Mwalimu Moemedi Kepadisa beautifully writes this instructive piece:
Anton Rupert and the Oppenheimers had a long history of State Capture during the British colonial and Apartheid times. State Capture in that sense, is nothing new, though we agree it is bad and rotten governance.
However, what is curious is that, there is very little in history or polemical books that touch on this sordid subject. Only recently has one book been written about the dark world of sanctions and arms dealing under apartheid by the Institute of Security Studies, authored by our old university liberal friend, Hennie van Vuuren. I am told there are some great exposès there.
Anton Rupert’s Vodacom business was started with generous allocations from the former Department of Finance (the current National Treasury); so was it the case with Koos Bekker’s MNET now Multichoice pay channel television.
Oppenheimer had special immigration facilities at Jan Smuts to export De Beers diamonds to the world via Israel and onto Switzerland and London. Remember the Oppenheimers were or are still fugitives from the US administration. Those Wall Street buggers want to burrow their fangs into their loot, so they could never export their loot to the US.
Wall Street forced the US Courts and their Administration to declare the Oppenheimers and De Beers persona non-grata there for decades now, because they allege, rather self-righteously, that our old State Capturers are in violation of US anti-trust laws. In other words, they are a global monopoly on diamonds.
Everyone is a fugitive somewhere. Wanthol’?
Yet, not as many books and academic research was dedicated to dissecting their forms of State Capture. Why are so many white writers and so much funds being channeled to historically white universities like Stellenbosch, Cape Town and Wits to cast the light on the Zuma/Gupta State capture?
Is this all about justice or are there racist undercurrents bubbling underneath this whole project?
Look at these many books written by white authors? Would we be wrong to say that some of this smacks of propaganda and disinformation to sway the unsuspecting public?
Can we trust the media not to have allegiances and biases in their narratives?
Rhetorical questions right, but worth mulling over (for me).