reduction could be achieved with the help of fluorides: much the same claims being made in SA now. Recent research and the threat of litigation have forced the US Proponents of fluoride to make much more modest claims. Now they claim an 18% to 25% reduction. One promoter mentions a 12% decline in tooth decay.

SMIT: "As recently as August 1993 the (US) National Research Council released a report prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that confirmed that the currently allowed fluoride levels in drinking water do not pose a risk for health problems."

FACT: While it is correct that the NRC did give fluoride a clean bill of health in 1993, it should be noted that EPA scientist Dr William Herzy challenged the objectivity of the NRC report and the validity of the conclusions, particularly relating to dental fluorosis. Dr Robert Carton, environmental scientist and former 20-year EP employee in its Toxic Substance Division, charged that the report was "propaganda masquerading as science." Scientific support documents of fluoride in drinking water were, he said, "fatally flawed ... the fluoride juggernaut proceeds as it apparently has done for the last 40 years ... without regard for facts or concern for public health."

In 1991 the EPA unit of the National Federation of Federal Employees, representing 1 200 scientists, lawyers and engineers at EPA headquarters, charged the EPA and the US Surgeon-General's Office with falsifying information relating to the risks of fluoride. The unit unequivocally renounced the use of fluoride as a safe practice.

SMIT: "In a court case in June 1993 in the US State of Wisconsin, Judge Peter Grimm ruled that fluoridation did not impinge on a fundamental right, did not violate a recognised constitutional right to privacy and did not constitute compulsory medicine."I

FACT: P Clavell Blount, chairman, London Anti-Fluoridation Campaign, answers: "When medication is applied to entire communities at once, that is mass medication. When it is applied in a manner which makes it virtually impossible for anyone to escape such treatment, that is compulsory medication. So fluoridation is obviously compulsory mass medication, and no amount of talk or double talk will alter that fact."

"The US National Research Council has classified fluoride as one essential trace element in human nutrition, like zinc, iron and several other elements."I

FACT: The Canadian physician Dr Richard Foulkes, in a guest editorial in Fluoride, August 1996, said that years ago it was assumed the above claim could be proven. "The scientific evidence never came forward and the official clarification of fluoride as a nutrient was discontinued. Newer evidence suggests that it may be more accurate to view fluoride as a contaminant for which no safety level can be determined."

SMIT: "All the laboratory and epidemiological evidence on fluoridation to date has verified its safety and effectiveness. Although a few individuals continue to object to fluoridation, there is no scientific basis for doubting the medical safety, effectiveness and practicality of community water fluoridation as a public health measure for preventing dental caries."

FACT: France's immensely respected Pasteur Institute and Sweden's Nobel Institute concur that fluoride has little or no value as a dental cavity deterrent, and stress that the possible health risks from using fluoride outweigh any benefits. A fairly recent WHO report states that Western Europe's declining dental decay rates are equal and "sometimes better" than those in the US.

Dr James Patrick, an antibiotics research scientist formerly attached to the US National Institute of Health says that only a "small margin separates supposed beneficial fluoride levels from amounts known to cause adverse effects." He adds: "There is a very low margin of safety involved in fluoridating water. A concentration of 1 ppm is recommended ... in several countries, severe fluorosis has been documented from water supplies containing only 2 or 3 ppm."

SMIT: "It could therefore be concluded that the fluoridation of community water supplies is safe and effective (the most cost effective way to prevent tooth decay) public health measure for preventing tooth decay and to improve oral health over a lifetime."

FACT: As of 1985, the state of Maryland, USA, was 96% fluoridated, according to Michael Easley, State Dental Director in the Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. (Public Health Reports, July, 1990). The time frame should have been sufficient to establish whether fluoridation was effective in preventing cavities. However, Maryland's first statewide dental study, published 18.8.96, disclosed that the percentage of children with decay was 60%, against a national US average of 50%.

SMIT: "Tooth decay is a preventable disease. Fluoride increases the resistance of tooth enamel to acid (formed by bacteria in plaque and sugar) attack causing tooth decay."

