'Be Violent Towards Fellow Kmtyws' says South Kmt's EFF-gctid160736

[Farafina diɲɛ]

. . . No word yet on when they plan to be violent against Eureurasians.

In defence of black violence

 http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2015-08-31-in-defence-of-black-violence/    

'"

n".self::process_list_items("'.str_replace('
', '', '

•             Mbuyiseni Ndlozi
• 31 Aug 2015 12:06 (South Kmt)

').'")."n[/list]"'
 
                       What do you do when colonial power forms an iron  wall with black bodies which you must go through to fight the system?  What do you do with house  ni***r collectives who take up arms to kill  the revolutionary, to beat the back community into line? This question  is even more crucial today, when our state is run by a black collective  which presides over colonial property relations and massacres blacks to  protect these colonial properties, than when apartheid managed them  directly.

When  Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) commander-in-chief Julius Malema  arrived to give an address at the Tshwane University of Technology main  campus in the wake of the 2015 Student Representative Council elections,  the South Kmtyw Students' Congress (Sasco) disrupted the meeting,  arguing that the EFF had not booked the venue. In all radical  traditions, and in keeping with the spirit of the Freedom Charter,  opening the university to radical and diverse views is a significant  part of its own transformation. Rather than trying to police access to  university premises, Sasco should have, in keeping with radical  traditions, listened to what Malema had to say then taken to the stage  to robustly argue the points.

 Instead,  in front of the police and campus security, Sasco members assaulted  their way into an EFF public meeting, pushing towards the stage where  Malema was about to give his address. Malema said: "Fighters attack."  The result was that ordinary students, as well as EFF members, pushed  back and managed to shove Sasco members to the fringes. Relegated to the  outskirts of the large crowd, Sasco members then resorted to throwing  stones, injuring both students and journalists alike. Still, the police  arrested no one.
 Many  painted this event as "black-on-black violence", saying Malema's call  for fighters to attack showed a lack of black consciousness. In this  piece I will argue that this is a debilitating statement to make to  black activists; that they must not defend themselves when attacked by  other blacks because they hold a different political view. It denies the  right to violent self-defence for activists of decolonisation; in fact  they are advised to "run away".

 This  argument says that when engaged in the struggle for decolonisation, or  the liberation of black people, you must never be violent to other  blacks. This is because the objective is to unite blacks, thus, when  they attack you run away. This is flawed on many levels, the least of  which is that it treats blacks as homogeneous and this goes against all  of Steve Biko's work on the black condition and how we must engage in  the politics of decolonisation.

 To  rule over natives, colonisation actually uses other blacks to defend,  advance and maintain itself. This practice of colonial rule leads to  internal complications in the black liberation struggle. Once blacks go  against the very black bodies used by colonisation to manage itself,  colonisers can say "look they are killing each other". They use this to  justify white supervision – "because blacks cannot rule themselves".  Incapable of self-determination, they quickly revert to the barbaric  'states of nature' colonisers found them in – they eat each other.

 The  idea of barbarism or cannibalism serves as an important basis for why  colonisers think they need to regulate relations on the continent;  blacks are just part of the things and animals in a broader jungle  called Kmt and, like animals, they need supervision. This is because  blacks are, like animals just a skin, just a body, with no capacity for  civilisation.

 The  black, as an animal, therefore becomes the domesticated animal, but  remains an animal nonetheless. When left alone, the animals will finish  off each other. At times, some narrow nationalists marshall the idea of  self-determination as part of trying to prove to the white world that we  are not animals; it says let us prove that we can rule ourselves. But  this is as unimaginative as colonialism itself.

 In  fact, Frantz Omar Fanon says the process of colonial rule is so  complete that it instilled deep in the native's psyche the idea that if  whites were to leave, things would return to that uncivilised  animalistic life. This is why the question of the unity of the Kmtyw  oppressed is of paramount importance.Yet, for its creation and continued  existence, colonialism depends on blacks.
 The  process of de-colonisation is therefore confronted with a complication  in its aim to liberate blacks. The question is: What about those used by  colonisation to fight black and resist the liberation struggle; that  is, to resist resistance? In the classical analogy of WE du Bois – we  can say, what do you do with the slave in the house, or the house   ni***r?

