“South Africa burns - the ring leaders behind the anarchy make themselves known”- https://youtu.be/xrWvSSfkRhM

Duduzane Zuma, Zuma’s son states at 10:14; “Reset, redistribute and rebuild. That is all we going to do in the next 2-3 years. By the time 2024 comes, we will be fully in control. Our destiny is ours. How we want to implement policies in favour of what we believe in and how we try to channel and to build this country over the next 20-50 years starts now. One woman, one man, one vote. We taking over and don’t be distracted by the side shows. Don’t be distracted by the rhetoric and the narratives that have been built for a long time that keep us divided. We gonna pull together and we gonna make this happen for ourselves and we will not be dependent on handouts from anybody else. We will deliver free education and we will create opportunities for each other as an entire nation, as a whole. We’re bringing this thing together. Hold on tight, it is going to be a bumpy ride but we will get over that line. Commando Bingo (?) and Mapulo (?), I will be seeing you soon. I have listened to the voicemails that have made the rounds that are in circulation on the Umkhonto weSizwe Veteran and what they have been saying. You have led and not afraid to be led. I have led and I am not afraid to be led. I am looking forward to sitting down and discussing how we are going to be moving this thing forward. And finally, Mr Jacob Zuma, as a politician, I appreciate what you are doing, keep fighting what you believe in. I respect what you are doing for…”

12:01 – “It’s easier to send a voicemail than to type it out. So this is more organizing what we think. The fact that they are stealing TVs and fridges and all that - that is just a distraction. What they are actually doing is they are stocking up on food. They are taking all the food, I mean all the cars we pulled over #1. They had all their license plates removed and so it’s an organized instruction. Secondly, they all had this same excuse, almost verbatim, is “we hungry” and they rattle up a story, almost as a script. Now these are all different, supposed to be random vandalists, they all had the same script. Same emo and they stuffed in their cars polony and obviously they don’t learn their lesson, frozen chickens, meat, rice, all that kind of thing. Their cars were full of that and believe it or not, canned dog food. So after further interviews and investigations, we found out that what they are actually doing is they are stocking up the food. They are burning up the shops because they don’t want it restocked and they are burning the trucks that supply the shops. They want white South Africans to understand what is like to be hungry and the Daily Maverick has just made an article this morning saying that the average citizen has 3 days left of hot meals. So they know, this is a calculated thing. It’s to get the food and to make us hungry. Second part of this whole plot, the next step is going to burn… so they’ve burnt the trucks, they’ve burnt the shops, they’ve taken all the food. They are gonna burn the farms. Once they start completely stopping the food supply, they are going to attack police stations and in fact, some police stations already are feeling the brunt. Basically bringing the country down to its knees. Final stage is where the plot unravels itself. We find out who is behind the whole thing and it’s the EFF. This is an attempted coup. It’s going to be a coup so within the next 3 weeks maybe 4 weeks. So that is the aim, that is the objective and the citizens at the moment are better equipped than the police although we are running out of ammo. The point is, there is a lot that is happening behind the scenes the average public is not seeing. The community on the ground are seeing. But I think last night they’re learning that we are not using rubber bullets. There is a lot of individuals who went home with extra orifices or they mysteriously shooting each other. We don’t understand why. That’s a mystery. But never the less that is what is happening on the ground and it’s actually quite scary. The minute you get the chance, get the food you can and don’t overdo the baking and food as you may need the flour for bread. That’s all I’m saying. But anyway, that’s our position.

“Let's make millionaire and, more recently, looter Mabuso Maloi famous | South Africa”- https://youtu.be/VDWxgSd3TaA

“There have been plenty of videos of expensive television screens, whitegoods and furniture being looted in South Africa in the last week. Its not just the police who should be ashamed of themselves - how about Mabuso Maloi?”

“LETS MAKE THEM FAMOUS: Two SAPS caught looting last night | South Africa”- https://youtu.be/y9c1b02rmWg

It is a tragedy that the once highly regarded South African Police Service is now riddled with gangsters, thieves and looters.

>>14117121

Do you trust the FBI? It seems like most, if not all, intelligence agencies are criminals.

“It Was a Set-Up: FBI Used at Least 12 Informants in Whitmer Kidnapping Case With Only 6 Defendants”- https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/revealed-fbi-used-least-12-informants-whitmer-kidnapping-case/

The FBI used at least 12 informants in the Michigan Whitmer kidnapping case.

There are 6 defendants and 12 FBI informants.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

In October 2020, the FBI announced during a press conference that it thwarted a plot by a so-called “right-wing militia” to kidnap and kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow the state government.

The FBI became aware of the plot through discussions on social media in early 2020, however they decided to pull the trigger in October, right before the presidential election, and raid the homes of 6 men.

One of the men arrested in the plot was a Trump-hating anarchist and another was a Black Lives Matter activist, but then-candidate Joe Biden and the media still blamed Trump.

It was previously reported that the ring leader in the plot to kidnap Whitmer was an FBI informant.

He was planted into the group and was the one who pushed the entire plan.

Now it turns out that the FBI used at least 12 informants in this kidnapping case.

So basically the entire plot was cooked up and executed by FBI informants and a few unsuspecting patsies were dragged into the scheme.

The government employed at least a dozen confidential informants to infiltrate groups of armed extremists who allegedly plotted to kidnap the governor of Michigan, according to a new filing in federal court on Monday.

The filing, made by one of the five defendants in the federal case, asked that prosecutors be ordered to share more information about those informants, their relationship with the FBI, and the specific roles they played in building the case. It came among a blizzard of 15 new defense motions in the high-profile case, including requests to move it to a different district, to suppress evidence from a search warrant, and to try at least one defendant separately from the others.

Taken together, the new court papers offered a glimpse of the evolving defense strategies in the case, with several attorneys saying that they plan to argue that the FBI “induced or persuaded” the men to go along with the scheme.

The alleged plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer made international headlines last October, when the Department of Justice announced it had charged six men in a kidnapping conspiracy. Five of the defendants — Barry Croft, Adam Fox, Daniel Harris, Kaleb Franks, and Brandon Caserta — have all pleaded not guilty and have been held without bail since their arrests. A sixth, Ty Garbin, pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate in the case in January.

Eight other men were charged under Michigan’s anti-terrorism statutes for providing material support to the plotters. Half of the defendants in the combined cases were members of a militant group known as the Wolverine Watchmen, which was associated with the Three Percenters extremist movement. All but two are from the state of Michigan.

A trial for the federal case is scheduled for October.

“South Africa on fire.”- https://youtu.be/YZjzm5vlGVw

“South African Heroes.”- https://youtu.be/ZcBan4u28ZI

“00DEZZ - Important Information - What do you have to do to build a Business Empire?” - https://youtu.be/0HMt9A0YzBA

“All the companies Johann Rupert owns” – Part 1- https://mybroadband.co.za/news/business/406800-all-the-companies-johann-rupert-owns.html

Johann Rupert is one of South Africa’s best-known billionaires with shareholding in a large number of South African and international companies.

Bloomberg estimated Rupert’s wealth at $9.61 billion — around R140 billion — which gives an idea of the scale of his business empire.

Through Remgro, he has investments in the financial, healthcare, consumer products, industrial, infrastructure, media, and sports industries.

He also controls the Switzerland-based luxury goods holding company, Richemont, which boasts brands like Cartier, Dunhill, and Mont Blanc.

To understand Remgro, Richemont, and the Rupert family, one has to go back to the 1940s when his father, Anton Rupert, established the tobacco company Voorbrand.

Voorbrand was the forerunner of Rembrandt, which entered the South African cigarette and tobacco industry in 1948.

Rupert and D W R Hertzog also founded Distillers Corporation in the forties with interests in the wine and spirits industry.

Rembrandt was listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in 1956, six years after Johann Rupert was born.

Since the 1970s, Rembrandt expanded its interests through investments in banking and financial services, mining, printing and packaging, medical services, engineering, and food.

During this period, Johann Rupert studied economics at the University of Stellenbosch but dropped out to pursue a career in business.

He worked for Chase Manhattan and Lazard Freres in New York before returning to South Africa in 1979 to start Rand Merchant Bank (RMB).

He was CEO until 1984 when RMB and Rand Consolidated Investments merged to form RMB Holdings. Johann Rupert left to join his father’s company, the Rembrandt Group.

Four years later, in 1988, he founded Richemont and was appointed non-executive director of Rothmans International. In 1991 he was appointed chairman of the Rembrandt Group.

Rembrandt co-founded South Africa’s first cellular telephony company, Vodacom, in 1993. It sold its stake in the mobile operator in 2006.

“All the companies Johann Rupert owns” – Part 2- https://mybroadband.co.za/news/business/406800-all-the-companies-johann-rupert-owns.html

In 1995, Rembrandt and Richemont consolidated their tobacco interests in Rothmans International. Four years later, it merged these interests with those of British American Tobacco (BAT).

Since then, the investment in BAT was held through a joint holding company in which Rembrandt (Remgro’s predecessor) and Richemont held shares.

In 2000, Rembrandt Group was restructured to form Remgro and VenFin. In the same year, Johann Rupert was appointed chairman and CEO of Richemont.

In November 2009, Remgro and VenFin merged, adding media and technology interests to Remgro’s investments.

Today Remgro has interests in numerous South African companies in banking, financial, healthcare, freight, food, entertainment, and telecoms.

Johann Rupert serves as chairman of both Remgro and Richemont. His son, Anton Rupert, is a non-executive director at both companies.

Johann Rupert’s investments

To appreciate the scale of the business empire which the Rupert family has built, it is important to look at all the businesses in which Remgro and Richemont have shareholdings.

Remgro has many of South Africa’s top banking and financial companies in its portfolio, including FNB, RMB, WesBank, Discovery, Momentum Metropolitan, and OUTsurance.

Its telecoms and media investments include Vumatel, DFA, Seacom, Sqwidnet, e.tv, eNCA, Openview, and YFM.

Remgro also owns Mediclinic, ER24, the Blue Bulls, Total, Grindrod, and many top South African food and liquor brands.

The images below provide an overview of the companies in which the Rupert family has an interest.

The table at the end of this article provides a more comprehensive overview of the companies in which Remgro and Richemont have shareholdings.

The below article was posted on July 4th and the unrest in KwaZulu-Natal started July 8th. Coincidence?

“Terror Group IS planning on attacking KZN after Mozambique: FBI”dated 4 July 2021 at https://www.indianspice.co.za/2021/07/04/terror-group-islamic-state-planning-on-attacking-kzn-after-mozambique-fbi/. Below are excerpts.

Top South African investigators are working with the American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after a security concern that the international terrorist group, Islamic State (IS), might be planning some co-ordinated attacks on the country.

The SA investigators met with their FBI counterparts on Monday after four men, who were believed to have links with the terror group, were arrested in Durban, last week. Two of the men were part of the group of 12 arrested, in October 2018, while they were allegedly planning to bomb the popular Florida Road in Durban during the festive season of the same year.

The group is also believed to be behind the knife attack at one of the mosques in Durban and a number of bomb scares in the same year.

During the mosque attack assailants killed a worshipper by slitting his throat and injured two others critically after midday prayers at a mosque in Verulam, outside Durban. The US Embassy press team representative, Nick Hersh, on Friday, refused to make any comment about the investigation. KwaZulu-Natal provincial police spokesperson, Colonel Thembeka Mbele, confirmed that four men aged between 23 and 47 were arrested for being in unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.

Police also found five thousand rounds of ammunition, an AK-47 rifle, seven cellular phones, two magazines, a rifle as well as diamonds and jewellery when they raided the suspects’ residence in Mayville, Durban, last week.

A cellphone jamming device was also uncovered. Mbele said the Hawks are investigating the case because of its sensitivity.

The Sunday Independent has it on good authority that two of the suspects are linked to the Thulsie twins from Gauteng.

Tony-Lee and Brandon-Lee Thulsie and their friend Renaldo Smith were stopped from boarding a flight at OR Tambo International Airport, in April, 2015, as they were planning to fly to Syria to join IS. In another attempt, they drove to Maputo in Mozambique to board a Kenya Airways flight, but they were also unsuccessful. And they were eventually arrested, in July, 2016, after Tony-Lee came into contact with an FBI agent who posed as an IS operative.

The Thulsie twins became the first South Africans to be arrested and charged for having Islamic State links, as the state has alleged that they were plotting to attack the US embassy, the UK High Commission, the South Africa Zionist Federation, King David High School in Johannesburg, and Denel.

Smith turned state witness against his friends, but managed to sneak out of the county, and later resurfaced in Cabo Delgado province, northern Mozambique, where he joined the jihadist group that calls itself “al-Shabaab”, in May, 2018.

There was also a photo circulating showing him, with other jihadists in Mozambique, posing in a field with weapons next to the black-and-white IS flag. A senior investigator within the law enforcement agency yesterday said there is “strong evidence that IS is planning something big in South Africa”.

“We believe that they are planning co-ordinated attacks across South Africa.” He warned.

He declined to give more information, as it is an ongoing investigation.

“We suspect that IS has managed to build some cells across the country and that they still continue recruiting new members.” The officer says their investigation established that there is a ring leader from Durban who is co-ordinating the attacks nationwide.