FACT: A 1992 University of Arizona study yielded surprising results. The researchers found that "the more fluoride a child drinks, the more cavities appear in the teeth"

SMIT: "Children benefit the most from water fluoridation, but adults will also benefit. Fluoridated water means:less toothache. Fewer and smaller dental bills. More people keeping their natural teeth throughout life. Better looking teeth because they are not affected by tooth decay. Less fear and anxiety about visits to the dentist, as treatment would be less complicated, with less anaesthesia and drilling. Better health for all as a result of improved dental health."

FACT: Purported benefits are supposedly for children, not adults and senior citizens. At about age 13 any advantage fluoridation might offer comes to an end. Fluoride is the only drug - or more correctly mineral - which according to promoters is 'safe' for everyone, regardless of age weight, nutritional status or medical conditions such as auto-immune disease, kidney disease,cancer, multiple chemical sensitivities.

Writing in "Fluoride", May, 1995, Dr. Mark Diesendorf, of the Human Ecology Programme, Australian National University, remarked: " Fluoride at the levels recommended, is neither necessary for life or for sound teeth. No one has ever been shown to suffer from a 'deficiency' of fluoride. Recent evidence suggests that recommended fluoride doses have zero nutritional value.

" So it would seem that the only justification for putting fluoride in drinking water is that children who do not brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste or would not use fluoridated mouth rinses might miss out on a possible small topical (surface) benefit from the non-essential substance. But they might also miss out on the chronic toxic effects of swallowing fluoride dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, bone fracture and hypersensitive reaction. It is important to note that fluoridated drinking water does not solve the tooth decay problems of the poor. Even in fluoridated areas the poor still have the highest levels of tooth decay."

SMIT: " Fluoridation will therefore contribute to equality in health and in the building of a healthy nation."

FACT: The US experience does not substantiate that claim. "Although all Native American reservations are fluoridated, children living there have a much higher incidence of tooth decay and other oral health problems than do children living in other communities". ("American Dental Association News" 17.1.94.)

APN COMMENT: Most official argument in support of fluoridation of SA's water supplies collapse like a deck of cards when some of the m,ost esteemed medical institutes in the world describe fluoride's tooth-enhancing reputation as a "statistical illusion".

Nor should we forget that the American Dental Association is very much aware that because of its long support of fluoride-laced products, it could be on the verge of thee most costly litigation in history. Speculation is that the settlements could dwarf the US$485 million offered in the silicon breast implant suit ... another medical disaster. To admit now that promoting the use of fluoride was a mistake would only hasten the inevitable an potentially catastrophic litigation that lies ahead.

The case against fluoridation is so strong, the morality of the issue so clear, that it is incomprehensible that any government, even an inept Third World out fit such as our own, would even contemplate introducing this scientifically bankrupt procedure into our most precious possession, our drinking water.


"THE fluoridation of the US public water supplies is absolutely unsafe - is causing more destruction to human health than any other single substance added compulsorily or inadvertently to the water supply. We are talking about 35 000 excess deaths a year - 10 000 cancer deaths a year." - Dr John Yiamouyiannis - Leading US anti-fluoridationist.


WE now come to the persons most directly involved (and least consulted) in this immensely controversial campaign to fluoridate SA water supplies: YOU and your children. Do you regard this effort by Health Minister Dr Zuma with hostility and suspicion? If so - without delay - join the SA Safe Water Association: chairman, Leon Louw, of Free Market fame and a dedicated guerilla in the long struggle for the rights of the individual.

Safe Water is already deep into battle on your behalf. We need you on our side. Membership is free, though obviously donations will be more than welcome. Finance is badly needed.

Dr Zuma is expected to table the fluoridation enabling legislation during the first 1997 Parliamentary session. Both she and the SA Medical & Dental Council appear reluctant to inform you on all facts. They do not tell you that France's Pasteur Institute, says water fluoridation is of no merit. They do not tell you that Dr John Yiamouyiannis, America's most qualified anti-fluoridationist, terms the compulsory ingestion of fluoride a "procedure that violates all medical ethics."

