:Fears and thoughts in South Africa

......no loss here....she is just as useless as the rest of them and has only traded on her name to also get many of the ANC spoils, but good that she is trying to go against the party line as the RET faction split theory is now seen as an imaginary concoction devised by Ramasofa to make him to be the lessor of all the ANC evils....they are all bad and have been so right from the start....rotten to the core....time to get rid of the whole barrel....:evil: :evil: :evil:

A carefully directed missile strike on Nasrec during the course of the next 3 days could solve most of our country's problems.

Some creatures are known to be able to survive nuclear fallout so a mere missile strike may barely register...

Plenty fun and games over the next few days and prepare for many disruptions, I wonder what the cost of this fiasco will be ?

.......the ANC will not go out with a BANG.....but maybe a whimper.....:dry:

......and now de Ruyter's parting gift.....stage 6 again at short notice and on a public holiday.....power was supposed to come back on 50min ago according to the updated schedule and now our updated schedule indicates a further outage for 4.5 hours this afternoon....the mobile towers in the area will never be able to charge fast enough..... so no mobile data until this evening.....:S

Black out the conference would be a good start.😎

They enjoy a good dance and sing song and very positive about about the future with apparently no regrets about the past or the current status 😪

.....guaranteed they have several big ass diesel generators burning the fuel that was meant for ESKOM....they will never be without power.....they are the power....:dry:

Felix wrote:

A carefully directed missile strike on Nasrec during the course of the next 3 days could solve most of our country's problems.

This post is obviously hypothetical, and we don’t condone violence on ABC

Not that we have a Biden on speed dial. “hi Joe, sending the coordinates through now “

They can't even get the registration process right, many hours late .....😪👎

Bill Gates Patent Gives Him ‘Exclusive Rights’ to ‘Computerize’ Humans

---

By Wayside

Principia Scientific International 9 December 2022
Theme: Science and Medicine
print




***

A patent granted to Bill Gates awarded the self-appointed world health czar the “exclusive rights” to computerize human bodies and use them as local wireless networks.

The human body is a vibrating, throbbing, pulsing gateway of tubes and tunnels, filled with electrolytes and all capable of transmitting information, the lifeblood of the internet and the 21st century.

Now it has emerged that Gates’ Microsoft was granted “exclusive rights” to this ability of the body to act as a computer network.

If this sounds too much like science fiction, then you are welcome to check this out for yourself. Microsoft was awarded US Patent 6,754,472, which is titled: Method and apparatus for transmitting power and data using the human body.





Which really should be science fiction, if you stop to think about it. Did anybody consult you about whether you are willing to hand over to Bill Gates the exclusive rights to your body?

Civil liberties groups have expressed outrage over Gates’s move to patent the human body. “Body parts, in this case skin, should not be in any way patentable,” said Jim Thomas of the ETC group, which monitors developments in technology. “There are big questions here about whether individuals will be able to refuse this technology if it is used in, for example, tracking devices.”

Klaus Schwab’s right hand man, Yuval Noah Harari, says there is no question that individuals will have no say whatsoever about refusing this technology. According to Harari, “The designer of life will no longer be god, the WEF are going to be the designers of the future of life.”

Harari also explains why Gates’ patent on the human body is so important. Gates was at the forefront of the computer science revolution, according to Harari, and he is also at the forefront of “the revolution in the biological sciences.” And guess what? According to Harari, Bill Gates’ two revolutions are about to merge.

While Harari is dropping some hints, Gates is remaining coy about what they plan to do to the human body, and more to the point, whose human bodies they plan to computerize.

The big question is whether Gates is planning to allow his human subjects a choice in the matter.

According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Gates has a “God-like willingness to experiment with the lives of lesser humans.”


Kennedy Jr. goes on to warn that Bill Gates has used his money to systematically purchase “powers exceeding, in some respects, those wielded by presidents” and is using these powers to experiment on human beings like “guinea pigs“.

“Gates’ strategy of buying WHO [World Health Organization] and purchasing control of US health officials like Tony Fauci & Deborah Birx” means the Microsoft co-founder can now “dictate global health policies affecting 7 billion people and to control the most intimate details of our lives,” said Kennedy Jr. on his Instagram page.

“Under his direction, the WHO is conducting global social and medical experimentation applying Gates’ religious faith that he can use technology (vaccines and GMO agriculture) and his deep understanding of computers to make him the savior to all of humanity. We are his guinea pigs.”

But if you think Bill Gates’ plans for humanity are disturbing, wait until you meet the people he is collaborating with.

A controversial proposal by a New York University professor to combat ‘climate change’ through biohacking has attracted the attention of World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation.

Strap yourself in. Things are about to get weird.

Matthew Liao, a bioethicist at NYU, first presented the proposal in a paper he wrote in 2012. Titled ‘Human Engineering and Climate Change’, the crux of the paper argues for the use of radical biomedical interventions on humans so as to create people who are literally physiologically environmentally-friendly.

These biomedical interventions involve three approaches: a eugenics program against tall people, inducing intolerance towards meat including beef, pork and chicken, and radically lowering birth rates by altering women’s cognitive abilities.