“The money runs most of the IS cells in South Africa and finance their operations. We also believe that he supported the Thulsie twins each time they appeared in court,” he added.

He confirmed that they have been working together with the FBI in their investigation. “It isn’t a top secret that we are working with the FBI in these investigations”.

The Sunday Independent reported, in February, last year, that about 20 widows, whose South African partners died in Syria fighting with IS, asked to be repatriated with their children because “they aren’t coming back to plant bombs”.

The women had left South Africa to join their husbands in Syria and other Islamic countries in the Middle East.

Much of the report based on Sunday Independent July 4 by Mzilikazi wa Afrika and published in the interest of public safety. https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-sunday-independent/20210704/textview

“South Africa: the liberation's betrayal” (Part 1)dated 2 October 2008 at http://johnpilger.com/articles/south-africa-the-liberations-betrayal.

The political rupture in South Africa is being presented in the outside world as the personal tragedy and humiliation of one man, Thabo Mbeki. It is reminiscent of the beatification of Nelson Mandela at the death of apartheid. This is not to diminish the power of personalities, but their importance is often as a distraction from the historical forces they serve and manage. Frantz Fanon had this in mind when, in The Wretched of the Earth, he described the "historic mission" of much of Africa's post-colonial ruling class as "that of intermediary [whose] mission has nothing to do with transforming the nation: it consists, prosaically, of being the transmission line between the nation and a capitalism, rampant though camouflaged."

Mbeki's fall and the collapse of Wall Street are concurrent and related events, as they were predictable. Glimpse back to 1985 when the Johannesburg stock market crashed and the apartheid regime defaulted on its mounting debt, and the chieftains of South African capital took fright. In September that year a group led by Gavin Relly, chairman of the Anglo American Corporation, met Oliver Tambo, the ANC president, and other resistance officials in Zambia. Their urgent message was that a "transition" from apartheid to a black-governed liberal democracy was possible only if "order" and "stability" were guaranteed. These were euphemisms for a "free market" state where social justice would not be a priority.

Secret meetings between the ANC and prominent members of the Afrikaner elite followed at a stately home, Mells Park House, in England. The prime movers were those who had underpinned and profited from apartheid - such as the British mining giant, Consolidated Goldfields, which picked up the bill for the vintage wines and malt whisky scoffed around the fireplace at Mells Park House. Their aim was that of the Pretoria regime - to split the ANC between the mostly exiled "moderates" they could "do business with" (Tambo, Mbeki and Mandela) and the majority who made up the those resisting in the townships known as the UDF.

The matter was urgent. When FW De Klerk came to power in 1989, capital was haemorrhaging at such a rate that the country's foreign reserves would barely cover five weeks of imports. Declassified files I have seen in Washington leave little doubt that De Klerk was on notice to rescue capitalism in South Africa. He could not achieve this without a compliant ANC.

Nelson Mandela was critical to this. Having backed the ANC's pledge to take over the mines and other monopoly industries - "a change or modification of our views in this regard is inconceivable" - Mandela spoke with a different voice on his first triumphant travels abroad. "The ANC," he said in New York, "will reintroduce the market to South Africa". The deal, in effect, was that whites would retain economic control in exchange for black majority rule: the "crown of political power" for the "jewel of the South African economy", as Ali Mazrui put it. When, in 1997, I told Mbeki how a black businessmen had described himself as "the ham in a white sandwich", he laughed agreement, calling it the "historic compromise", which others were called it a betrayal. However, it was De Klerk who was more to the point. I put it to him that he and his fellow whites had got what they wanted and that for the majority, the poverty had not changed. "Isn't that the continuation of apartheid by other means?" I asked. Smiling through a cloud of cigarette smoke, he replied, "You must understand, we've achieved a broad consensus on many things now."

“South Africa: the liberation's betrayal” (Part 2)dated 2 October 2008 at http://johnpilger.com/articles/south-africa-the-liberations-betrayal.

Thabo Mbeki's downfall is no more than the downfall of a failed economic system that enriched the few and dumped the poor. The ANC "neo liberals" seemed at times ashamed that South Africa was, in so many ways, a third world country. "We seek to establish," said Trevor Manuel, "an environment in which winners flourish." Boasting of a deficit so low it had fallen to the level of European economies, he and his fellow "moderates" turned away from the public economy the majority of South Africans desperately wanted and needed. They inhaled the hot air of corporate-speak. They listened to the World Bank and the IMF; and soon they were being invited to the top table at the Davos Economic Forum and to G-8 meetings, where their "macro-economic achievements" were lauded as a model. In 2001, George Soros put it rather more bluntly. "South Africa," he said, "is now in the hands of international capital."

Public services fell in behind privatisation, and low inflation presided over low wages and high unemployment, known as "labour flexibility". According to the ANC, the wealth generated by a new black business class would "trickle down". The opposite happened. Known sardonically as the wabenzi because their vehicle of choice was a silver Mercedes Benz, black capitalists proved they could be every bit as ruthless as their former white masters in labour relations, cronyism and the pursuit of profit. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost in mergers and "restructuring" and ordinary people retreated to the "informal economy". Between 1995 and 2000, the majority of South Africans fell deeper into poverty. When the gap between wealthy whites and newly enriched blacks began to close, the gulf between the black "middle class" and the majority widened as never before.

In 1996, the office of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) was quietly closed down, marking the end of the ANC's "solemn pledge" and "unbreakable promise" to put the majority first. Two years later, the United Nations Development Programme described the replacement, GEAR, as basically "no different" from the economic strategy of the apartheid regime in the 1980s.

This seemed surreal. Was South Africa a country of Harvard-trained technocrats breaking open the bubbly at the latest credit rating from Duff & Phelps in New York? Or was it a country of deeply impoverished men, woman and children without clean water and sanitation, whose infinite resource was being repressed and wasted, yet again? The questions were an embarrassment as the ANC government endorsed the apartheid regime's agreement to join the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which effectively surrendered economic independence, repaid the $25 billion of apartheid-era inherited foreign debt. Incredibly, Manuel even allowed South Africa's biggest companies to flee their financial home and set up in London.

>>14444347

>Glimpse back to 1985 when the Johannesburg stock market crashed and the apartheid regime defaulted on its mounting debt, and the chieftains of South African capital took fright. In September that year a group led by Gavin Relly, chairman of the Anglo American Corporation, met Oliver Tambo, the ANC president, and other resistance officials in Zambia. Their urgent message was that a "transition" from apartheid to a black-governed liberal democracy was possible only if "order" and "stability" were guaranteed. These were euphemisms for a "free market" state where social justice would not be a priority.

Did Rupert and his cohorts cause the Johannesburg stock market crash during Apartheid in order to push for a regime change? Keep in mind, they already had investments abroad so they would not be affected much. Listen to Zuma’s accusation.

“Zuma accuses Rupert” of threatening to shut down the economy if… – Zondo Commissiondated Jul 16, 2019, at https://youtu.be/XTiaIqcXL-8. Noteworthy statement at 0:54 – “One day comrade Mbalula attended an activity in the farm/home of Mr. Rupert. And when Rupert saw him, he said… If Zuma remove Pravin Gordhan we’ll shut down the economy of this country. You must go and tell him.”

>>14444377

>Keep in mind, they already had investments abroad so they would not be affected much.

>>14444347

>Glimpse back to 1985 when the Johannesburg stock market crashed and the apartheid regime defaulted on its mounting debt, and the chieftains of South African capital took fright. In September that year a group led by Gavin Relly, chairman of the Anglo American Corporation, met Oliver Tambo, the ANC president, and other resistance officials in Zambia. Their urgent message was that a "transition" from apartheid to a black-governed liberal democracy was possible only if "order" and "stability" were guaranteed. These were euphemisms for a "free market" state where social justice would not be a priority.

“HARRY OPPENHEIMER'S EMPIRE: GOING FOR THE GOLD” – Part 1dated 19 March 1989 at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/magazine/harry-oppenheimer-s-empire-going-for-the-gold.html

IN MINING, THEY CALL IT THE MOTHER LODE - AN ARTERY of precious minerals, hidden amid tons of bedrock, that can elude prospectors for years.

Along a single city block in London, a mother lode lies hidden.

The site is Charterhouse Street, a narrow ribbon of pavement tucked away from the four-lane clamor of High Holborn and Farringdon Road. According to guidebooks, the only landmark that distinguishes this street from any other in central London is a nearby bishop's garden mentioned in Shakespeare's Richard III.

But there is something more here. Along both sides of this quiet lane stand the British headquarters of four corporations that, together, constitute the richest supply of gem diamonds on the planet, as well as the largest non-Communist supply of gold and platinum.

The corporations are De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd., the Anglo American Corporation, Charter Consolidated and the Mineral and Resources Corporation (Minorco). The four pillars of this empire are situated like the corners of a cloister, De Beers and Minorco occupying one side of the block, Anglo American and Charter the other. During any business day, scores of employees, suspended some 30 feet above the pavement inside a glass-encased, split-level skywalk, shuttle like worker ants between the two office complexes.

Today is diamond day. It is an overcast winter afternoon -the kind peculiar to London, where the sun fades at 4 and the buildings, sidewalks and sky all resemble wet slate. I have a 3 o'clock appointment at the De Beers Central Selling Organization.

Nearly every major diamond-producing nation, including the Soviet Union, is represented by the C.S.O. It buys, stockpiles and then sells close to 85 percent of the world's rough, gem-quality diamonds, doling them out at fixed prices at sights held 10 times a year. De Beers refers to the C.S.O. as a single-source market; critics describe it as one of the most disciplined and successful cartels in existence.

Inside, in the conference room, trays of unpolished gems are displayed under a harsh, white light, like bins of crushed ice at a fish market. This afternoon, 150 representatives from cutting factories have flown in from Antwerp, Bombay, New York and Tel Aviv. On arrival, each executive is handed a cardboard container the size of a shoebox. Inside are hundreds of diamonds filed in small envelopes according to size. The buyers retire to private booths to inspect their allotments. They can haggle over color and clarity, but the price is not negotiable.

Despite its location, the C.S.O. is not a British concern. It is South African. In fact, all four multinational companies clustered along Charterhouse Street can trace their founding to a single family: the Oppenheimers of Johannesburg.

HARRY OPPENHEIMER, 80 years of age, has dominated the South African economy for nearly half of this century. The C.S.O. is arguably the purest example of his monopolistic powers, but it is only part of a far-flung business empire known to his critics as the octopus. With some 600 corporations, covering six continents and employing more than 800,000 workers, Oppenheimer's diverse portfolio ranges from platinum to wood pulp, insurance to investment trusts, gold to daily newspapers. By some accounts, Oppenheimer's collection of multinationals is bigger than ITT, Nissan or Siemens.

“HARRY OPPENHEIMER'S EMPIRE: GOING FOR THE GOLD” – Part 2dated 19 March 1989 at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/magazine/harry-oppenheimer-s-empire-going-for-the-gold.html

Oppenheimer presides over this empire from the modest helm of E. Oppenheimer & Son, a small, private company in Johannesburg that he runs with his son, Nicholas. On paper, the family's only other holdings include 8.2 percent of Anglo American, 6.5 percent of Minorco and nothing of Charter and De Beers.

The structure of Oppenheimer's empire is dizzyingly complex and nearly impenetrable to outsiders. He wields his power indirectly, through pyramided holding companies, interlocking shareholdings and a myriad of cross-directorships. As a result of this operating strategy, few people are aware that in the last two decades scores of businesses in the United States, Europe and Australia have been founded or purchased with Oppenheimer capital and are managed by Oppenheimer loyalists while maintaining no legal ties to South Africa.

Oppenheimer's principal vehicle for diversification -and the most visible example of how his vast holdings operate - is Minorco (chart, page 42). Moved from Zambia to Bermuda in 1970, and later to Luxembourg, Minorco quickly became the chief overseas investor for the Oppenheimer clan. Roughly two-thirds of its shares are controlled by Anglo American and De Beers.

In 1981, with assets valued at about $2 billion, Minorco acquired interests in the Engelhard Corporation, the American mining and commodities trading conglomerate, as well as numerous other, smaller American mining concerns. (In the early 1980's, Minorco entered the investment business via a stake in Salomon Brothers, the New York brokerage house, but Salomon bought back that interest in 1987.) Last fall, Minorco embarked on its most ambitious enterprise to date. On the morning of Sept. 21, it launched a hostile bid for a British firm, Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd., the world's second-largest gold concern, whose assets include America's richest gold mines.

With an offering price of $4.9 billion, it was the largest attempted takeover in British corporate history. But Gold Fields did not go quietly. The company had already been bruised by a stock raid in 1980 that had left Oppenheimer interests with nearly a third of its shares. This time, it was prepared. Marshaling attorneys, political lobbyists, investment analysts and detectives on both sides of the Atlantic, Gold Fields loosed a fusillade of charges against Minorco, ranging from allegations that a frenzy of insider trading in London and Johannesburg had preceded the bid, to speculation that Minorco's corporate cousin, De Beers, had sold industrial diamonds to the Nazis in World War II. The evils of South African ownership became Gold Fields' rallying cry.

