This should provide lots of lols

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46378473)

"Wh wh whw where are all these black people coming from?!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46378565)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46379398)

the bushmen were there for thousands of years though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46379443)

https://youtu.be/-U5P-85HoSc

Clips from Africa Addio about South Africa in the 1960s

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46378496)

Mr. Oppenheimer for a quarter of a century was the most powerful figure in his country's economy as well as one of the richest men in the world.

He became an important force in South African politics, elected to Parliament in 1948 as a member of the minority white liberal opposition. In that capacity, he spoke out frequently and consistently against apartheid, the country's policy of institutionalized racial discrimination.

In his political life, Mr. Oppenheimer grounded his opposition to apartheid on humanitarian impulses, often bringing economic principles and a sort of elegant understatement to the argument.

''I've never thought that the policy of racial discrimination had been a great benefit to business,'' he said, ''because while it may have had the effect of keeping wages low, it also had the effect of keeping labor exceptionally inefficient. I believe that apartheid is something that works against the interest of economic development, not for it.''

Mr. Oppenheimer, who was of Jewish origin, championed the creation of black trade unions, and he lived to see those unions challenge the power of his mining companies. He was influential in ending an employment system that set aside certain jobs for whites only. His industrial group took the lead in creating housing near the mines for blacks, although the new housing accommodated only a small percentage of the three-quarters of a million blacks employed, many as migrant laborers, by his companies. He developed programs to educate blacks to bring them into positions of responsibility in his companies.

Franklin A. Thomas, former chief executive of the Ford Foundation, called Mr. Oppenheimer ''a tireless fighter who tried to change the apartheid system from within.'' While he said he wished Mr. Oppenheimer had done more from his special position, he praised his efforts ''to increase democracy in the workplace and to spread it beyond the workplace to communities in which people live.''

The Rev. Leon H. Sullivan of Philadelphia, the framer of the Sullivan Principles, a code of corporate conduct in South Africa, said that Mr. Oppenheimer ''has been a force for good, a progressive influence in South Africa, far beyond the vast majority of business leaders in that country.''

Mr. Sullivan, who, like Mr. Thomas, came to urge international investors to withdraw from South Africa, and disagreed with Mr. Oppenheimer in later years, said he continued to have ''the highest respect and regard for him.''

Mr. Oppenheimer maintained that an expanding economy was a better environment for political change than a contracting economy and therefore remained a steadfast opponent of economic sanctions as a means of pressing the South African government to relax racial strictures.

''I'm not one of the people who think that sanctions have no effect,'' he said in an interview in 1987. ''I think they have a very serious effect in South Africa, but I think the effect is bad in that it brings pressure to bear on people who are on your side anyhow. And it certainly doesn't force the government to change their policy.''

He continued: ''You know these highly nationalistic people in South Africa are extremely allergic to pressure from outside,'' and adding, ''In fact they become very bloody-minded about this sort of thing. They're a tiresome, obstinate lot, our masters.''

These ''masters,'' the Afrikaner nationalists who controlled the government from 1948, tried to have as little to do with Harry Oppenheimer as possible. Despite the enormous power conferred on him as the head of a group of companies that that were a leading force in the South African economy, Mr. Oppenheimer was never asked to dine with the prime minister in the first 34 years of rule by the National Party, the political form Afrikaner nationalism.

In 1982, he was finally invited, along with his house guest, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, to dine with Prime Minister P. W. Botha. By 1987, he said, he had seen Mr. Botha three or four times in the preceding year. But in the past, he recalled then: ''He objected to sitting down to the same lunch table with me. You see, I was not a very popular figure with him.''

And he said, ''I feel that in the direct political way I was able to achieve virtually nothing except to keep what I considered a voice of common sense and humanity alive.''

Mr. Oppenheimer said in the 1987 interview he believed that the growth of the economy had ''made the apartheid policy more and more implausible,'' and that the government was moving away from it. ''What they've not done is to make really significant movement on sharing political power.''

A little more than two years later, Mr. Botha's successor, F. W. de Klerk, legalized antiapartheid groups and began moving toward negotiations with them for a democratic constitution.

