Did everyone at EFF’s 10-year celebration who sang along with Julius Malema to “kill the Boer kill the farmer” commit hate speech and incitement of violence?
– – – –
Let me start with two racial jokes to unnerve us, as this is going to be intense. You can skip if you prefer.
A white boy paints his face black with chocolate powder. He runs to his mother to surprise her with his inclusiveness. To the boy’s surprise, his mother slaps him hard in the face and simultaneously gives him a lecture on the historic wrongfulness of “wearing a black face.”
The boy runs to his grandmother who also slaps him hard in the face.
The grandfather, who observed everything from the corner, picks the boy up and asks him, “What have you learned?”
The boy explains, “I’ve been Black for a few minutes, and already, white racist people are abusing me. Perhaps Afriforum will help.”
[A paraphrased rendition of a Paul Mooney joke. Below is a continued mishmash]
A white boy adopted by a Black couple is singing “sista bethina” in front of his parents, explicitly the part where Tshepo walks on or with that thing.
The mother removes her slipper and whips him numerous times. The father withdraws his belt and also whips him, but only twice.
They proceed to lecture him not to sing such explicit lyrics.
The boy runs outside and not upstairs.
He returns an hour later. He says to them, “I will take this to Afriforum; I am not sure EFF will help.”
– – – –
On September 4, 2023, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) convened to commence hearing Afriforum’s appeal against Julius Malema, alleging that his singing of this song amounted to hate speech and incitement of violence.
In 2022, the Equality Court had ruled that Julius’s rendition of this struggle song did not constitute hate speech. Judge Edwin Molahlehi had explained that he found no reason to dismiss Malema’s assertion that he sang the song in the context of it being a struggle song and not meant to be taken literally. At that time, Malema had indicated that he altered the lyrics to “kiss the Boer, kiss the farmer.”
However, on October 22, 2022, Judge Molahlehi granted Afriforum permission to appeal the decision. The Supreme Court of Appeal began the hearing on September 4, 2023, where both parties will present their arguments.
Certainly, on July 29, 2022, Julius sang the song once again at the EFF’s 10th birthday celebration rally.
I anticipate that the SCA will find Malema guilty of hate speech, discrimination, and possibly incitement of violence.
In a recent tweet, I expressed the following sentiment: “Hate speech, racism, misogyny, phobic attitudes, or any form of unfair discrimination, etc., have objective definitions that might not be congruent with personal feelings. Feelings are subjective and variable, while meaning and the law should be objective and descriptive.”
I will further elaborate on why Julius’s singing of the song on both occasions qualifies as hate speech, particularly within the context of his role as a politician and a member of parliament in this democratic republic.
One’s race, gender, or culture does not determine the dependency of logic and truth. People have the right to hold their own ideologies, but citizens of a nation should not be compelled to accept them if those ideologies lack logical and objective foundations. Coercion, irrespective of whether it arises from a majority or minority, results in tyranny.
For those who find this uncomfortable to read, you may choose to discontinue.
As we look ahead to 2024, a national election year, we can anticipate individuals from diverse backgrounds, including Blacks, whites, males, females, and others, using various opportunistic and emotionally charged phrases to secure votes.
I propose that we shift our focus toward a direction I will elaborate on at the bottom, which forms the core of this article. This direction is not rooted in politics but offers a means to guard against the deceit commonly used by politicians and activists. It involves moving away from mainstream politics and embracing an approach that can lead us toward a more robust future.
As I emphasize in my latest book, “90 Days to Create & Launch,” also the subtitle, “It is the Easiest, Cheapest and Quickest Time in History to be an Entrepreneur and Innovator.”
We have devoted an excessive amount of attention to political ideas and solutions, and I believe this has obscured our focus on technical solutions.
Lessons in critical thinking and context: context matters: mechanics of context
In addition to the importance of context, consider the context’s actor and timing.
Context, context actor and timing thereto
Yes, the song is a struggle song. It was sung during apartheid (the context). Apartheid, evidently, constituted a governance that treated Black people as slave-class citizens, materially so.