Liao states that its necessary to have a eugenics program that breeds tall people out of the population because the increase in human height over the past few centuries has had a negative environmental impact, because tall people consume more calories.

To carry out the eugenics program, Liao has two suggestions. The first one being the genetic screening of embryos before IVF implantation so that parents can have the option to choose children who are likely to be short and small. Liao’s second suggestion is even more radical, and involves injecting children with hormones to severely stunt their growth so they consume less calories when they are adults.

As for inducing meat intolerance, Liao uses the globalist elites favorite excuse; ‘climate change’, to argue that we must make people allergic to meat, by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins.

This is taking authoritarianism to a whole new level, far surpassing anything attempted in Mao’s China or Stalin’s Russia.

Instead of eating meat, as humans have since time began, the WEF want us to eat Bill Gates’ lab-grown meat. The elite also have a thing for cannibalism. Here is WEF-aligned transhumanist politician Ben Zion consuming lab-grown human meat in what he claims is a historic first.

The 40 year-old-Facebook politician turned biohacker claims the lab-grown human meat is from cell cultures that he took from his own skin.

Why do they want us to eat crickets, bugs and lab-grown human meat? The answer lies in how badly the elite want to humiliate and degrade us.

But Liao’s suggestions don’t stop there. Getting onto the elite’s favourite topic, depopulation, and Liao suggests that to lower birth rates even further, the WEF should pump women full of smart drugs to enhance their cognitive abilities. He arrives at this conclusion by arguing that the more educated women become, the less children they have.

“Women with low cognitive ability are more likely to have children before age eighteen,” says Liao, “Hence, another possible human engineering solution is to use cognition enhancements such as Ritalin and Modafinil to achieve lower birthrates.”

When Liao published his paper almost a decade ago, it caused controversy, and was for the most part dismissed as eco-extremism, even by ‘climate change’ activists. But fast forward to the present day, and the extreme bioengineering proposals of the paper are being seriously discussed at the World Economic Forum.

Last year in December, in preparation for this year’s Davos Summit, the World Economic Forum unveiled its bioengineering framework in a presentation called ‘3 Scenarios for How Bioengineering Could Change Our World in 10 Years.’

Edible vaccines grown in plants and CRISPR gene-editing were some of the highlights of the framework. The presentation was based off a World Economic Forum sponsored academic paper called Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020.

For this year’s Davos Summit, Liao’s human bioengineering paper was added to the ‘Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020’ paper for both the World Economic Forum’s bioengineering framework and Climate Change framework.

As radical as Matthew Liao’s human bioengineering suggestions might seem, their consideration and deliberation by the World Economic Forum should come as no surprise.

Bill Gates is a fan of experimenting on the human body, whether his human subjects have given their consent or otherwise, and Klaus Schwab considers bioengineering a key component of his Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Do not underestimate these people. They are mad, drunk on power, and they do not have our best interests at heart.

*

OPINIONOPINION,
Opinions
|
Politics
There will be life after Ramaphosa
It is time the ANC realises that standing by President Ramaphosa is no longer to the benefit of the party or the country.

Tafi Mhaka
Tafi Mhaka
Social and political commentator
Published On 22 Dec 2022
22 Dec 2022
Cyril Ramaphosa supporters
Supporters of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa hold placards as they gather ahead of an impeachment vote at the National Assembly in Cape Town on December 13, 2022 [File: Gianluigi Guercia/AFP]
On December 13, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa survived an impeachment vote in the National Assembly.

The vote was called by opposition parties over claims that large sums of foreign currency were hidden at Ramaphosa’s private Phala Phala game farm and that he failed to report the money missing when it was stolen in 2020. It came on the back of a parliamentary inquiry report on the scandal which determined that Ramaphosa may indeed have “committed misconduct and violated the constitution”.



The vote failed largely because the ruling African National Congress Party (ANC) – of which Ramaphosa is president – had ordered its parliamentary caucus to vote against the adoption of the damning Phala Phala farm report in the supposed “best interests of the country”.

The party’s decision to shield Ramaphosa from impeachment procedures allowed the embattled president the space to fight the corruption allegations – which he categorically denies and is challenging in court – without losing his grip on power or jeopardising the ANC’s future in government.

The decision, however, has also called into question the ANC’s widely advertised resolve to fight corruption and laid bare the many sharp divisions within the party.

In 2017, the ANC decided that any members charged with corruption or other serious crimes must voluntarily “step aside” from party and government activities – or face suspension – until their cases are resolved.


In May 2021, for example, then-party secretary-general Ace Magashule was suspended under this rule after refusing to step down to fight corruption allegations.

The ANC’s decision to support Ramaphosa’s presidency even after the publication of the damning Phala Phala farm report, therefore, was a break with convention and raised questions about the seriousness of the party’s anti-corruption agenda.

Moreover, this controversial decision was in no way unanimous.