From out of the fray, two issues of international concern emerged: cartels and apartheid.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS in Europe and the United States worried that the Gold Fields takeover could lead to a Johannesburg-based cartel in gold and strategic minerals modeled after Oppenheimer's stranglehold on diamonds. Minorco's acquisition of Gold Fields would leave Oppenheimer in control of one-third of the world's non-Communist gold production. The takeover also would tighten South Africa's grip on strategic minerals like titanium, platinum and zirconium - all essential to American defense and space industries.

Meanwhile, at Gold Fields' American affiliates - among them, Newmont Mining, the largest United States producer of gold; ARC America, the principal domestic manufacturer of cement pipe, and Peabody Coal, the largest coal producer - executives worried about the apartheid issue. The stigma of being controlled from South Africa could, they claimed, cripple their ability to court government contracts, while leaving their companies vulnerable to boycotts.

“HARRY OPPENHEIMER'S EMPIRE: GOING FOR THE GOLD” – Part 3dated 19 March 1989 at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/magazine/harry-oppenheimer-s-empire-going-for-the-gold.html

To analysts familiar with the South African economy, Gold Fields' counter-offensive was steeped in hypocrisy: the British firm has held a major stake in the South African gold industry for generations. But the strategy did succeed in buying Gold Fields some time. In October, Minorco's tender was frozen - and subsequently it expired - while Britain's Monopolies and Mergers Commission weighed the question of whether the bid would harm British consumers by restricting competition in metals markets. Gold Fields argued, among other points, that Minorco's South African ties would hurt business; Minorco countered that it already was conducting business in Britain, the United States and elsewhere without inhibition.

The review subjected Oppenheimer's empire to public scrutiny of a sort it had rarely experienced. The Financial Times and other British newspapers carried front-page stories about Oppenheimer's quest to conquer a historic archrival. As an outgrowth of Gold Fields' countercharges, Britain's Office of Fair Trading began a preliminary investigation of the De Beers diamond cartel - the first by any European authority.

In early February, the commission ruled that the takeover would not inhibit competition, clearing the way for a new bid. It came on Feb. 20, sweetened to $5.65 billion -which Gold Fields rejected. Minorco also announced that Oppenheimer and several associates will resign from its board of directors. A spokesman described the move as evidence of Minorco's emergence as an independent corporate entity. Critics claim it is simply a smokescreen to allay concerns about South African control of the company.

In the United States, both sides await a Federal Court of Appeals ruling on an injunction that is blocking the takeover on this side of the Atlantic. A decision is expected shortly.

In making its ruling, Britain's Monopolies and Mergers Commission took care to note that it had evaluated antitrust concerns, not political ones. Similarly, the United States court case involves an antitrust complaint, this one brought by Newmont Mining.

But the broader implications of the takeover are being felt on Capitol Hill, where the Minorco-Gold Fields battle has reshaped the debate over the role sanctions should play in United States policy toward South Africa.

For South Africa's industrial elite, anxious that civil unrest could lead to the nationalization or destruction of their properties, expansion overseas offers long-term security. By diversifying through offshore holding companies and buying up interests in Western concerns, businessmen like Oppenheimer have evaded sanctions. Now, politicians and anti-apartheid activists who have long felt that economic pressure is the surest way to squeeze reforms from Pretoria are considering whether sanctions limited to companies that do business inside South Africa can be effective.

In addition to the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1988, which is to be voted on this session, Congress has before it a proposal to prohibit South African investors from purchasing more than 5 percent of an American company. Other proposals include calls to limit United States bank loans to businesses controlled from South Africa.

But can governments cauterize the flow of rand invested outside South Africa without endangering the jobs of thousands of American and European workers already employed by Johannesburg-based conglomerates? In the United States alone, Oppenheimer-controlled companies now employ more than 10,000 American laborers. If the takeover goes forward, that number will more than double.

The American Aggregates Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gold Fields based in Greenville, Ohio, is one potential victim. If the takeover goes through, hundreds of Ohio workers could find their jobs jeopardized by sanctions and loan restrictions included in proposed legislation.

“HARRY OPPENHEIMER'S EMPIRE: GOING FOR THE GOLD” – Part 4dated 19 March 1989 at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/magazine/harry-oppenheimer-s-empire-going-for-the-gold.html

We're beginning to appreciate that the fight against apartheid is not confined to South Africa, says Pari Sabety, executive assistant for economic development policy to Ohio's Gov. Richard F. Celeste. Deals made in Johannesburg, Luxembourg or London have a direct impact on a small town like Greenville.

OPPENHEIMER'S first attempt to seize control of Gold Fields came on a February morning in 1980, in what executives on both sides refer to as the dawn raid. For about three months preceding the raid, an investigation by Britain's Department of Trade and Industry later found, De Beers secretly channeled up to 59 million rand - roughly $147 million - to six Oppenheimer-affiliated companies, instructing them to buy Gold Fields shares on command. This coordinated strategy was used to avoid violating Britain's Companies Act, which requires any purchase of more than 5 percent in a company to be declared.

At 8:30 A.M. on Tuesday, Feb. 12, Anglo American's London broker, Rowe & Pitman, was notified to begin the buying blitz. With 30 Rowe & Pitman staffers dialing their telephones simultaneously, Oppenheimer's six-company consortium grabbed 16.5 million Gold Fields shares -close to 15 percent of the company - in less than an hour.

Standing between Oppenheimer and total control of Gold Fields were British regulations requiring a bidder controlling 30 percent or more of a company to make a formal tender offer. Such a move would not only be costly, but would attract precisely the sort of attention Oppenheimer sought to avoid. Instead, Anglo American and De Beers held at just under 30 percent, a stake they eventually transferred to Minorco. In the months that followed the raid, D.T.I. investigators announced that, through De Beers, Oppenheimer had formulated [ a ] scheme with the express intention of avoiding the disclosure provisions of the Companies Acts.

In 1985, trade officials stitched shut the money-funneling loopholes that De Beers had managed to wriggle through. But the dawn raid had left Gold Fields with what one of its executives has since described as a predator in our pantry.

Since then, Gold Fields has found itself reluctantly fused to a corporate structure that manages companies as if they were family. Anglo American and De Beers, the dominant members of the Oppenheimer clan, control more than one-third of each other's shares, while sharing 60 percent of Minorco. Minorco, in turn, controls 36 percent of Charter Consolidated.

Other links run deeper than the balance sheet. Minorco currently shares four directors with De Beers, and six with Anglo American. Harry's cousin, Sir Philip Oppenheimer, is on the board of De Beers; Harry's son, Nicholas, holds a seat on the board of De Beers and is deputy chairman of Anglo American. Roger Phillimore, Minorco's group commercial director, is Harry Oppenheimer's godson. Gavin Relly, chairman of Anglo American; Julian Ogilvie Thompson, chairman of De Beers, and Hank Slack, director of Minorco's American division, have all served as Oppenheimer's personal assistants. Slack is also Oppenheimer's son-in-law.

Although semi-retired, Harry Oppenheimer is still the most active steward of his family's business interests abroad.

The reason he is still so influential, explains Slack, is that Mr. Oppenheimer is like a good father. He is extremely intelligent, tolerant and patient. His people enjoy working for him and he takes good care of them.

“HARRY OPPENHEIMER'S EMPIRE: GOING FOR THE GOLD” – Part 5dated 19 March 1989 at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/magazine/harry-oppenheimer-s-empire-going-for-the-gold.html

In recent months, Oppenheimer has practiced a kind of corporate shuttle diplomacy, traveling between South Africa, Europe and Asia, conferring with his directors on strategy and issuing statements to the press on their behalf. Last fall, with Minorco's bid for Gold Fields foundering, he was back in London laying out the merits of the offer in an exclusive interview with The Financial Times. I find it insufferable to be attacked on grounds of South African connections, he was quoted as saying, particularly by a group which has been very active in South Africa and which has certainly not been in the forefront of opposition to the apartheid policy.

According to a declaration that Rudolph Agnew, Gold Fields' chairman, gave to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, both De Beers and Minorco have attempted to coax Gold Fields and its major American affiliate, Newmont Mining, into the family fold. Agnew said he was privy to a series of conversations with Julian Ogilvie Thompson in which the De Beers chairman alluded to a veiled infrastructure of private holding companies sometimes used by Oppenheimer to pay his close associates - a largesse that is not disclosed to shareholders.

He said, 'We all get paid by Harry,' Agnew recalled in an interview. There were vague suggestions that I could join the periphery of Harry's extended family - an inner circle of very rich men.

Agnew's account complements information given to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission by anti-apartheid groups in Britain that links Oppenheimer to a tangle of private investment firms in the discreet banking environment of Switzerland or in tax havens such as Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Liberia, Panama, Bermuda and the Netherlands Antilles. These holding companies, which collect South African capital and distribute it to Oppenheimer businesses throughout the world, include Central Holdings Ltd., a societe anonyme based in Luxembourg; the Vadep Holding Investment Company, a Swiss holding company, and Guyerzeller Bank, a private Swiss bank.

Julian Ogilvie Thompson at De Beers and several executives at Minorco deny that any covert trust exists. Minorco, however, revealed to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that directors of the two companies [ Anglo American and De Beers ] and of Minorco are in part remunerated by a private Oppenheimer family company.

AS MINORCO PREPARED to launch the hostile takeover, it faced several hurdles. It needed capital to finance the bid, it needed to defuse the South Africa issue and it needed to dispel its image as a Luxembourg holding company experienced in managing investment portfolios, not corporations. Last year, Minorco appointed as its chairman Sir Michael Edwardes, the scrappy and seasoned former head of the British Leyland Corporation, to lend an air of managerial competence.

Several banks in the United States and Europe were willing to accept the illusion that Minorco had no ties to South Africa. For Chemical Bank of New York, the only sticking point was the fact that the acquisition would include Gold Fields' South African subsidiary. New York Comptroller's Office guidelines prohibit loans to companies that do business in South Africa; the pension funds of government workers in New York, and possibly New Jersey, Michigan and California hang on this restriction, like a $100 million scimitar, to insure that banks comply. Incredibly, Chemical only demanded assurances that, after the takeover, Minorco would divest Gold Fields South Africa. (Several months later, Chemical conceded that its contract with Minorco violated the Comptroller's guidelines - a tacit acknowledgment that Minorco is controlled from South Africa. Yet Chemical claims it is legally bound to its financing commitment with Minorco should the takeover proceed.) As soon as the bid was announced, analysts at Gold Fields produced statistics that allegedly demonstrated the impact the takeover would have on competition in the gold, platinum, titanium and zirconium markets.

“HARRY OPPENHEIMER'S EMPIRE: GOING FOR THE GOLD” – Part 6dated 19 March 1989 at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/magazine/harry-oppenheimer-s-empire-going-for-the-gold.html

The Gold Fields board retained a New York-based corporate detective firm, Kroll Associates. Kroll's London staff, housed in the old MI5 building in Mayfair, trawled through a reservoir of financial reports, government documents, newspaper clippings and personal interviews.

In New York, Gold Fields' Newmont Mining filed the antitrust suit against Minorco, Anglo American and De Beers.

In Washington, Gold Fields' attorneys dispatched a 26-page letter to President Reagan, laying out their case. Correspondence followed from Senators Bob Dole, Pete Domenici and Daniel K. Inouye to Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady, urging the Administration to review Minorco's bid as a possible threat to national security under the Exon-Florio amendment to the 1988 Trade Bill.

The case drawn up by Gold Fields was simple: the takeover would leave South African industry with a sufficient share of gold and strategic minerals production to inflate their price and perhaps limit their availability.

In the case of gold, according to analysts at several New York investment banks, the massive stores kept by governments, scrap dealers and private investors would dilute any impact that a curb in current production might have.

When applied to strategic metals like titanium, however, Gold Fields' claims seem more compelling. Gencor, the leading Western producer - mining 29 percent of the high-grade feedstock manufacturers require to make titanium metal - is owned and operated in South Africa. The second-largest source, Renison - extracting 25 percent of the West's feedstock - is an Australian company in which Gold Fields owns a 48 percent interest. The Minorco takeover would place 54 percent of the world's non-Soviet, high-grade titanium in South African hands.

Investment analysts familiar with precious metals warn that Gencor and Oppenheimer companies might then collude to control the world market for titanium, as they previously have done with platinum.

A South African cartel would leave American contractors with a painful choice: go hat in hand to South Africa or compete with other industrialized powers for a dramatically reduced pool of titanium feedstock.

NOT SURPRISINGLY, the most outspoken source of anti-Oppenheimer sentiment is Gold Fields' chairman, Rudolph Agnew. He casts Oppenheimer as a Citizen Kane-caliber industrialist who lords over his empire from a South African Xanadu -Brenthurst, his sprawling estate outside Johannesburg. Agnew portrays himself, by contrast, as a modest company man.

As much as any laborer in the mines, I am simply a paid hand, Agnew explained in a recent interview at Gold Fields' plush offices near St. James Square in London. Harry Oppenheimer's Anglo American Group is manipulative and a self-professed believer in cartels. These companies are run by a small number of executives to suit the financial ambitions of the family. They are not driven by creativity or the desire to uncover new resources. It is a management style that, in mining circles, is known as 'the dead hand of Anglo American.'