The architects, stewards, and beneficiaries of the apartheid government were the minority white communities of the former Apartheid South Africa. It was made possible by their constitution and their laws, enforced by their kangaroo courts. Black people were subjects of Pretoria, and by law, the white minority communities had the rights to treat the Black majority as modern-day slaves. The Black population had limited freedom, no voting rights, and no freedom of choice. They were subjected to hard labour while receiving a meager salary that provided no opportunity to enjoy the economic benefits typically afforded to white minority employees, such as an income sufficient to save for retirement.
There was even competition among different white cultures to govern the apartheid government (which would persist as an apartheid nation), including the Afrikaans and the English, represented by parties like the National Party, Dominion Party, Labour Party, and others.
The National Party, a Boer nationalist party, ruled the South African apartheid government from 1924 until the democratic elections in 1994. Britain granted governance to a Caucasian minority ethnicity in a country with a Black majority. During their Empire’s peak, they also enforced a racially oppressive system. Britain is the inventor of apartheid.
It’s important to understand that “Boer” referred to an ethnicity and culture that was despised by Black people, as it ruled over them through racist and violent domination. The Boer symbolized apartheid, hence the song’s lyrics: “kill the Boer, kill the farmer,” which can be interpreted as a call to end apartheid. Some meant it literally, and perhaps, in hindsight, some meant it metaphorically.
In the context, Black people (actors), who were treated as second-class citizens, were subjected to inhumane treatment both technically and morally. Therefore, they meant it in that context, and rightfully so.
Timing of context
Since 1994, we have witnessed a democratic South Africa under the political dominance of the African National Congress (ANC), a party representing the Black majority.
In this new democracy, we have firmly established the principles of equality before the law, equal standing within the legal system, and equal protection under the South African constitution for all citizens, shielding them from harm and abuse. It is worth noting that some individuals may hold differing opinions about this constitution, which is perfectly acceptable.
In my perspective, and without being influenced by emotions, when the president of the second-largest opposition party in the South African parliament, Mr. Julius Malema, sings the song at a political rally in democratic South Africa, even outside the context of being a parliamentarian with a substantial salary, it qualifies as hate speech and incitement of violence.
It is crucial to emphasize that we are no longer in an apartheid context. In South Africa’s history, we have experienced tribal wars and tensions between different nation tribes and chiefdoms within these nation tribes. Numerous songs from various tribes have conveyed violations against other tribes, which I won’t detail here.
By nation tribes, I mean different tribes led by paramount chiefs or kings, each forming its kingdom or nation, such as the Bapedi and the Zulu Kingdom. Additionally, within these tribes, there were chiefdoms that also experienced internal tensions and conflicts.
Hence, singing any of these songs would still qualify as hate speech and incitement of violence, even among native tribes. There is a permissible context to narrate and illustrate these songs, which I will highlight below per the constitution.
The law must be impartial in order to safeguard against hate speech directed at any identity within the republic, whether it be Pedi, Zulu, Boer, men, women, gays, transgender individuals, and so forth.
If it is excused within one identity’s historical context, then it should be excused within another identity’s context. However, this approach would lead to a cycle of retaliation, which goes against our Constitution since our nation is a multination republic. Only the constitution holds the authority to reprimand and punish those who commit crimes.
Assigning blame to a particular tribe as “trash” is considered hate speech, just as it is hate speech to claim that “men are trash,” a notion that seems to be tolerated by mainstream media (MSM). This tolerance persists as men often have a reluctant proclivity to report abuse from women.
Under our democracy, no one inherits the sins of the past or their ancestors. Punishing a child for the wrongs of their parent would be analogous to this.
The tribes in South Africa have had conflicts among themselves. Adhering to this eye-for-an-eye rationale would mean that any form of conflict would be justifiable.
You may come across feminists on YouTube who are over 40 years old insulting young men aged 25 or below, referring to them as “trash” based on historical contexts and narratives. Their implication is that these young men have inherited the sins of men from the past.
However, using the same logic, if one of these women’s grandfathers committed terrible acts against others, they would be more culpable for those sins than these young men, as it is this grandfather’s bloodline that they share. This line of reasoning is not only flawed but also asinine and illogical.
Democratic South Africa is a republic of nations or, more accurately, a multi-national country with different tribes and other nationalities.
Individual people, not entire nations, elect a government. The constitution is designed to ensure that all nations within the republic are protected by the same laws, fostering fairness for everyone.
If we deviate from this fundamental principle of one law for all, it would open the door for any identity to seek revenge as they see fit. Such a deviation would undermine the constitutionality of the republic.