Former Health Minister Zweli Mkhize claimed ANC chairperson Gwede Mantashe and Ramaphosa’s other allies “bullied” party members into rejecting the Phala Phala farm report during a “mafia style” national executive committee meeting held on December 5. And several high-ranking party members, including cabinet minister and former African Union Commission chair Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, still defied party instructions and voted for the Phala Phala report to be adopted – and the president to be impeached – on December 13.


This, of course, does not mean the decision to shield Ramaphosa from impeachment proceedings was forced onto members. Beyond merely refusing to support impeachment, many leading ANC figures and loyalists had clearly voiced their support for Ramaphosa’s continued leadership before the impeachment vote.


The powerful Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), for example, declared its commitment to “answerability”, but said calls for Ramaphosa to step aside were “premature”. Minister in the presidency and member of the ANC national executive committee, Mondli Gungubele, meanwhile, described calls for Ramaphosa to step down as the “noise of criminals masquerading as defenders of the ANC”.

It is even claimed that Ramaphosa initially wanted to resign in response to the parliamentary panel report, but was convinced not to do so by his closest allies, including ministers Pravin Gordhan, Fikile Mbalula, Mmamoloko Kubayi, and Barbara Creecy. The ministers allegedly pointed to the adverse reaction of the markets and the party membership to the news of his possible departure as evidence that South Africa (and the ANC) still needs his leadership.

So the ANC decision to shield Ramaphosa from impeachment was clearly backed by some of the most influential figures and factions within the party.

Nevertheless, the Phala Phala farm saga has blemished Ramaphosa’s image beyond repair, and keeping him in office will likely damage not only ANC’s future prospects and credibility, but also South Africa’s democracy.

Indeed, until he fully clears his name of any wrongdoing, Ramaphosa cannot be the leader he promised South Africans he would be.


Ramaphosa ascended to power in 2018 as a swashbuckling, honest and clean reformer willing to do whatever it takes to resuscitate the economy and rid South Africa of the political corruption and economic mismanagement that thrived under former President Jacob Zuma.

Today, however, rolling blackouts, extensive corruption and mismanagement at state institutions and enterprises coupled with a shocking 32.9 percent unemployment rate demonstrate that the president has largely failed to measure up to his star billing.

Ramaphosa clearly could not fulfil his promises to the people in his first four years in power and he is unlikely to fulfil them in the coming years while under the shadow of serious corruption allegations.

So why on earth is the ANC insisting on standing by Ramaphosa?

The party’s decision to close ranks in the face of a damning presidential scandal was unfortunately not in any way out of the ordinary.


Most former liberation movements that came to be in government in Africa have a tendency to prioritise party interests over national or democratic imperatives in the face of unfathomable scandal, underwhelming leadership or bad governance. For the most part, they choose to continue supporting their prominent leaders in self-inflicted hard times in fear of appearing disloyal, damaging the brand name and potentially haemorrhaging support in the next elections.

Just to give a few examples, this has already happened in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe and in Angola with Jose Eduardo dos Santos. In both cases, the results were disastrous for concerned nations who suffered terribly as those in charge of governing them focussed all their energy on protecting the political fortunes of their leaders.

It seems today this sad episode is once again repeating itself in South Africa, with the ANC running to the defence of its leader without any consideration for the wellbeing of the South African state and people.

To be clear, this does not in any way mean that Ramaphosa is certainly guilty of corruption or that he is a bad leader. We cannot know the truth of what happened in Phala Phala until all legal proceedings are completed. And it is impossible to deny Ramaphosa has many characteristics and abilities, from his affable demeanour and his inclusive leadership style to his problem-solving capabilities that make him a worthy president of South Africa.

Nevertheless, in modern democracies, the interests of the nation should always come first and this may at times require sacrificing the political fortunes of an overall good leader.


As history amply demonstrates, the establishment of a cult of personality – whether incidental or deliberate – often serves to entrench narrow political and economic interests and enable maladministration and repression, even if the personality chosen for the job is “good” or even the “best”.

As it stands, South Africa is Africa’s leading democracy.

That might change, however, if the ANC resorts to expedient politics and cannot envision life beyond Ramaphosa’s presidency.

South Africa’s wellbeing must always supersede a politician’s ambitions, or potential, and parties must constantly eschew the temptation to bend democratic truths and establish a political demigod.

Besides, the seamless departure of a legendary former president like Nelson Mandela must remind current parliamentarians and ANC officials that no leader, however accomplished, is irreplaceable.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In 1999, South Africa’s first president himself underlined this fact when he said “There will be life after Mandela”.

Today, Ramaphosa would serve South Africa the best by resigning from the presidency and responding to the corruption allegations he is facing as a private citizen. This would not only give him a chance to eventually return to the political arena with an intact reputation but also demonstrate to South Africans that he prioritises the nation’s prospects over his own.

And letting Ramaphosa go at this point in time will allow the ANC to prove that it is indeed the party that built modern South Africa and that it does not owe its relevance or power to any particular leader.

There, too, believe it or not, will be life after Ramaphosa.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.


Tafi Mhaka
Tafi Mhaka
Social and political commentator
Mhaka has a BA Honours degree from the University of Cape Town and works in the communications industry.