“HARRY OPPENHEIMER'S EMPIRE: GOING FOR THE GOLD” – Part 7dated 19 March 1989 at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/magazine/harry-oppenheimer-s-empire-going-for-the-gold.html

Yet to those familiar with Gold Fields' holdings, Agnew's protestations about Minorco ring hollow. Gold Fields' portfolio represents the largest British investment in South Africa, with 38 percent of Gold Fields South Africa and stakes in seven other mining concerns.

Moreover, accustomed to responding to strikes with force, Gold Fields billets one of the largest private armies in South Africa, complete with dogs, armored vehicles and its own patented rubber bullets. According to a documentary produced in 1986 by Granada Television, Gold Fields South Africa used videotaped propaganda to oppose the formation of unions for migrant workers. One video showed a well-dressed black man sitting behind a desk, dispensing advice as images of unemployment lines and malnourished women and children were projected in the background. Do nothing foolish, the man cautioned, winking at the camera. Plenty of people want your job.

For his part, Oppenheimer has managed to cement his place as the single most powerful businessman in South Africa while cultivating an international reputation as an unimpeachable opponent of apartheid. He served as an opposition member of the South African Parliament from 1948 to 1957. He has written widely denouncing the system of apartheid and lobbied other mining houses to support the establishment of unions. The executor of several charitable funds, he has helped finance schools and affordable housing for blacks.

Both Oppenheimer and his son declined to be interviewed for this story, but descriptions supplied by his business associates make the mining magnate sound as though he were an aging Oxford don. He has an enduring passion for his garden, loves the Romantic poets and collects first editions of Byron, offers Roger Phillimore, Minorco's group commercial director.

Specialists on the South African economy, however, say that Oppenheimer is deceptively modest about his holdings. South Africa Inc., an exhaustive chronicle of the family's business empire published in 1987, calculated that the combined assets of all Oppenheimer-affiliated companies totaled 98.8 billion rand, or about $247 billion at current rates. The South African Government checked in at 98.1 billion rand, or $245 billion, for assets in state-run enterprises.

Anglo American, which accounts for more than 50 percent of the stocks traded on the Johannesburg stock exchange, permeates every conceivable corner of the South African marketplace: iron and steel production, engineering and heavy construction, automobiles and paper products, distilleries and slaughterhouses. (Before it was taken over by the state in 1970, the Anglo-affiliated African Explosives and Chemical Industries supplied ammunition to the South African Army and police force. In the chaos that followed the Soweto uprisings of June 1976, it was revealed that A.E.C.I. had manufactured the tear gas that police and mine guards used to silence demonstrators.) Despite Oppenheimer's public stance on labor unions, when Anglo American was confronted with massive walkouts by the National Union of Mineworkers in 1987, it retaliated by dismissing 40,000 laborers.

Perhaps the crowning irony of the Oppenheimer-Gold Fields dispute is that both sides descend from the same imperial entrepreneur, Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes arrived in South Africa from England in 1870, at the age of 17, and by 1880, he was running a profitable diamond business. Several years after that, he crippled any possible competition by fusing two of the largest South African firms, De Beers and Kimberly. He also bought up scores of Boer farms, which split off in 1895 to become Gold Fields of South Africa. In London, Rhodes sold through the Diamond Syndicate, a consortium of diamond merchants who colluded to fix prices.

Harry's father, Ernest, became chairman of De Beers in 1929. He revived the diamond syndicate after a rash of African discoveries between 1902 and 1919 deflated world diamond prices. The result was the Central Selling Organization that now stands on Charterhouse Street in London.

“HARRY OPPENHEIMER'S EMPIRE: GOING FOR THE GOLD” – Part 8dated 19 March 1989 at https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/magazine/harry-oppenheimer-s-empire-going-for-the-gold.html

Ernest died in 1957, leaving Harry to usher the empire into a new, uncertain era, and to insure that it would weather political upheaval.

ONE WALL OF THE Anglo American-Charter Consolidated buildings in London bears a frieze carved in bas-relief. The lefthand panels depict Boer settlers on their Great Trek from Cape Colony in the 1830's. The righthand panels portray Zulu warriors, whom the Boers had to subjugate before claiming the land.

The two halves of the frieze are divided, white from black, by a central section that displays the land and resources of Africa - then, as now, a wealth both sides fight to control. But the consequences of that fight now stretch far beyond the shores of South Africa to Britain and beyond.

In Washington, Representative Mickey Leland, a sponsor of the bill that would expand sanctions to cover South African interests in America, says lawmakers are just beginning to appreciate the implications of such investment.

The package of sanctions and investment restrictions that Congress eventually adopts must reflect the sophistication of the economy we're trying to isolate, warns Leland, a Democrat of Texas.

Representative John R. Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, says: ''What many Americans fail to appreciate is that if we continue to allow South Africa to invest in U.S. corporations, we are effectively giving foreign aid to support the vicious system of apartheid.

South Africa is attempting to short-circuit the U.S. political system, adds Lewis, a longtime civil rights leader. Get constituents dependent on your investment, and you've built yourself a shield.

>>14444377

>when Rupert saw him, he said… If Zuma remove Pravin Gordhan we’ll shut down the economy of this country. You must go and tell him.”

“Pravin’s portfolio of shares reveals much about state capture” (Part 1)dated March 10, 2017, at https://uncensoredopinion.co.za/pravins-portfolio-shares-reveals-much-state-capture/. Below are excerpts.

Simply put, co-incidents. The problem is, there is no such thing as a random occurence. Even co-incidents require two (CO) or more to act in concert.

The finance minister’s shares reveal a Capture of the State at a special level. The conquerers have become so enmeshed in the state that it becomes opaque for an outsider to recognise that the state, and all its instruments, continue to be directed from elsewhere. In my view, pressure brought on Pravin reduces his independence and he would be inclined to make decisions for the benefit of Capital and not necessarily for us as a nation.

Gordhan’s Preference Shares in banks

It was with this eye that I wanted to know why the Finance Minister would hold Preference shares in Banks that he is entrusted to oversee. Turns out that Bank Preference shares are an interesting animal.

In the manner that these shares are structured, they only pay when Profits are realised. Remember, these are equity instruments. The bank carries no interest rate risk nor does it pay when there are no profits. Apart from the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) who else determines whether banks make or lose money? Why – it’s our Finance Minster, of course. That’s a handy thing to have. A Finance Minister with a vested interest in the outcome of your very private business.

Conflict of Interest

In governance terms, it shouldn’t matter how many shares he holds. How many is ever enough? Should a guy tasked with running a department that directly interacts with the banks on many levels – especially the important issue of the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) – the same one that failed to see that the banks were rigging interst rates for years, hold shares in the entity that he’s supposed to be regulating? Conflict of interest much!

Banks bidding for their own mole

Another way to look at this is that when Des van Rooyen was fired after that 4 days in December and replaced with Gordhan, the banks were actually bidding for their own mole. But hang on, that’s not where it ends. Its never that simple in South Africa. Trevor Manuel ran this department for many years before being replaced by Gordhan.

I suddently understood why under Basel III http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/basell-iii.asp, these shares were being phased-out. What is interesting is that the period of buy-back or phasingout is 10 (ten) years. That should be more or less the time Pravin would need to set his policies in place such that his Ordinary shares at the same banks will give him a healthy annuity till the end of his days. And how would he go about ensuring that? Hand the South Africa Social Security Agency (SASSA) account to one of the Big Four banks.

Grindrod Bank & SASSA

In one of Gordhan’s portfolios was a certain Grindrod. It seemed strange to me that the entire portfolio would hold Banking shares – and then this diversified entity called Grindrod. Then looking deeper I realised that Grindrod was actually Grindrod Bank.

Why Grindrod bank? Simple. Grindrod banks SASSA. Yes, I said SASSA. Look it up before you take my word for it. Who cares who’s making R16 or R 25 per transaction when you could be making returns on the money banked on behalf of SASSA. Yes the profits are also a factor. R 3 427 200 000 (Three billion, four hundred and twenty seven million, two hundred thousand rands), but can you imagine service fees. All those below the line costs none of us bother to look at? It doesn’t matter, you make lots of money come dividend season.

>>14444353

>Incredibly, Manuel even allowed South Africa's biggest companies to flee their financial home and set up in London.

“Pravin’s portfolio of shares reveals much about state capture” (Part 2)dated March 10, 2017, at https://uncensoredopinion.co.za/pravins-portfolio-shares-reveals-much-state-capture/. Below are excerpts.

Gordhan’s Real Estate Shares

SASSA had appeared earlier when looking at the Real Estate shares. Rebosis, seems to hold a portfolio of buildings whose main clients are government departments. In one building in the North West Province, SASSA is the main anchor tenant. In another, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), and in yet another they are directly advertising to a Governement departments, as the space can be used as a Revenue department…. methinks they mean SARS. Who gets final say on the budgets before these buildings go to “tender’? I don’t have to tell you who signs the budgets.

You see, when I was looking at the Real Estate shares, I was thinking small fry. I was thinking that shares like those held in Rebosis and Fortress, which is a sister fund to one known as Resilient, both holding lots of rural type shopping centres. I was thinking like a rural centre developer and not as a Property owner. Check this out: In setting up one of these shopping centres you need to create a psychological reason why people should come to your centre. The ANC has often been criticised for using the grant system to entice voters. The reality is that rural economies are all but decimated, with farming not performing as it should or continuing to exploit the masses. However social services, such as clinics, Post Office or SASSA pay-points, are the biggest drawcards to get feet into these centres. So, who actually benefits? Is it the ANC through votes every four-year cycle or is it your Shoprites, Pick n Pays and Boxers (who actually belong to Pick n Pay)?

Let me show you something: You find a piece of ground near or on a taxi rank. Add social services and suddently your large national anchor stores are there in a hurry. So you often find post offices and SASSA offices there too to guarantee feet and also to guarantee your Shoprites that on pension pay days, their businesses will boom. I expect business to make money off the government but I just didn’t expect to find them doing it so boldy as to have the Finance Minister hold shares in their entities. After all this man is supposed to be above reproach.

One of the the shares that Gordhan holds is in a Real Estate Company called Growthpoint. On the surface of it Growthpoint is misplaced. They don’t operate in the rural and township sector. They own A grade malls like Hydepark and the like. In 2011 with Gordhan at the helm of treasury, government through the Government Employees Pension Fund brought 50% of the V & A Waterfront in Cape Town. The PIC through the Government Employees Pension Fund owns the other 50%.

In the world of finance, the story is in the “term sheet’. This sheet holds the story behind the terms of the deal which is later turned into a contract. How Growthpoint came to hold 50% of a building bought for R9.5 billion made dig a little deeper.

The V & A was sold to Dubai World in 2006 for R7 billion odd. Its previous owner was Transnet, Maria Ramos was the GCEO and Trevor Manuel was the minister of finance. In other words, the building belonged to the Pensioners of Transnet. Sold for R7 billion odd and then another group of Government Pensioners bought it for R3 billion premium and brought it back to South Africa. In finance and property terms, that looks like a property flip! In simple life terms, that deal was done in the short term.

Buy for cheap at one price and flip it for a quick profit in a short time horizon. In this instance, it was 3-4 years (I believe short term to be a period between 3-5 years). Who lost money? The Pensioners. R3b to be exact. They also lost out on the annuity income from the centre and the stripping of the rise in equity value of the asset.

“Pravin’s portfolio of shares reveals much about state capture” (Part 3)dated March 10, 2017, at https://uncensoredopinion.co.za/pravins-portfolio-shares-reveals-much-state-capture/. Below are excerpts.

You see, when you go through media reports of the time during which Dubai World owned this property, it’s clear to see that they were using this asset as a cash cow https://mg.co.za/article/2011-06-10-tenants-gatvol-of-the-va-waterfront. Tenants complained about a drop in service levels and general apathy by the new landlord despite this being South Africa’s premium and Africa’s most expensive piece of retail shopping centre. You don’t run a crown jewel like that unless there’s a back story. In any case, even with the bad management the property value went up. And this was during a recession.

Here’s a business question: Would Growthpoint buy this property at a loss? Would their shareholders allow them to pay a premium for this building given the above discussion? Hell no! They would have driven the price down and picked it up for less than Dubai World paid for it were it not for the BEE group involved in the repurchase. With BEE, you can create value where there is none. The money would have to be real cheap and they would have made sure that they put as little skin in the game as possible. Without being privy to the term sheet I can tell you that the pensioners got jacked. Pravin would have, again, been intimatly involved in this repurchase as the money came from one of his state owned enterprises (SOEs). It was Pension fund money and given that it was a public-private-partnership (PPP), he should have asked for a cheeper deal. But how can he when he’s a shareholder? Someone must open the files for us to see the intimate details.

The Gordhan/Manuel tag-team over another deal! Perhaps this is co-incedence, but I don’t believe in co-incedence.

>>14444353

>In 2001, George Soros put it rather more bluntly. "South Africa," he said, "is now in the hands of international capital."