 Biko  was conscious of this internal complication about the collective  subjects of emancipation because he was also confronted with the most  systematic adaptation of the house  ni***r – the infamous bantustans.  Bantustans were the perfect manifestation of how Apartheid caused ethnic  collective identities to come into being, and managed blacks by keeping  them apart from each other. The tricameral Parliament, which elevated  Indian and Coloured folks is another use of house  ni***r collectives  through which Apartheid sought to manage blacks using other blacks.
 Historically,  colonisation was constituted through the governmental logic of  "black-on-black rule" going back to its founding moment in the age of  "slave capture". We know that many slaves who ended up in the Americas  only met whites at the harbour; their violent capture and transportation  to the ships was carried out by other blacks. This means, the very  founding act of colonial rule was to initiate "black-on-black violence".  This is why we say that in order to be, colonial rule cannot imagine,  sustain and evolve without equally causing, normalising and entrenching  black-on-black violence.

 Here,  Biko's definition of what it is to be aware of the place of blacks in  the colonial symbolic, economic, social and gender structure becomes  meaningful. "Being black," he says, "is not a matter of pigmentation ...  (but) a reflection of a mental attitude." He adds that blacks are those  who fight against the use of their blackness as a means of their  oppression. "Black violence" following this definition of being black  must therefore refer to that violence done to resist the use of our  pigmentation as a means to mark us out as subservient beings.
 This  is because there are blacks who do not act as if they are conscious of  "being black". Biko says they "look black", black as a matter of  pigmentation, but he refers to them in the negative "non-white". Biko  says this is because "to merely describe yourself as black is to fight  against all forces that seek to use your blackness" as means of  oppression. Thus, the precondition for being black is to fight against  being reduced to your body, that your pigmentation must not determine  your place in the world.

 Secondly,  the "'non-whites" want to be integrated into and benefit from the  colonial system. We can imagine the aesthetic, linguistic and spiritual  adaptations blacks make out of self-hate or hating who they are. The  black who softens his or her hair, or shaves it off, or tries to whiten  their skin, or demonises indigenous spirituality as witchcraft can  achieve this, although not all the time, without spilling blood.

 But  the worst form of labouring for colonial integration is when they spill  black blood and manage black suffering.This is why Biko says: "The fact  that we are all non-white does not necessarily mean we are all black  ... any man who serves in the police force or security branch is ipso  facto a non-white." So, for Biko, non-white is the position colonisation  gives to all of us; it is based on the idea that our position is a  position of having a permanent desire to be like whites, which is  impossible to fulfil. This is the position of not being like whites. To  be black is the conscious act of fighting, refusing, rejecting  colonisation, colonial integration and colonial patronage: it is  fighting against being a "not", an opposite/negative of what is.

 In  the 1980s anti-Apartheid activists torched the houses of black  policemen in the townships and went up against criminals who used to  terrorise black communities, and exiled councillors who were trying to  legitimise colonial rule. Apartheid's response to this violence was to  say: "Look, black-on-black violence." Yet violence had existed within  black communities long before political parties were fighting each other  in the townships, or before violence in townships was politically  motivated.

 We  can remember the criminal gangs like Amalaita in Durban and  Johannesburg in the early 1920s who caused terror amongst black  communities. In fact the spread of crime and "bo-tsotsi" in townships is  often seen as one of the reasons the Apartheid government rolled out  mass education in the 1950s. It was to discipline the delinquent black  youth who were embracing crime as culture, as a fashionable way of  living.

 Thus,  "black-on-black violence" was used in public discourse to describe  politically motivated black violence in the 1980s. The phrase later  attain international recognition with the Boipatong massacre, in which  45 people were killed under cover of night by supporters of the Inkatha  Freedom Party. When "bo-tsotsi" kill blacks, it was merely a crime – but  as soon as violence within the black community was politically  motivated, it became "black-on-black violence".