The constitution must be upheld and, if necessary, amended judiciously. Departing from this principle to favour one identity over another would set off a chain reaction.
The South African constitution addresses freedom of speech, equality, hate speech, incitement of violence, and unfair discrimination through the following sections.
· Freedom of expression: Section 16
Section 16 of the South African constitution says the following:
- “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes— (a) freedom of the press and other media; (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; (c) freedom of artistic creativity; and (d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
- 2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to propaganda for war; (b) incitement of imminent violence; or (c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”
· The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination: Section 10
“Section 10 of the Act provides that no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful; be harmful or to incite harm; and/or or to promote or propagate hatred. Publication of such expression is allowed if the expression is genuinely for purposes of artistic creativity, academic and scientific inquiry, fair and accurate reporting or such publication of any information, advertisement or notice is in the public interest.”
With this in mind (considering the constitution and the elaborated contexts earlier)
I believe that Malema’s actions violated the constitution regarding hate speech and equality.
Before democracy, singing the song also signified the absence of recourse for Black people against the various crimes during apartheid.
Julius’ context lacks validity. He uses the same constitution to defend himself against other matters as well. He is once again employed as a parliamentarian under the same constitution.
We are no longer in the apartheid context.
If Julius were a comedian or played a role, that would permit him to perform or sing the song.
The constitution permits this, as indicated by the highlighted sections.
He made this statement at a political rally. Considering the existing racial tensions, it was an opportunistic choice of song to perform again. It stirs painful memories and the enduring consequences of apartheid.
Picture a scenario where a member of any political party representing a specific identity, such as a Christian party, or a tribe, promoted itself by endorsing violence against another party (such songs do exist) that wronged them at any point in history.
This would constitute hate speech and incitement of violence.
Curbing of crime, e.g. hate speech
Reprimanding perpetrators is what curbs crime, even if they believe their actions are justified.
Imagine if democratic South Africa were founded on discrimination against any identity that discriminated against another identity.
In retrospect, division proves to be an effective weapon for dismantling a republic.
While challenging a “complex system” like the law can be stressful, even when it reaches the appeal court, it benefits from such challenges. This appeal will result in a stronger constitution for the republic.
There is no genocide on anyone is South Africa.
Crime and various forms of habitual abuse, such as domestic violence and racism, persist in South Africa. However, there is no genocide against any group in the country. Criminals are devising schemes to target vulnerable or isolated individuals, like women or farms. This issue poses a significant challenge for the nation.
The core of the article: To enhance the comprehension of the ‘critical context evaluation’ framework, let’s apply it to various other areas and variables and draw insights from those applications
This portion constitutes the core of the article, although I understand that most readers may have a greater interest in the political aspects discussed above.
This argument is dynamic and presents perspectives that have evolved over time (from an evolutionary perspective).
Since the end of apartheid, Black South Africans have diligently pursued improved economic prospects for themselves and their offspring. They have done this through various means: entrepreneurship, ensuring their children attend better schools, pursuing higher education, and working in diverse professional environments.
The demise of apartheid acted as a critical catalyst, liberating people to actively participate and work hard in the economy in various capacities. This showcases the indomitable human spirit that emerges when oppression is eradicated. It fosters a free market environment where society can thrive.
As we find ourselves in 2023, these endeavours continue to be a driving force.
I present two categories of variables to underscore the key point of this section.
Innovation, encompassing technological advancements (both physical and virtual, including apps) and other developments in fields such as medicine, chemistry, textiles, and more – and even merger of these
The South African population was approximately 40 million people in 1994, and it has grown to about 60 million in 2023. The GDP in 1994 was about $171 billion, and it grew to about $405 billion in 2022. Many jobs were created that absorbed more Black people and women into the economy. Critically, much of this job creation was driven by innovation in both physical and virtual products. When freedom is allowed, entrepreneurial individuals and businesses formulate business opportunity hypotheses and execute them. When these hypotheses succeed, jobs are created.
Politicians, government officials, unions, and activists often attempt to claim the most credit for this job growth, often unaware of the true instigators behind this mass employment. However, credit for this significant economic growth largely belongs to innovation. Retail trade is the third largest employer after government and the services sector. Retailers sell these innovations, while the services sector utilizes these product innovations to deliver their offerings, which include virtual and physical products. Government can and did increase its employment pool size because innovations and services grew, leading to increased tax revenue (salaries, VAT, company tax, etc.).