“George Soros And South Africa's Elite Transition” (Part 1)dated 31 May 2010 at http://swans.com/library/art16/barker51.html

Efforts to promote forms of democracy where the majority act as participants, not spectators, are opposed by privileged elites of all political persuasions. Yet as history has shown, opposition to equality is not enough to guarantee the sustainable exploitation of the mass of humanity, thus the promotion of polyarchy has proved a successful means of disarming struggles for popular democracy: polyarchy being "a political system in which an elite actually governs, with popular involvement in democracy being restricted to periodic elections." By neatly severing the economic from the political, polyarchy "obscure[s] power relations inherent in any economic dispensation" and "dissipates the energies of those marginalised by the ongoing order into parliamentary procedures that in themselves are acted out by political factions whose power and prestige are dependant on the polyarchical model." (3) In sum, the promotion of polyarchy can be seen as the means by which democracy-manipulating elites co-opt popular resistance into channels that support capitalist domination. However, as Ian Taylor rightly continues:

“[W]e must avoid the reductionist tendency to see this process simply as a manufactured conspiracy. The process is more accurately depicted as a complex convergence of interests between the established political elites, domestic and transnational capital, and crucially, aspiring elites espousing, initially perhaps, an alternative vision for the country. … [T]here can be no externally imposed solution, but rather a working out among elites of the best way forward. This seeking out of a convergence of interests [in South Africa] was in part crafted by technical interventions from within civil society, and ultimately served to thwart the demands and aspirations of the masses.” (p.36)

South Africa's elite transition from apartheid to polyarchy provides a devastating example of the power of capitalism to penetrate and dismantle a vibrant movement demanding massive social change and effectively harmonise them into a neoliberal social order. As Ian Taylor reports, "[o]ne of the most active groups within the change industry" in South Africa was the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa – a group that later became known as the Institute for Democracy in South Africa. The cofounders of this Institute, van Zyl Slabbert and Alex Boraine, represented what might be considered the "compassionate face of liberalism," and prior to setting up their Institute (in 1986), both been part of the "corporate-funded Progressive Federal Party, an organisation that 'bore the Oppenheimer imprint from the start'." (4)

Despite their elite backgrounds, Slabbert and Boraine had initially failed to garner foreign support from the US leading liberal foundations, and it was only when they were introduced to George Soros, who immediately decided to support their venture, that the equally well-endowed American foundations reconsidered working with them. Slabbert recalled:

“We wanted $150,000 and he signed a cheque of $75,000. In the lift, Boraine and I passed the cheques to and fro in disbelief. Soros did not ask for any guarantee and said, in passing, that we could send him a report if we wished. We obtained the rest of the money from the ever-reliable Scandinavians and the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung.”(5)

From that day on, the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (ISASA) became a favored recipient of foreign aid, obtaining lucrative grants from bodies like the US Agency for International Development, and smaller albeit important funding from organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Little surprise then that this mediating organization, IDASA, played a key role in smoothing the transition from apartheid, and indeed…

“…the dissemination of ideology in favour of the neo-liberal project has continued unabated in the post-apartheid era. In this period, IDASA has advanced ideas that seem to propagate the notion that keeping the people away from the real levers of power i.e. the economy, is a "good thing."” (6)

“George Soros And South Africa's Elite Transition” (Part 2)dated 31 May 2010 at http://swans.com/library/art16/barker51.html

Illustrative of the tight connections maintained by IDASA and liberal elites, in 1996 the then head of the Institute, Wilmot James, became a trustee of the Ford Foundation (a position he retained until 2008); likewise IDASA's current chair, Njabulo Ndebele, is a former resident scholar at the Ford Foundation. Ndebele is also a trustee of the Nelson Mandela Foundation where he serves alongside current Open Society Foundation of South Africa board member (and former Rockefeller Foundation trustee) Mamphela Ramphele. (7) Former board member of the Open Society Foundation of South Africa, Khehla Shubane, helped establish the Nelson Mandela Foundation, while also serving as the CEO of Business Map Foundation – a "research institution focusing on black economic empowerment and monitoring foreign investment patterns." (8)

The Open Society Foundation of South Africa happens to be another of George Soros's polyarchal ventures, and Soros recruited Slabbert to become the founding chair of this organization when it was founded in 1993. In addition to Ramphele, two other notable members of the Foundation's board of directors are the editor of Financial Mail, Barney Mthombothi (who is board member of the democracy-manipulating International Press Institute), and Jody Kollapen, the former chairperson of South Africa's principal human rights body the SA Human Rights Commission. Incidentally, Kollapen is a board member of IDASA and is the chair of the Legal Resources Centre. Judge Fikile Bam, a former board member of the Open Society Foundation of South Africa, served as a director of the Legal Resources Centre in Port Elizabeth in 1985, and is presently a board member of the Centre for Development and Enterprise, a think tank that focuses on "development issues and their relationship to economic growth and democratic consolidation," which received a grant from the NED in 2006.

Since it was formed in 1995 "with core funding from South African businesses," the Centre for Development and Enterprise has been headed by Ann Bernstein, who had previously served as the executive director of the Urban Foundation from 1989 until its demise in 1995. More recently, from 2005 until 2006, Berstein served as a Reagan Fascell Democracy Fellow at the NED. Given the openly pro-corporate polyarchal agenda of Berstein's Centre it is intriguing to note that their board of directors includes Ishmael Mkhabela. On top of being a board member of the conservative South African Institute of Race Relations, Mkhabela serves as the chairperson of the Steve Biko Foundation, which was ostensibly set up to commemorate the murder of a revolutionary activist and thinker, Steve Biko. Surely Biko himself would be most distraught with the manner by which his name is used to deflect criticism from polyarchal elites. Writing in 1970, before his murder at the hand of the state (in 1977), Biko said:

“Nowhere is the arrogance of the liberal ideology demonstrated so well as in their insistence that the problems of the country can only be solved by a bilateral approach involving both black and white. This has, by and large, come to be taken in all seriousness as the modus operandi in South Africa by all those who claim they would like a change in the status quo. Hence the multiracial political organisations and parties and the "nonracial" student organisations, all of which insist on integration not only as an end goal but also as a means.” (9)

Certainly elite support of the Steve Biko Foundation is not new, and neither is it a recent phenomenon, (10) and the Foundation's former director Xolela Mangcu is presently a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution. Moreover, prior to accepting his appointment at Brookings, Mangcu had been the executive director of the Social Cohesion and Integration Research Programme at the Human Sciences Research Council – a position he took over from Ford Foundation trustee Wilmot James (in 2004).

“George Soros And South Africa's Elite Transition” (Part 3)dated 31 May 2010 at http://swans.com/library/art16/barker51.html

In 1997, George Soros, intent on expanding his polyarchal ambitions in Africa, formed the Open Society Foundation for Southern Africa to work in ten Southern Africa countries, and again Slabbert helped him set up his latest philanthropic behemoth. The current deputy chair of this foundation is the wife of Max Sisulu, Elinor Sisulu, who is the media and advocacy manager of the Johannesburg office of the NED-funded Crisis Coalition of Zimbabwe, "which she was instrumental in establishing in 2004." In addition, Reginald Matchaba-Hove, the former chair of the Open Society Foundation for Southern Africa, sits on the steering committee of the NED's World Movement for Democracy (sitting alongside IDASA executive director, Paul Graham), and he is the chair of the NED-backed Zimbabwe Election Support Network. Two other NED-connected board members of Soros's democracy-manipulating foundation include Godfrey Kanyenze, who "served for a long time" as the director of the NED-funded Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, and Immaculée Birhaheka, "one of the Congo's leading human rights activists," who was the winner of the NED's 2006 democracy award and is the co-founder and president of the NED-funded Promotion and Support for Women's Initiatives. (11)

Finally returning to Slabbert and Boraine's initial (conflict "resolving") play-pen, the Institute for Democracy in South Africa, it is fitting that in their first year of operations they recruited African National Congress activist Janet Cherry to their ranks. This is because since then Cherry has gone on to become an influential theorist of nonviolence for polyarchal elites, acting as a trainer for the controversial Centre for Applied NonViolent Action and Strategies, and serving on the academic advisory committee of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. Here one should observe that the chief financier and founding chair of the latter Center, Peter Ackerman, happens to be an important funder of a conservative democracy-manipulating group known as the Free Africa Foundation (see "Buying Freedom for Africa"). A particularly significant member of the Free Africa Foundation's advisory board is leading "democracy promotion" theorist Larry Diamond, who is member of IDASA's US board of friends, and is a co-director of the NED's International Forum for Democratic Studies. (12) Such connections are no mere accidents, and they provide an elegant demonstration of the extent to which polyarchal ideology has been fruitfully propagated. As William Robinson, the leading critical theorist of the democracy-manipulating establishment, observes:

“US "democracy promotion," as it actually functions, sets about not just to secure and stabilize elite-based polyarchic systems but to have the United States and local elites thoroughly penetrate civil society, and from therein assure control over popular mobilization and mass movements (that is, correct the "flukes," or "dysfunctions," of democracy). This is in distinction to earlier strategies to constrain social and political mobilization though a focus on control of the state and governmental apparatus.” (13)

Leftist activists must collectively recognize this manipulative reorientation of the elite foreign policy-making community. If they continue to overlook the full extent of this change as many doctrinal human rights groups and progressive media outlets continue to do there will be little to prevent their activism from acting in the service of imperialism and polyarchy, not justice and grassroots democracy. This situation is intolerable: how many people must be crushed before activists recognize that the revolution will not be funded? (By capitalists anyway.)

“Buying Freedom For Africa” (Part 1)dated March 8, 2010, at http://swans.com/library/art16/barker44.html. Below are excerpts.

Foreign aid is an integral tool by which global capital conquers foreign markets, a sordid history of which the US-based nongovernmental organization Food First has thoroughly documented since their formation in the late 1970s. It is unfortunate then that in a recent article titled "Food Aid in Africa: A Profitable Business," Food First cited with approval the above quote from the president of the Free Africa Foundation, George Ayittey. This is problematic because while Ayittey's rhetoric meshes well with progressive critiques of foreign aid, his criticism stems from his desire to fully open up Africa to the free-market in the name of libertarianism; not quite the same ideas promoted by groups like Food First.

The Free Africa Foundation's advisory board has intriguing links to two people who are connected to what was once the best-known organization committed to freedom in Africa, the African National Congress. These people are Zwelakhe Sisulu, who is the son of Walter Sisulu (the former secretary general of the ANC), and Makaziwe Mandela, who is the daughter of Nelson Mandela. To understand the reason why these two high-profile individuals are now tied to a conservative freedom group it is necessary to first unpack their freedom-fighter-parents' prior engagements with imperial elites.

A Neoliberal Freedom Charter

Some twenty-plus years later in 1984, Mandela was to come across the type of elite agent that sought to manipulate popular struggles for capitalism, an individual known as Lord Nicholas Bethell. Lord Bethell's prison visit is particularly interesting given that in 1981 Bethell had been a co-founder of the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, a group that was formed to generate support for the mujahideen, and was in later years backed by the leading "democracy-promoting" agency, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Mandela, of course, knew nothing about Lord Bethell's manipulative background, but in later years he would be unlikely not to have heard of the National Endowment for Democracy, which was highly active in South Africa. For instance, in 1988 The New York Times reported that "two South African groups – the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa and the Black Consumers Union" received a total of $600,000 from the Endowment. Likewise in 1986 the Heritage Foundation were advocating for a co-optive intervention into South African affairs, noting:

“Existing U.S. programs to aid the disadvantaged in South Africa specifically should promote the reform process by such things as directly assisting the upgrading of black education, including more scholarships for blacks to integrated universities and ending discrimination against students in so-called tribal homelands. Black businesses' attempts to exercise new rights to operate in white areas should receive assistance under programs such as the National Endowment for Democracy, as should labor unions operating under new labor laws. To build a true representative government in South Africa, the institutions to underpin such a government must be built.”

With regard to unions, the AFL-CIO the National Endowment for Democracy's main labor affiliate/grantee working through their African-American Labor Center, which had initially played a critical role in opposing anti-apartheid forces in South Africa, eventually switched tack in 1986 and even established links with the radical Congress of South African Trade Unions. To illustrate the depths of the problem in 1986 Labor Notes ran with the headline "$1 Million Last Year: Reagan Funds AFL-CIO? South Africa Activities."

“Buying Freedom For Africa” (Part 2)dated March 8, 2010, at http://swans.com/library/art16/barker44.html. Below are excerpts.

Formed in 1987, the aforementioned NED-funded Institute for a Democratic South Africa which Julie Hearn describes as having helped "establish the terms of the debate" by "put[ting] procedural democracy high up on the agenda for civil society" is a particularly interesting group because their former executive director, Wilmot James, went on to serve as a Ford Foundation trustee. (7) (Members of the Institute's current US board include Free Africa Foundation adviser, Larry Diamond, and even token radical, former Left Forum board member Mahmood Mamdani.) Like the NED, the role of liberal foundations in the transition from apartheid is rarely talked about in polite company. However, as Bhekinkosi Moyo demonstrated in his unpublicized Ph.D. thesis:

The [Ford] Foundation made its mark in South Africa in 1973 when it funded a conference on Legal Aid at the University of Natal. The conference brought together legal experts from the U.S. and South Africa. Many of the participants became critical voices in the transition to democracy. John Duggard, for example, later established the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) in 1978. And Felicia Kentridge was a founding member of the Legal Resources Centre (LRC). The two centres played critical roles in the struggle against apartheid.