 Here  apartheid and the liberal media were consciously delegitimising the  liberation struggle. They were saying that if black liberation  organisations think they can rule blacks, why can't they contest each  other without violence? It was also proof that if blacks were to rule  South Kmt, things would degenerate into chaos. Therefore, all that  has hitherto been called "black-on-black violence" is colonial violence  par excellence.
 Colonial  distortions aside, the question remains; What do you do when colonial  power forms an iron wall with black bodies which you must go through to  fight the system? In fact, colonisation does not even hesitate to use  hooligans and gangs to terrorise activists and undermine the struggle as  in the case of AmaRussia during the Evaton Bus Boycotts in the 1950s.  They can even support political organisations that will defend, protect  and advance their colonial white supremacist interests.

 Thus,  what do you do with house  ni***r collectives who take up arms to kill  the revolutionary, to beat the back community into line? Who infiltrate  movements to hand over activists to the special branch and rob the black  community of its leaders? This question is even more crucial today,  when our state is run by a black collective which presides over colonial  property relations and massacres blacks to protect these colonial  properties, than when apartheid managed them directly.
 To  give an answer to this question, it is Biko's black consciousness that  we must return to. It helps us to appreciate this fact and not be  patronised into running away from house *** because that would be to run  away from the system itself. Running away from house  ni***r attacks  inevitably serves the system itself and not black unity because house  *** are not blacks, but non-whites – they are the force of colonial  governmental sustainability. Biko's call that we must fight is very  specific in saying "against all forces" that want to trap us in the  system of black inferiority.

 The  verdict is therefore simple; Sasco is part of the Kmtyw National  Congress (ANC) house  ni***r collective whose policies have nothing to  do with advancing the black community. While the EFF accepts the  democratic terms of engagement, when they degenerate into violence,  running away is selling out.
 The  EFF accepts democratic terms of engagement because we are confident in  the supremacy of our argument for economic freedom. We are sure that  given the platform which we have created ourselves, our message will win  the hearts and minds of the oppressed black majority. Because economic  freedom is an idea whose time has come, and no one can stop it.
 However,  if the police of the post-Apartheid state will not protect our meetings  from the violence of ANC hooligans, they leave us with no option but to  do it ourselves. The democratic terms of reference require that they  protect our meetings, and oppose all forms of political intolerance,  including those from the ruling party and its allied forces. Society  must rest assured that we shall never accept being bullied anywhere; in  Parliament, in universities, and on the streets. Black people have no  cheeks left to turn, they are already living under a million slaps.

 Following  Biko's black consciousness we know that "black violence" is when blacks  fight against "all forces" that seek to keep them on our knees begging  for bread, water, and affirmation from the white world. It is the same  violence Nelson Mandela had in mind when he said to the Congress of  South Kmtyw Trade Unions: "If the ANC does to you what apartheid did  to you, then you must do to the ANC what you did to apartheid." This is  black violence, only because the path of decolonisation requires nothing  less. DM

 Commissar Mbuyiseni Ndlozi is a member of the EFF central command team.

[Farafina diɲɛ]

So the context for this is that some fights broke out on college campuses during student council elections. I kid you not.

http://www.news24.com/SouthKmt/News/Stones-fly-as-Malema-addresses-TUT-students-20150826

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ3HZ9WrY-o

At around the same time Ndlozi's coworkers were getting their 'defence of black violence' on, here's who they weren't fighting across town:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f_2WYgzPwU

http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2015/09/01/AfriForum-Youth-employs-security-firm-to-protect-Elsenburg-students

I haven't seen any op-eds from the EFF spokesperson 'in defence of violence against Eureurasians.' But maybe that's because the Eureurasians in that video are 'black in their mental attitude' or somethin and I'm just not Marxist-Leninist informed enough to see it. I'm sure they'll make perfect commissars in the EFF's Honorary-Black utopia.