To illustrate the impact of innovation, consider the products sold at Makro and Game Stores today compared to those in 1994. They now offer an exponential variety of products, including smart electronics that were not available back then. Smartphones with numerous apps, each representing individual companies, have become ubiquitous, leading to increased employment opportunities.
The Internet has played a pivotal role in enabling these innovations.
To illustrate, a close female friend once asserted that the internet was patriarchal and should be dismantled. She attempted to explain her point, but her explanations consisted primarily of rhetorical narratives lacking quantifiable substance. Her statement is not supported by facts.
In response, I asked her to imagine a scenario in which we could effectively shut down and eliminate the internet. This hypothetical scenario would potentially regress us to the era of the First or Second Industrial Revolution, before the advent of transistors. Companies like Netflix, Google, and Facebook would cease to exist, and online services, including streaming and online banking, would no longer be available.
The Internet is an integral part of modern society, and dismantling it would be nearly impossible. Female coders and innovators would contribute to its reconstruction. Moreover, the Internet has given voice to oppressed individuals, enabling freedom of speech and providing an outlet for marginalized populations to express their concerns without resorting to violence.
Dismantling the Internet (impossible) would be devastating for the growing global population. It would result in job losses, particularly in the technology industry, and potentially reverse progress in gender equality by limiting job opportunities for women. The development of transistors, the building blocks of modern computers, began before 1904 and has evolved over time, with transistors becoming smaller and more powerful (in accordance with Moore’s Law).
For example, the first computer, ENIAC, built in 1945, weighed approximately 27,000 kg (about 10 times the weight of a Rolls Royce Phantom) and occupied about one-third of a basketball court. It was significantly slower and larger compared to today’s computers. In contrast, the Intel® 8080 processor (CPU) introduced in 1974 had 4,500 transistors, a clock speed of 2 megahertz, and a size of 6 micrometers.
Today, an Apple iPhone 6 contains about 2 billion transistors and is exponentially faster and smaller than the first computer. The increased speed and decreased size of transistors have paved the way for innovations such as smartwatches and flat-screen TVs, which were not feasible in their current form in 1994.
This technological agility has led to the creation of softer employment opportunities in sectors like retail, where more people are needed in sales, operations, and corporate offices to accommodate the growing population. This environment is also highly conducive to entrepreneurs, making it the Easiest, cheapest, and quickest time in history to be an entrepreneur and innovator. This trend is highlighted in my book, “90 Days to Create & Launch.”
Manufacturing machines have become smaller and capable of producing smaller quantities, eliminating the need for minimum order quantities in the thousands, as was common with older industrial machines. For instance, it now costs significantly less to create molds for plastic products thanks to metal 3D printers.
In the 1990s, building a website could cost six figures, but today, anyone can create an online store for less than R2000 overnight using platforms like Shopify and WooCommerce.
Enters the variable that is government
The context of the country is characterized by an expensive standard of living, a significant increase in taxes over the years (see below for elaboration), a recent sharp rise in interests rates over the past two years, and alarming youth unemployment at over 46.5%, with overall unemployment reaching 32.9% in the first quarter of 2023.
In recent years, specifically between 2011 and 2022, our GDP experienced fluctuations and failed to show consistent improvement. It was also significantly impacted by the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown.
It’s important to note that GDP movements are convoluted and influenced by multiple variables. Factors such as rising taxes and inflation contribute to GDP, but they do not represent economic growth. Furthermore, some companies contribute more to the GDP while employing fewer people than certain retail and mining companies. This disparity is inherent in the nature of their operations. For instance, musicians now generate global income from virtual sources like iTunes, which, in terms of percentage, surpasses their earnings from licensed physical music distributors in the past (e.g., CDs). At an extreme, companies like Facebook, Spotify, and Netflix generate revenues exceeding the GDP of several countries with larger populations than their employee base.
Let’s examine a few taxes and their historical evolution:
- The maximum personal tax rate in 1995 was 43%, and in 2023, it stands at 45%.
- Company tax rates have reduced from 28% for the year ending 2022 to 27% for the year ending 2024. In 1995, it was 35%, and while this reduction is commendable, further reductions could be welcomed.