So, operating from a very shaky scientific base, Dr Zuma desires to waste tens of millions more of taxpayer money on an increasingly discredited procedure: one that, on US experience, could conceivably poison both you and your children.

We are up against very big guns here, people capable of mounting master public relations campaigns, and with the Establishment media refusing to play its appointed watchdog role. If Zuma and her associates legislate fluoridation, then by fairly early in 1997 we are going to see thousands of tons of fluorosilic acid shovelled into our domestic water supplies each year.

If you oppose this, join Safe Water now. Address your letters to the SA Safe Water Association, PO Box 91059, Auckland Park 2006. If you have any suggestions on action to be taken, also write. Are you willing to assist? In what way? Remember: This battle has been fought before. We've beaten them before. Let us now beat them again.



THIS is our last issue for 1996. Soon after putting it away I will be having the first of two eye operations, so will not be writing for some weeks. It has been another rocky year, for SA and APN alike. We took on far more than we realised when we agreed to help tough-luck Afrikaans kiddies, most of them children of unemployed, often destitute, parents. But ... kindness still lives.

We have, through our entirely voluntary group, Mission Rescue, experienced much quite extraordinary generosity, the latest a marvellous gift of more than R 3 000 from my old friend, Keith Keeley, in the UK. That was a tremendous shot in the arm for our efforts to provide special Christmas food hampers for our hardest-hit families. I can tell you, to see malnourished little scraps aching for food is not a pretty sight. Bless you all for your kindness.

The headmaster of a Western Johannesburg primary school with 700 pupils, serving a very deprived community, writes: "Mission Rescue has provided very valuable and much appreciated assistance to destitute children and their families. We can only express profound gratitude for this wonderful work in an ever-expanding crisis." Dominee M P Botha, minister in charge of the Dutch Reformed Church at Claremont, writes: "On behalf of my congregation, I wish to thank Mission Rescues for the generous help we regularly receive for destitute people, mainly elderly folk and children now facing desperate circumstances. We are all heartfelt grateful."

As the SA economy continues its catastrophic slide, as the lists of unemployed grow ever longer, as all recognised charities buckle under the weight of demands, we expect to carry an ever-greater burden next year. WE would welcome gifts both of food and clothing, especially for small children. should anyone with to contribute funding, please send it to Mission Rescue, Account No 0738175166, Volkskas Bank, Northcliff. Please do not make cheques out to APN.


Oops! One lesson we learnt long ago is that you should not write when your equilibrium is out of whack. Mine was certainly derailed when finalising the last pages of our 200th edition last month. Running to answer the phone in the dark, I tripped over an old copper urn. Not realising how deep the gash in my leg was, I didn't seek medical attention for 24 hours. By the time I did, it was to get the happy tidings that gangrene had already set in. Instead of following doctor's orders, I continued to write: with predictable results.

Two of my very dearest friends, Hilaire du Berier of Monaco and Donald Darroch in Australia, had their names misspelt. Inexplicably, I credited the US historian, Professor Leo Raditsa as the author of The Other End of The Lifeboat. That, of course, was the work of another historian friend, Otto Scott, of California. Leo's book was the brilliant Prisoners of a Dream: The South African Heritage. Surprising, just how many people picked that up.

Congratulations on achieving our 200th issue are still coming in. Old friend Larry Abraham, publisher of Insider Report, phoned from Santiago in Chile and hopes to be here in February. Christopher Story, of the heavyweight Soviet Analyst, phoned from London. US syndicated political columnist, Allan Brownfeld, whose column we have so often used, faxed us. He wrote: "Congratulations, Aida. Your newsletter remains a vital source of information not only to your SA subscribers, but to men and women throughout the world who follow events in your area and hope for a prosperous, free and tranquil future for a country which has so much promise and has suffered so much."

Thank you all. May God bless us and be with us all in the year to come.

Cycad Web Works Thu Jun 1 03:53:15 EDT 2023 : # 82 : last modified 1/5/123
The Aida Parker Newsletter viewed by user@