CALS was established with the help of Ford, the Carnegie Corporation as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. It was established at a time when resistance against apartheid was heightened. The apartheid state was also facing challenges. First, the economy was declining as a result of the global decline in stocks. Secondly, it was becoming expensive to maintain apartheid system's multiple racial administrative structures. Thirdly, there were high-levels uprisings, for example, the 1976 Soweto one. Fourthly, there was a growing concern among whites about the viability of apartheid. Finally, there was the pressure from liberation movements such as the ANC, PAC, other opposition groups as well as the international community. The international dimension was very critical. (pp.165-6)

Edward Berman thus suggests that:

Such beneficial programs and worthwhile intentions notwithstanding, there is evidence to indicate that the major thrust of the foundations' overseas activities is intended to improve conditions in, say, Nigeria, India, or Thailand while simultaneously insuring that these nations' leaders and institutional structures continue to be linked to the world capitalist system, albeit as members of the periphery rather than the center. Again, we should be surprised were the foundations to attempt to do otherwise, despite their oft-repeated public claims that their programs are not intended to serve narrowly national, partisan, or personal interests. As integral cogs in the capitalist system they can do little else but further that system's interests through their programs.

It is particularly worthwhile dwelling upon the Legal Resources Centre, as their current chairman, human rights advocate Jody Kollapen, is also a board member of the aforementioned Institute for a Democratic South Africa. In addition, one finds the like of Sheila Avrin McLean on the board of the American friends of the Legal Resources Centre, an individual who during the 1970s "spent a decade at the Ford Foundation as Associate General Counsel and the officer in charge of developing and running the Ford Foundation's human rights grants program in South Africa." (10) Other supporters of the Legal Resources Centre's work include former United Democratic Front national coordinator Cheryl Carolus, who later served as the ANC's deputy secretary general during the 1990s, and is presently a member of the executive committee of the "humanitarian" International Crisis Group, and trustee of the imperialist "wildlife" beneficiary World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

“Buying Freedom For Africa” (Part 3)dated March 8, 2010, at http://swans.com/library/art16/barker44.html. Below are excerpts.

Well-respected pacifist and Congress of Racial Equality co-founder George Houser was the founding director of two of Africa Action's predecessors, the American Committee on Africa (founded in 1953) and The Africa Fund (which was formed in 1966). In a speech he gave in 2003, Houser recalled:

It was the Defiance Campaign in South Africa sponsored by the African National Congress to which we responded, resulting in more then 8500 arrests for nonviolent civil disobedience against the apartheid laws. It was Bill Sutherland who urged us to get involved. As representative of CORE (the Congress of Racial Equality), I corresponded with Walter Sisulu, the newly elected Secretary General of the ANC and he encouraged our support. With Bill Sutherland and Bayard Rustin, we organized Americans for South African Resistance [in 1952]…

Farmer's colleague, Bayard Rustin, likewise demonstrated a strong propensity to serve elite interests. Thus in the 1970s he served as a vice chairman of the CIA-linked International Rescue Committee; in 1975 he organized the Black Americans to Support Israel Committee; and then in 1982 he "helped found" the National Emergency Coalition for Haitian Refugees (alongside then president of the AFL-CIO, Lane Kirkland). Later still Rustin served as the president, and then co-chair, of the conservative A. Philip Randolph Institute – a group that received a $15,000 grant from the National Endowment for Democracy in 1985 for "Project South Africa." Additionally, around this time:

As Chairman of the Executive Committee of Freedom House, an agency which monitors international freedom and human rights, Mr. Rustin observed elections in Zimbabwe, El Salvador, and Grenada. His last mission abroad, coordinated by Freedom House, was to Haiti where he met with a broad spectrum of individuals in an attempt to determine how Americans could best help them bring democracy to their country.

Needless to say, Freedom House's anti-democratic role in supervising "demonstration elections" is well documented, (12) and they work closely with the NED to promote low-intensity democracy globally. Thus it is vital to remember that as a result of a fact-finding trip that Rustin, his partner Walter Naegle, and Charles Bloomstein, took to South Africa, their subsequent report, South Africa: Is Peaceful Change Possible? (New York Friends Group, 1984), "led to the formation of [the NED-funded] Project South Africa, a program which [sought] to broaden Americans' support of groups within South Africa attempting to bring about democracy through peaceful means." This democracy-manipulating initiative was headed by Dave Peterson, an individual who was quickly promoted (in 1988) to manage the NED's activities across Africa, a position he retains to this day. Connections between the NED and the A. Philip Randolph Institute and the A. Philip Randolph Fund (of which Rustin was president when he died in 1987) were by no means marginal, because at the time of his death Rustin was chairman of the conservative Social Democrats USA, a group whose former executive director, Carl Gershman (1974-80) went on to become the president of the NED in 1984 (a position he still maintains).

Returning to Africa Action, their current head since 2007, Gerald LeMelle, had previously served as the deputy executive director for advocacy at Amnesty International USA, while in the early 1990s he had acted as the director of African affairs with the conservative Phelps Stokes Fund. Here it is noteworthy that the history of the Phelps Stokes Fund provides yet more fuel to suggest that Africa Action has more in common with imperial democracy-manipulating elites than countering their activities, contrary to their proclamation that they "support African struggles for peace and development." Writing in the seminal book-length critique of philanthropic imperialism, Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundation at Home and Abroad (Indiana University Press, 1982), Edward Berman writes:

“From its incorporation in 1911 until 1945 [the end of the period studied by Berman] the Phelps-Stokes Fund based its actions on several premises: (1) that the experience of the Negro South was directly relevant to black Africa; (2) that neither the African nor the American Negro would be self-governing, or even have a large say in his welfare, in the foreseeable future; and (3) that a narrowly defined vocational education could be used to train American Negroes and Africans to become productive, docile, and permanent underclasses in their respective societies.”

“Buying Freedom For Africa” (Part 4)dated March 8, 2010, at http://swans.com/library/art16/barker44.html. Below are excerpts.

Evidently nothing much has changed, although the Fund now uses honorary trustee, the Most Rev. Desmond Tutu, as part of their altruistic smokescreen – Tutu also being a patron of the Legal Resources Centre and an honorary chair of the deceptively named World Justice Project. Tutu's humanitarian haze is quickly cleared, however, when one examines the capitalist elites residing on the Phelps Stokes Fund's board of trustees, a prominent example being former US ambassador to the Central African Republic, Robert Perry, who is currently vice president for international programs at the Corporate Council on Africa.

Berman, in another chapter within the book Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism titled "The Foundations Role in American Foreign Policy: The Case of Africa, post 1945," extends his analysis on the nature of philanthropic interventions in Africa. He concludes:

There can be little doubt but that the Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, and Rockefeller Foundation have used their largesse since 1945 to insure the controlled growth and development of African societies through the strengthening of strategic cultural and political institutions. The primary means to accomplish this end has been through support for African education, as well as complementary social science research and public administration training institutes. The emphasis on education has had two advantages over a comparable concern with other areas. First, the quantitative expansion of education in Africa has enabled foundation personnel to spread their common ideology across a greater range of local societies than heretofore. Second, the emphasis on the provision of a commodity which ostensibly has no political overtones and which is in great demand has enabled foundation personnel to appear in the guise of disinterested humanitarians. As the above has made clear, there was little humanitarianism in these foundation attempts to develop educational systems in Africa, despite the proclivities of random foundation personnel in this direction. Education was perceived as the opening wedge ensuring an American presence in those African nations considered of strategic and economic importance to the governing and business elite of the United States. The contention that American foundation expenditures in Africa were designed primarily to benefit the recipients cannot be sustained. Rather, it was through African education that American foundation personnel hoped to exert leverage on the direction of African development, development which would follow lines acceptable to American Interests. (p.225)

As Berman suggests: "In effect, the foundations contributed substantial sums of money to programs and approaches that promised evolutionary, elite-directed change as opposed to revolutionary, mass-directed change." (14) Building on their education efforts, in 1978 liberal foundations become seriously involved in coordinating South Africa's "democratic" transition when the Rockefeller Foundation brought together a Study Commission on US Policy Toward Southern Africa that was chaired by the Ford Foundation's president, Franklin Thomas. In fact, after the 1976 Soweto uprising, liberal foundations played a critical role by "disconnect[ing] the socialist and anti-apartheid goals of the African National Congress." (15)

Although few radical commentators have broached the problematic nature of the close connections that exist between anti-apartheid activists and philanthropic elites (both prior to and after the formal end of apartheid), the preceding sections of this article demonstrate that this is a phenomenon that warrants further critical attention. These revelations, however, do allow us to understand why Nelson Mandela's daughter, Makaziwe Mandela, and Walter Sisulu's son, Zwelakhe Sisulu serve on the advisory board of the conservative Free Africa Foundation.

“Buying Freedom For Africa” (Part 5)dated March 8, 2010, at http://swans.com/library/art16/barker44.html. Below are excerpts.

Like Father, Like Son, Like Daughter

Makaziwe Mandela, like her father, has come a long way (politically speaking), since she completed her Ph.D. in anthropology titled "Gender Relations and Patriarchy in South Africa's Transkei" (University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1993), now being a successful member of South Africa neoliberal elite. After obtaining her doctorate Makaziwe was rewarded with a Fulbright fellowship, and in 1995 participated in a Salzburg Seminar (an integral part of the Elite Consciousness Movement) to examine the topic "Building and Sustaining Democracies: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations." Now a powerful businesswoman in her own right, Makaziwe resides on the board of directors of corporations like Nestle and Rand Water Services, and is a committed disciple of Black Economic Empowerment. (16)

Makaziwe is also a former board member of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, a philanthropic body whose board of trustees includes World Bank managing director, Mamphela Ramphele. Ramphele's role at this foundation, which is dedicated to creating "a living legacy that captures the vision and values of Mr. Mandela's life and work," perhaps demonstrates that the Nelson Mandela Foundation is more interested in capturing Mandela's present commitment to neoliberalism rather than his past dedication to social justice. This is because in addition to working for the World Bank Ramphele is a board member of Anglo American, and is a former long-serving trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and their democracy-manipulating partner-in-arms the African Wildlife Foundation and Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. However, to find solid elite connections to Mandela one need look only to his marriage to Graca Machel (in 1998), an individual who has been "friends" with David Rockefeller's daughter and former Africa-America Institute board member Peggy Dulany since the 1970s. Since then Graca has worked closely with numerous imperial humanitarian organizations, and in 1999 she received a distinguished humanitarian service award from the NED-funded Africare, a leading "humanitarian" group that counts Peter Ackerman and his wife amongst their major financial supporters. Nelson Mandela himself serves as Africare's hononary chairman, and his personal elite tie-ins include his serving alongside George H.W. Bush as a patron of FW de Klerk's Global Leadership Foundation, which apparently "promote[s] good governance – democratic institutions, open markets, human rights and the rule of law." (For an early demolition of the myth of Mandela, see John Pilger's 1998 documentary Apartheid Did Not Die.) (17)

Moving on to the second Free Africa Foundation adviser who maintains familial ties to the ANC's founding fathers, Zwelakhe Sisulu, we can see that like his brother Max, Zwelakhe is now a well-placed member of South Africa's ruling elite. Following in the footsteps of Nelson Mandela, Zwelakhe's career had a smooth transition from the apartheid years when he acted as the president of the Media Workers Association of South Africa and later as Nelson Mandela's media officer, and then on to "democracy" when he went on to briefly serve as the CEO of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. Like Makaziwe Mandela, Zwelakhe is a strong proponent of Black Economic Empowerment, and is a cosmopolitan businessman with financial interests ranging from his serving as the chair of African Universal Media (a media and marketing agency whose executive director is the grand niece of Nelson Mandela), and his being a board member of various mining ventures, most notably Eastern Platinum Limited.

“Buying Freedom For Africa” (Part 6)dated March 8, 2010, at http://swans.com/library/art16/barker44.html. Below are excerpts.

Here one might note that the chair of Eastern Platinum, David Cohen, worked during the 1990s in South Africa at Fluor Corporation ("one of the world's largest, publicly owned engineering, procurement, construction, and maintenance services organizations") and then for their principal subsidiary, the US-based Fluor Daniel. Although it bears no direct relations on Zwelakhe Sisulu it is certainly of more than passing interest that in 2004 Suzanne Woolsey (the wife of former CIA Director, James Woolsey) became a board member of Fluor Corporation. Likewise Fluor's current board members include Peter Fluor and James Hackett, both of whom are high ranking executives of oil giant Anadarko Petroleum – facts that are of interest to this article because Anadarko Petroleum (along with the likes of ExxonMobil and Lockheed Martin) in turn supports the work of the Meridian International Center, a group that was founded in 1960 and aims to "educate people of all ages about global issues, connect professionals from different countries and enrich the cultural perspective of audiences across the United States and abroad." Anadarko's funding tie to this Center is significant as another of Meridian International Center's funders is the aforementioned Free Africa Foundation funder, Peter Ackerman. (18) At this point, it is fitting to return to the Foundation's founder, George Ayittey, who according to Ghanaian journalist Nana Adinkra Apau, was a member of the influential African Oil Policy Initiative Group. For more on this oily group one can turn to Africa Action's commentary:

“The view that access to African oil must be advanced as a "vital interest" of the U.S. was first publicly developed in a 2002 white paper produced by the oil business experts, consultants and US policymakers making up the African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG), a project of the neo-conservative Jerusalem-based think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and International studies. The AOPIG report argues that "African oil is not an end but a means: to both greater U.S. energy security and more rapid African economic development." The AOPIG first proposal for African energy security is the expanded pursuit by "participating companies" of "all the oil available in the region." Among its policy recommendations to this end are expanded land privatization, debt cancellation highly conditioned upon free market structural reforms and the establishment of a regional unified U.S. military command for the African continent, similar to U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) President Bush announced in February 2007.”