- VAT was 10% in 1991, increased to 14% in 1994, and in 2018, it was raised by one percentage to the current 15%.
- Excise taxes on items such as liquor and cigarettes have seen significant to double increases over the years. For instance, the tax on spirits (vodka, gin, whiskey, etc.) was R27.2700 per 750 ML in 2011 and has risen to R68.73 in 2021. Similar increases have been applied to other items like beer, wine, and cigarettes.
- Fuel levies have been a subject of heated debates. As of May 2023, we are paying R6.14 in levies per litre (R3.96 for the General Fuel Levy and R2.18 for the Road Accident Fund). Some of the newer democratic roads, however, are poorly constructed and inadequately maintained by the government, resulting in numerous accidents that also draw from this budget.
The constant rise in taxes directly impacts people’s incomes, leading to a currency depreciation and inflation. The purchasing power of R100 can no longer buy what it once did, and there is an additional R15 VAT surcharge.
During the soccer World Cup, it was eye-opening to read that VAT in Qatar is 5%.
Electricity in our country is a state monopoly, and it has created hyperinflation. Load shedding has been a recurring issue since 2007. According to calculations by Power Optimal, electricity prices have increased by a staggering 653% from 2007 to 2022. On July 1, 2023, Eskom raised electricity prices by an additional 18.65%. The consequences of these electricity challenges ripple throughout all sectors. Load shedding reduces business operating hours and productivity, which in turn leads to disruptions and price increases for consumers. Working hours are curtailed, jobs are lost, and some businesses are forced to close down.
All these issues are attributed to Eskom and the state.
My argument’s equation
Entrepreneurs and businessmen control most variables contributing to the GDP, except for mining and others, which are government-controlled. Government services are in a deplorable state, with high crime rates leading citizens to invest in insurance and security measures like armed response and burglar doors. Infrastructure is deteriorating, particularly the roads, causing increased wear and tear on vehicles.
The key point here is that innovation, as a variable, has been instrumental in creating jobs. However, the government has been imposing higher taxes on people’s incomes while providing declining services. To compensate for the inadequacy, they introduce additional grants, further eroding the purchasing power of the Rand. If the government were effectively managing its responsibilities, taxes would contribute to job creation and improve the cost of living.
Currently, 18 million South Africans receive traditional grants, such as old age and child support, with an additional 11 million receiving the R350 COVID-19 Social Relief Grant. When the government collects taxes (VAT, personal tax, fuel levies) without delivering quality services, it results in inflation.
The government cannot claim to be funding entrepreneurs because most entrepreneurs are self-funding, from small business owners to tech entrepreneurs. Given that innovation has increased job opportunities and made products more affordable, a stronger Rand would have a more significant impact. Currently, one American dollar is equivalent to over R18, compared to around R5 in 2004. If the exchange rate were R5 to the US dollar, you could pay your Netflix subscription for 3.6 times less.
This discussion has not even touched upon the topic of corruption.
This article aims to highlight that the real challenge in South Africa lies with the government. Depreciation due to continuously increasing taxes, corruption, inefficiency, and electricity supply issues (the hyperinflation caused by load shedding) hinders the reduction of apartheid’s ramifications. It has made life more difficult and expensive, leading to finger-pointing and the revival of wounds from the past. Opportunistic politicians use these realities for their advantage, moving from the issue of corruption and efficiency to that of race.
The government is the key actor of this context, as they extract more from the people than anyone else through taxes, inefficiency, and corruption. The portion of their spending represents the fat tail that poses risks and harm to the economy (it has). Paying taxes can be likened to giving a drug addict half of our money to buy groceries, only for them to spend it at a tavern and return with only 10 percent of the groceries.
Today’s context is not the same as in 1994 or 2010. Evolved innovation allows for diversity in the economy and rapid business turnaround. It’s now cheaper, quicker, and easier to innovate and start a business, and also more affordable and faster to pivot to a better idea if one fails.
Any politician still blaming apartheid in 2023 is misleading us and playing on our emotions to secure votes. The timing of their context is simply a political game. Among other issues, the ANC (African National Congress) government has failed to ensure that the country’s mineral resources are processed locally, despite this not happening since 1994.
Opposition parties may promise various beneficiation and nationalization plans for mineral resources.
Distrust both those who make such promises and those who don’t (this is the author’s opinion), especially when they seek more control and funding. Otherwise, as this article attempts to convey, the temptation for context actors will be to change the definitions of phenomena to match their ideology or narrative rather than their functional context at the time. For example, the internet in 1990 served a different function compared to today, as it has evolved and incorporated elements like social media, where diverse voices, including those of Black people and women, have found expression.
Ultimately, a government that increases its funding by raising taxes rather than through effective revenue collection mechanisms deflates a currency. They may increase taxes even when the economy is not performing well, as is currently the case with the ANC. To protect themselves, there will be a temptation to conceal the negative impacts (corruption and inefficiency) of their fat tails, similar to what entities like Eskom and the National Treasury attempt to do in partnership.
Above all, any government ruling South Africa should invest in developing industries through funding, such as development banks funded by bonds and investment write-offs.
Closing extra: Considering decentralisation
We should exercise caution when considering efforts to increase government revenue through higher taxation or nationalization, which further centralizes power. Such actions are akin to giving money to a drug addict for essential household shopping, with most of the funds being spent on more drugs, symbolizing corruption and inefficiency within the ANC government.
To illustrate the importance of decentralization, the Department of Home Affairs has partnered with banks to decentralize the issuance of ID cards and passports, leading to greater efficiency compared to the previously centralized and often ineffective department. This competition among banks results in varied approaches and testing of different methods, with the most effective ones being adopted and adapted. Private companies employ for profit performance measurements, unlike the government, where quicker service delivery translates to greater efficiency and the ability to serve more clients per day (thereby generating more revenue).
Private companies test multiple methods simultaneously, adapt the best methods based on customer feedback and testimonials, and promptly address poor and slow services to enhance customer experience. This approach provides customers with a wider variety of options, benefiting consumers, while Home Affairs continues to offer these services alongside the private sector.
Similarly, the issuance of licenses is more efficient at private business establishments, whereas the Traffic Department has long waiting times, sometimes up to a year (my experience and thousand others), for driver’s licenses. When corporations, including the government, lack competition in the services they provide, they have less incentive to enhance profitability (they have no Profit and Loss), leading to inefficiency and a need for bailouts.
Profit and loss create tangible consequences, encouraging efficiency. The South African Post Office, as a state-owned entity, once dominated postal and courier services but neglected service quality. Private sector competition and decentralization have since improved courier services, making them effective and affordable, with prices continually decreasing due to competition.
I hope that banks offering Home Affairs and vehicle licensing services can compete on pricing, resulting in lower costs. This competition should also extend to other businesses beyond major retailers. Rather than the government taking on more services, the private sector should be allowed to provide them in a competitive environment. This approach is not privatization but decentralization funded by private funds.
A government that becomes larger due to its failures may seek more revenue through taxes, potentially leading to increased corruption, inefficiency, and greed. Currently, electricity provision is a monopoly controlled solely by Eskom. Eskom has encountered difficulties – R300 billion budget overrun since 2022 – in building new power stations (Medupi and Kusile) and maintaining existing ones, leading to significant budget overruns.
Centralized service supply poses risks and ultimately costs customers more. Perhaps demonopolizing electricity supply to a certain extent while maintaining national interest infrastructure. Private companies should be allowed to build power stations and sell electricity to municipalities without price regulation to encourage competition. This is decentralization, where private companies self-fund and maybe receive tax write-offs.
Such an approach could expedite the resolution of electricity shortages, stimulate innovation in alternative power sources, and prevent price increases due to failures in equipment installation. Eskom’s high electricity prices have contributed to hyperinflation levels, which may benefit private entities under the Independent Power Suppliers (IPP) framework but adversely affect citizens. A decentralized, self-funded model might be a more viable solution.
I intend to follow up on the latter part of this article with another one that delves deeper into economic aspects rather than speech-related topics.
Regarding the question I posed at the beginning of this article, mobs often possess emotional appeal and can escalate into violent situations. I have personally experienced involvement in such situations.
I often believe that Julius becomes extremely enthusiastic in a crowd situation and is willing to say anything to further captivate his audience, akin to a rap battle speech.
Previous writing on Julius Malema
I published an article on Julius in 2016. Some people loved it, while others hated it people from different background.
It’s titled “The Brilliance of Julius Malema in 15 Points.”