Here it is appropriate to examine some of AOPIG's former members. To begin with, one might start with PR hack (for oil), Janice Van Dyke Walden, who was the founding president of the US foundation for the Nelson Mandela-supported United World College of the Atlantic, and has been an "active supporter and volunteer" with the Christian evangelical group Living Water International (see footnote#18). Another AOPIG member who serves on the board of this "holy water" outfit is real estate power broker Mark Edward Winter. Remaining on the combined theme of oil and water, AOPIG happened to be co-chaired by Paul Michael Wihbey, the president of a consulting firm Global Water and Energy Strategy Team – a team whose two other co-founders were the Zionist real estate magnate Mark Broxmeyer (who is chairman of the AIPAC-associated think tank the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) and Nigerian oil executive, Emmanuel Egbogah. Finally, yet another important person to have enjoyed membership of AOPIG is Melvin Spence, who served as an aide to William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana), an individual whose strong support of AOPIG meant he was described in Harper's magazine as a "Tollbooth Operator on the Road to Africa." (19)

Conclusion

Furthermore, it is vital that lessons are learned from South Africa's elite-guided transition from apartheid to neoliberalism. Democracy-manipulating institutions like the Ford Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy, which played a central role in South African affairs, are for example currently supporting Palestinians against their brutal oppressors, the Israelis; and so the question remains, "at what price does this support come?" If we don't attempt to resolve such questions now, by the time we find out the sad reality is that the chance for justice may have passed us by, and injustice may simply be further institutionalized.

>>14444501

>In one of Gordhan’s portfolios was a certain Grindrod. It seemed strange to me that the entire portfolio would hold Banking shares – and then this diversified entity called Grindrod. Then looking deeper I realised that Grindrod was actually Grindrod Bank.

“Rupert’s Grindrod Bank banks SASSA’s Billions”dated March 14, 2017, at https://uncensoredopinion.co.za/ruperts-grindrod-bank-banks-sassas-billions/

Johann Rupert, one of South Africa’s richest men, owns the Grindrod Bank which banks SASSA’s billions. Grindrod Bank is owned by Grindrod Limited. Rupert’s Remgro owns 23.1% of Grindrod Limited. With Rupert’s interests in commercial media, it is not surprising that Grindrod Bank has been keep off the news headlines in as far as its involvement in the SASSA story.

Until UnCensored wrote about Grinrod Bank as SASSA bankers last week, this little-known bank was never mentioned anywhere in the noise that has dominated the “crisis” at the social security agency.

The Irony of Gordhan questioning Grindrod Bank in Parly

In parliament today, Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan revealed that R11.2 billion sits in Grinrod Bank for an average of five days before being paid out. This is millions in interest for doing absolutely nothing. But who’s asking this question – a man who himself holds some shares in the said bank? Can we expect a media frenzy over this matter – Rupert, Grindrod Bank, SASSA and Gordhan? Highly unlikely.

Grinrod Bank and the Media Spin

There’s no coincidence in the silence around the link between Rupert and Grindrod. It’s all part of the commercial media’s campaign to cover-up for their billionaire boss. Imagine for a moment what the headlines would read were it another family with links to one Jacob Zuma which got this account and raking-in the interest?

Look at how Magda Wierzycka describes Grinrod Bank: “Grindrod Bank is owned by logistics company, Grindrod Limited, a R10.5-billion market cap company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Grindrod Bank is a relatively small part of the Grindrod group and does not really fit into its overall business model. It is grouped under Financial Services, together with the asset management and stockbroking divisions of Grindrod. In fact, Grindrod Bank was put up for sale at least two years ago”.

Scramble for SASSA Billions

Having had a glimpse of the kind of interest made by Rupert’s bank, it’s not surprising that the other banks are vying for a slice of the pie even though they don’t have the infrastructure to properly service the 11 million beneficiaries of social grants. But Rupert has had his turn to the millions in interest that could have built schools, its now time to pass the money baton to his buddies at the other banks – that is the true workings of monopoly capitalists – their greed is endless.

“The True Motivation behind the ANC’s Deal with Communist China: Anti-Western Hatred” (Part 1)dated September 12, 2014, at https://www.europeanknightsproject.com/south-african-anc-china-devil/

For over twenty years, so-called South African democracy has failed its people.

Apartheid may have imposed restrictions on South Africa’s (SA) majority black population; but our uniquely repugnant democracy has failed our entire population – setting us back generations inside 20 years.

The rainbow nation might be a product of the so-called freedom we received at the hands of the internationalist media, however it is precisely this freedom that has led to our demise.

Make no mistake, there is a certain freedom of choice now, and many of the facilities that were barred under Apartheid are in theory now free for all, however was it worth it? Especially when blacks are also far worse off now than they were a few short decades ago.

The ANC government were handed a perfect working infrastructure and the riches of the 9th wealthiest (per capita) nation on earth.

The high standards set under SA’s nationalist government were exactly what were needed to ensure success and economic growth for future generations. After twenty years, the corruption, theft, nepotism, socialist mantra and sheer impotence of our nation’s governing party have plummeted our once beautiful homeland to that of a third world country, with as bleak a future as an Ebola ridden Liberia.

Freedom for all has only caused infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, power stations and public transport to deteriorate beyond recognition. It has led to the appalling conditions we see across our nation.

There has been absolutely no real economic growth, let alone one iota of stability-just the plain old misery we have sadly all grown accustomed to.

Our government knows what they’ve done and are now looking for a way out.

Enter China and our new owners in Beijing.

Communism is a failed political ideology, largely because it was devised as a con – nothing more nothing less.

The implementation of Communism, the likes of which Zuma and Mandela had absolutely no understanding of, has resulted in the ruin of dozens of economic states, as it has SA.

Joe Slovo, Ruth First and the scum that stole our nation from us had no intention of putting us on the right course. They were ideologues, trained by the anti-Western Soviets.

“The True Motivation behind the ANC’s Deal with Communist China: Anti-Western Hatred” (Part 2)dated September 12, 2014, at https://www.europeanknightsproject.com/south-african-anc-china-devil/

Giacomo Vallone writes that,

“The mainstream Zionist controlled media will lead you to believe that the fall of South Africa’s so-called ‘fascist’ Apartheid regime was the result of a non-violent, organic revolution led by one Nelson Mandela and his rag-tag band of black freedom fighters; but was it?

Does anyone with even the slightest shred of intelligence honestly believe that a gang of black Communists had the intelligence & resources to take down a state as powerful as South Africa? These are people that believe raping babies will inoculate them against HIV. South Africa at the time was the world’s 9th largest economy.

Like the American NAACP, SPLC and most global civil rights organisations, the African National Congress (ANC) was dominated by often foreign or traitorous born Communist radicals.

Like most radical & subversive movements, ANC ring leaders were hardly representative of the oppressed dark skinned “victims” one finds on the cover of international magazines. Jewish and white liberals were in total control of the anti-Apartheid movement from its’ inception, and predominantly Jewish business interests benefited most when the nightmare that has become black rule.

As has been the case historically, ANC’s Communist rule has resulted in chaos, poverty, and famine – all of which have been overseen by the watchful eye of a ruling class of commie rulers who were neither born into their wealth, or earned it. In our case, the fools behind the ANC were born here but they certainly did not earn it. Like ALL Communists before them, they stole it.”

So why the Chinese?

They are the poster swine of 21st century Communism-ruthless, pragmatic, cruel and most importantly anti-western.

Besides an inability to govern our nation without us, one of the primary reasons the ANC have allowed China to plunder us stems from Chinese hatred of whites and the west.

The ANC will never allow a white person to rule this country.

They’d rather see our nation handed to the Communist Chinese, who will facilitate the wholesale ‘redistribution’ of our land, until there’s nothing left but squatters’ camps and townships, for both black and white alike.

Better the Chinese than the whites that BUILT our nation after all.

Currently China is South Africa’s largest trading partner and the speed at which Chinese immigrants are flooding the country is alarming.

So quickly that the ANC has had to restructure their Black Economic Empowerment (affirmative action) policies to include the Chinese!

Quite remarkably the Chinese are counted as blacks in South Africa, while mulatto people, or coloureds as they are known in here, are not.

Basically people that look like Barack Obama are deemed white by the ruling ANC, while people that look like Jackie Chan, are deemed black.

The Chinese in South Africa are known to set up illegal stores, thereby destroying local business, sell contraband goods and exploit labour-the likes of which would have been immediately shut down by the pre-1994 nationalist government.

The closure of local textile factories is a direct result of the infiltration of cheap Chinese stock.

Government tax revenue is lost through the operation of illegal business and job opportunities for locals are lost in favour of the Chinese driven unemployment.

Then there’s the rhino poaching! If it’s not blacks beheading children for their Muthi amulets, it’s the Chinese facilitating the murder of rhinoceros to turn their horns into won ton soup.

Well, at least they hate whites!

“The Soviet Marxist Terrorists Behind Nelson Mandela – ‘Never Forget’: The Predominately Jewish Undoing of Once Glorious South Africa”dated October 1, 2014, at http://www.europeanknightsproject.com/the-z-marxist-terrorists-behind-mandela-never-forget/

The American Jewish Times writes “that July 30th will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the raid on Lilisleaf Farm, which at the time served as the headquarters of the Umkonto we Sizwe-the covert and military wing of underground African National Congress. All five of the non-indigenous defendants in the case brought against the group-as was eerily also the case in Marxist Bolshevik Russia, were foreign born Jewish radicals. Similarly, the majority of the non-black defendants in the earlier Treason Trial (1956) were also Jewish, as was lead counsel and, defense attorneys. Israel’s Haaretz confirms that the head count of white opponents of Apartheid reads like a census list from one of the old Jewish shtetl/ghettos in Lithuania (from where many South African Jews originated): Joe Slovo, Harold Wolpe, Ruth First, Albie Sacha, Ronald Segal, Dennis Goldberg, Rusty Bernstein, Solly Sachs, Helen Suzman, Ray Alexander, Ronnie Kasrils, Raymond Suttner, Ray Simons, Moishe Geller (American Zionist hatemonger Pamela Geller’s grand father) Wolfie Kodish and many others.”

Let me preface this story-the most in depth study of Jewish involvement with the African National Congress on the web, that the EKP views Nelson Mandela as little more than a Jewish pawn. This article will elaborate on this much ignored element of convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela’s rise to power and the destruction it has left in it’s wake. We also want to state for the record, we are NOT anti-Semitic (intentional misnomer). One of our contributors is in fact a Jewish anti-Zionist & American patriot named Harvey Goldstein. The EKP merely want to disseminate truth.

“Most Comprehensive Timeline on the Web Focusing on Zionist Involvement in South Africa’s ANC Party” (Part 1)dated October 1, 2014, at http://www.europeanknightsproject.com/the-z-marxist-terrorists-behind-mandela-never-forget/

April 2, 1985 – Black-Jewish Freedom Seders (Jewish ritual feasts), co-sponsored by the Zionist Jewish Reform movement’s UAHC and the American NAACP honor jailed Soviet Jewish and African dissidents/radicals, including Natan Sharansky and convicted murderer and terrorist, Nelson Mandela.

February 11, 1986 – Zionist criminal, Natan Sharansky is released from Soviet prison. Two days later, the Israeli JTA reports that in 1984, the South African government rejected a proposed prisoner exchange that would have freed both Mandela and Sharansky. Sharansky also comments on his hope that Mandela’s freedom will be secured, referring to Mandela as a “beacon of light in a world of racist tyranny”.

February 17, 1986 – Irwin Cotler, Canadian Jewish attorney representing Sharansky and Mandela, announces an international council of lawyers, most of whom are American Jews, who will “work relentlessly for the release of all the Sharanskys and Mandelas now rotting in various prisons in the USSR and South Africa.’”

March 7, 1986 – American Jewish organization, B’nai B’rith’s leader Gerald Kraft calls on South African President P.W. Botha to release Mandela. The ADL follow suit as do several powerful American Jewish organizations.

December 10, 1986 – Accepting the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Zionist holocaust activist, Eli Wiesel refers to the imprisonment of Mandela, internal exile of Soviet Jew, Andrei Sakharov, and the denial of Polish Jewish leader, Lech Walesa’s freedom of speech a “disgrace of equal magnitude”.

February 2, 1990 – Following a speech by President F.W. de Klerk, in which Mandela’s release from prison was promised, the Jewish community in South Africa, publicly announces through Lithuanian born anti-apartheid Jewish Stalinist, Joe Slovo, that they are hopeful for political reform.

February 11, 1990 – Nelson Mandela is freed from prison, four years to the day after Sharansky’release. World Jewry, as evidenced by press releases from the ADL, BB, JDL, Zionist organizations from”sea to shining sea”, is elated

June 10, 1990 – Prior to a U.S. visit, Mandela meets with American Jewish leaders in Geneva, apologizes for calling Palestinian freedom fighters his “brothers in arms” and for any other statements he may have made that “might have offended Jewish groups.” The meeting, described as “warm, friendly and cordial,” reportedly played a role in preempting American Jewish protests against the African National Congress leader.

June 20, 1990 – Mandela welcomed by U.S. Jewish groups. The following night, in a nationally televised program on ABC, Mandela again refers to PLO leader Yassar Arafat as a “comrade in arms,” upsetting Jewish owned ABC television and American Jewish groups that had sponsored his trip. On June 29, Sharansky meets with Mandela for the first time in Los Angeles asking him to tone down his pro PLO rhetoric. You can’t bite the hand that feeds, or should I say freed you, after all.

July 1, 1990 – A Johannesburg synagogue and Zionist school, is bombed and defaced with graffiti during early hours of the morning. Mysteriously no casualties or injuries are reported. Jewish leaders attribute the attack to scapegoating by right-wing nationalist groups, who oppose the community’s support for the anti-apartheid movement. No one takes responsibility for the “crime”. Rumours that the bombing was a false flag circulate.

“Most Comprehensive Timeline on the Web Focusing on Zionist Involvement in South Africa’s ANC Party” (Part 2)dated October 1, 2014, at http://www.europeanknightsproject.com/the-z-marxist-terrorists-behind-mandela-never-forget/

September 14, 1990 – Despite objections and alleged threats from South African nationalists and some hardline Zionist jews, a Reform rabbi in Johannesburg goes forward with his plan to invite Mandela to speak at his synagogue. Addressing the Reform congregation, the yarmulka-clad Mandela said, “If Zionism means the right of the Jewish people to seize territory and deny the Palestinian people the right to self-determination, we condemn it, but if it means a homeland for our jewish brothers we support it.” The packed synagogue heard Mandela condemn all manifestations of anti-Semitism and declare that ANC membership is open to everyone regardless of race. White and Indian South Africans are skeptical

October 24, 1990 – Mandela arouses the anger of Australian Jewish groups upon his arrival in Canberra, likening Israel to a “terrorist state” and accusing her of “slaughtering defenseless, innocent Arabs”, forgetting his pledge to Slovo, Sharansky and the American jewish organizations he pandered to during his last visit to the States. He later backtracks after pressure from Joe Slovo, the ANC’s top Jewish leader and self described “brains” behind the African National Congress.

July 14, 1991 – Following U.S. lead, Israel lifts cultural and economic sanctions against South Africa after four years of crippling economic warfare. Pandering to the South Africans and strong economic and military ties with the black government commences.

April 15, 1992 – On the eve of Passover, Mandela publicly acknowledges South African Jewry’s “particularly outstanding contribution” to his people’s “struggle for freedom and social justice” for the first time. Mandela states that Jewry “sees themselves in black causes” due to the fact Jews have suffered through “one long historical holocaust for more than two thousand years.” He believes that Jews can more easily identify with blacks than Whites and East Indians, the two groups offering the most opposition to the ANC. Thus commences the official “special relationship” between Mandela and his Jewish backers.

May 4, 1992- South Africa’s Jerusalem Club invites Black speaker to address attendees for the first time, helping to forge ties between the Jewish committee and the Mandela-led ANC. From this point forth Mandela is the offical spokesperson for the “worlds oppressed”.

August 16, 1992 – As South Africa lifts its apartheid law banning suburban settlement by blacks, Mandela moves to the upscale Jewish suburb of Houghton. Mandela’s new neighbor, member of Parliament Tony Leon of the Democratic Party, brought a gift of chocolate cake, which he left with a member of the household staff in Mandela’s absence.

August 1993 – Addressing the annual conferece of South African Jewish Board of Deputees, Mandela’s greeted by a standing ovation, confirming improved ties following the leader’s prior remarks about the PLO.

“Most Comprehensive Timeline on the Web Focusing on Zionist Involvement in South Africa’s ANC Party” (Part 3)dated October 1, 2014, at http://www.europeanknightsproject.com/the-z-marxist-terrorists-behind-mandela-never-forget/

March 1994 – With one month to go before South Africa’s first democtratic presidential elections, a JTA report anticipates “Jewish support” for Mandela’s ANC. South African Jews face the country’s first democratic elections on April 27 with a “mixture of fear and faith for the future” in the country. In spite of the fact that Mandela and the ANC’s rise to power would never have been possible without international Jewry’s financial support., South African Jewry aren’t as convinced, empowering the black majority is in fact the right move. The fears among the approximately 100,000 members of the South African Jewish community primarily relate to the widespread increase in criminal violence, particularly in Johannesburg, where over half the country’s Jews live. Blowback has historically impacted Jewry more than any other people. Think of the Jewish led Bolshevik revolution and how that ultimately blew up in their faces. Gulags anyone?

May 2, 1994 – After several days of voting, Mandela elected president in South Africa’s first “all-race” democratic elections; Jewish sentiment is reported to be optimistic. That Saturday, Nelson Mandela attends Shabbat services at the Green & Sea Point Hebrew Congregation in Cape Town, by far the largest synagogue in the Southern hemisphere. From the pulpit, Mandela, Yamulka and all, appeals for the swift return of Jewish expatriates who left for security concerns.

May 12, 1994 – Mandela meets with Israeli President Ezer Weizman before greeting several international Jewish dignitaries at a meeting in Cape Town. PLO leader Yasser Arafat was invited to join them. “He calls Arafat by his first name, Yasser,” Weizman recalled. “They embraced, and he said he and Arafat were brothers. I said: ‘Then, Mr. President, we are cousins.’ More proof the Palestinians and Israelis, at least the Arab and Sephardic Jewish inhabtants of Israel, have more in common than the Ashkenazim let up

June 1994 – Following Mandela’s election, Israel lifts its seven-year arms embargo against South Africa. The original embargo was introduced by Israels hawkish neo conservative Jewish and WASP partners in Washington.

August 1994 – Mandela is awarded Anne Frank Medal (selected by Dutch Jewry) in Amsterdam for his contributions in advancing democracy in South Africa. Later that month, Mandela states, “The victory of the democratic forces in South Africa is a contribution to this worldwide effort to rid humanity of the evil of racism. It is Anne Frank’s victory. It’s for the people of the holocaust. It is an achievement of humanity as a whole,” Invoking the holocaust is becoming as much a trademark for the Zio-schooled Mandela as his extravgant button downed dress shirts.

November 1994 – Israeli professor Michael Wolfsohn reveals that in 1989, Mandela’s release was on the table as part of a large prisoner exchange for missing Israeli soldier Ron Arad until the Berlin Wall fell.

January 5, 1995 – Housing Minister Joe Slovo, the brains behind the ANC, and one of two Jews to become part of the Mandela’s cabinet, dies of bone marrow cancer. The other Jewish cabinet member, Ronnie Kasrils, would prove to be an even more polarizing figure.

February 1995 – South African Foreign Minister Alfred Nzo announces full South African diplomatic relations with the “State of Palestine,” prompting protest from the Israeli officials that had funded the ANC since its inception.. Blacks biting the jewish hand that fed them increasingly wears on the nerves of the ANC’s jewish backers.

October 1995 – Prior to national local elections, Nelson Mandela joins Jewish ANC candidates in an appeal to the Jewish community not to emigrate from South Africa due to fear of crime. In spite of the ANC’s enormous Jewish ties, many of South Africa’s Jewish population appear to be ruing the fall of apartheid and fleeing the country by the tens of thousands. Blowback is the quintessential bitch!

“Most Comprehensive Timeline on the Web Focusing on Zionist Involvement in South Africa’s ANC Party” (Part 4)dated October 1, 2014, at http://www.europeanknightsproject.com/the-z-marxist-terrorists-behind-mandela-never-forget/

January 1996 – Two main South African Jewish organizations with ties to the Black ANC criticize Mandela’s meeting with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, famous for anti-Semitic remarks in the U.S. Mandela apologises publicly, with his Jewish handlers in toe.

February 1996 – Chief Rabbi Yirael Meir Lau shares stories of his imprisonment in a concentration camp with Mandela in Pretoria. Mandela equates apartheid with the “holocaust” for the umpteenth time.

September 20, 1996 – A leading Jewish Newspaper publishes a report citing crime as the greatest reason for Jews leaving South Africa. Jewish communities become more withdrawn as their ties to the ANC strengthen. Publicly black and Jewish solidarity is at it’s peak. Privately, Jews; like Indians, Arabs even some members of the “coloured” or mulatto community, are seen as whites by rampaging South African blacks, fear for their lives and embark on a mass exodus from the nation.

September 1997 – Mandela is presented with an honorary doctorate in philosophy from Israel’s, Ben Gurion University. Zionist organization’s award is presented in Cape Town “because Mandela has indicated he will not visit the Mid East until he is able to make a meaningful contribution to the peace process.”

April 1998 – Mandela appoints Richard Goldstone, a renowned Jewish egal scholar and jurist, to investigate an alleged high-level plot to overthrow the country’s government involving Mandela’s former wife and several of his former “colleagues”.

July 18, 1998 – The country celebrates the president’s 80th birthday. Mandela also throws secret “wedding celebration”, letting Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris in on the secret a day early in a special ceremony. The ceremony has an “Afro-Jewish” theme to it.

August 12, 1998 – Mandela and Arafat exchange medals and embrace in a ceremony. Jewish leaders are bemused. seems Mandela still doesn’t get it.

January 1999 –Mandela is a frequent celebrity bar mitzvah guest at high profile Jewish bar mitzvahs in South Africa.

October 19, 1999 – Mandela arrives in Israel, his adopted homeland, for the first time. Jewish and newly empowered black South Africans anticipate that their president’s visit will yield better relations between the two nations. Having recently visited Iran, Syria, Jordan the backdrop of Iran holding thirteen Jewish prisoners as alleged spies, Mandela agrees to mediate between Israel and her neighbors, stating, “”I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders.”Mandela is now officially Israels, b*&^%.

February 2000 – Following his presidency, Mandela is named patron in chief of Tikkun, a private Jewish-controlled social services project founded in 1996 providig interracial adult education, skills training and AIDS relief work. Although the agency is privately managed, it is subsidised by the new ANC government.

December 13, 2000 – Mandela is key speaker at opening ceremony of the new South African Jewish Museum.

“Most Comprehensive Timeline on the Web Focusing on Zionist Involvement in South Africa’s ANC Party” (Part 5)dated October 1, 2014, at http://www.europeanknightsproject.com/the-z-marxist-terrorists-behind-mandela-never-forget/

January 2002 – In Durban, Mandela retracts statements supporting the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and comments labeling Osama bin Laden a terrorist, upsetting the Jewish community. Although the Jews are a “peace loving folk”, international Jewry openly supports the war on terror and the millions of deaths its caused worldwide.

May 2002- Lazar Sidelsky, a Jewish lawyer who’d given a young Nelson Mandela a job as a clerk in the face of apartheid restrictions, dies in Johannesburg at age 90.

October 2002 –Wolfie Kodesh, Jewish founder of the armed wing of the ANC and former member of the South African Communist party, dies at age 84. Kodesh is praised by Mandela at his funeral in Cape Town. Mandela is a key speaker at the ceremony

December 2003 – Union of Orthodox Rabbis taps new chief rabbi, Warren Goldstein, 32, to succeed Harris in January 2005. Goldstein co-authored a book with Mandela’s grandson, Dumani. Links abound!

August 2004 – Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris accuses the country’s Jews of not sufficiently supporting MaAfrika Tikkun, the community’s privately run but publicly funded outreach initiative. “There’s an unfortunate reluctance, a sort of suspicion about interacting with the black majority — particularly on the part of the older generation — which is absurd,” he said, noting “a kind of restraint” when it comes to non-Jewish causes.

April 2004 – Top Israeli paper celebrates Jewish and ANC partnership in “rebuilding” South Africa. The new ANC created constitutional court — headed by a Jew, Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson is touted as the nation’s greatest achievement. The JTA writes that “After some years of demoralization, the Jewish community recently has begun to rebound. It has placed in key leadership positions young, dynamic people who are less burdened by the baggage of apartheid and who are vigorously engaging with symbols of the new South Africa.” It profiles Yehuda Kay, 28, national director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies; Zev Krengel, 31, chairman of the board’s Johannesburg area council; Avrom Krengel, 35, chair of the South African Zionist Federation; Rabbi Craig Kacev, 32, acting director of the South African Board of Jewish Education; and Warren Goldstein, 32, recently chosen as the country’s chief rabbi.

September 2004 – A review of a book about Zimbabwe by Abe Abrahamson — honorary life president of South African Zionist Federation — mentions that Abrahamson was one of six high profile Jews to visit Nelson Mandela upon the latter’s release from prison.

September 13, 2005 – Former Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris dies of cancer at age 69, and was remembered for offering a prayer at Mandela’s inauguration in 1994.

January 2008 – Anti-apartheid activist Helen Suzman, who visited Mandela in prison on several occasions, and was instrumental in the fall of apartheid, dies.

White and East Indian African Genocide continues.