Majority rule, Mr. Oppenheimer said, would have to come in stages, with guarantees for the rights of various groups in the country. ''I think if you try to insist on having no guarantees for group rights, the effect would be that you won't get any movement at all,'' he said.

Mr. Oppenheimer was not someone to loudly take credit for his accomplishments and even less for his charities, which included the ''usual thing'' as he put it -- hospitals, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, and seed money for education, especially for blacks. A particular interest was the Urban Foundation, which he helped establish, dedicated to improving the environment in which black South Africans live in the cities.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46379650)

These ''masters,'' the Afrikaner nationalists who controlled the government from 1948, tried to have as little to do with Harry Oppenheimer as possible. Despite the enormous power conferred on him as the head of a group of companies that that were a leading force in the South African economy, Mr. Oppenheimer was never asked to dine with the prime minister in the first 34 years of rule by the National Party, the political form Afrikaner nationalism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46379653)

"Oppenheimer"... what is that, Swedish? Norwegian?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46379655)

the thing is this could be true so long as you don't let them vote. whoops

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46381271)

(Guy simultaneously poasting as tall jacked hot brilliant white goy Chad J. Worthington III in another XO political thread as he condescendingly explains that ackkkkshually, real Midwestern conservative Catholics like him — big Trump supporter here, btw! — look down on “retarded shrill one-note antisemites like you.”)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46378544)

Narrator: “Just like all of the Pumos.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46378561)

Oh wow a Pumo just called me "dumb." Fuck, this day just gets worse and worse!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46379578)

You really did ruin my day, Ari.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46380158)

I believe you, Moishe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46383450)

Explaining the need for the revised employment laws, Vincent Magwenya, spokesperson for President Cyril Ramaphosa, said most South African workplaces “haven’t transformed enough” since 1994.

“The new laws will promote diversity and equality in the workplace and empower the government to set specific equity targets by sector and region, where transformation initiatives have failed,” Magwenya told The Epoch Times.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46378571)

why don't they just move to a based red state?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46381144)

Govt raises concerns over attacks on Indians in South Africa as violence spreads in country

Concerned over the safety of Indian expats amid riots in South Africa, External Affairs Minister (EAM) S Jaishankar spoke to his South African counterpart Dr Naledi Pandor on Wednesday. The South African side assured that its government is doing "utmost to enforce law and order".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46381452)

By Natale Labia

Follow

30 May 2023 9

Natale Labia writes on the economy and finance. Partner and chief economist of a global investment firm, he writes in his personal capacity. MBA from Università Bocconi. Supports Juventus.

Without drifting into hyperbole, in their current state the regulations represent an unprecedented act of economic suicide.

South Africa is astonishingly creative at fashioning its own political, social and economic demise. Most similarly sized “emerging” economies facilitate their own respective Götterdämmerungs in far more facile ways. Installing some pliant sycophant in the central bank who promptly debases the currency and creates tearaway inflation is a tried and trusted strategy. Alternatively, a coup d’état by a group of gung-ho generals has been used with unparalleled effectiveness throughout Africa and the Global South.

South Africa, however, likes to do things its own way, taking the path less travelled to complete and utter bedlam.

Take the last four months as an example. From Phala Phala and Sofagate, via rolling blackouts and mysterious nocturnal interludes with the Lady R, South Africa has been outdoing itself on the self-harm stakes. And yet, it is now becoming apparent that these may well be mere harbingers of the cataclysm to come which is the amended Employment Equity Act.

Signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa on 14 April 2023, the first set of regulations to give effect to the amended Act was published for 30 days of public comment on 12 May. Without drifting into hyperbole, in their current state the regulations represent an unprecedented act of economic suicide.

Self-evidently, South Africa’s labour market is not working. Unemployment of 32.9% is among the highest in the world. Inequality is consistently the highest in the world, while despite a growing population the number of employed people has been flat for five years.

And so to help this pitiful state of affairs the Department of Employment and Labour — an Orwellian misnomer if ever there was one — has decided to add a set of racial and gender-based employment criteria that are so appallingly labyrinthine in complexity, so absurdly and patently unworkable in practice, that they make the Gosplan of the USSR look avowedly neoliberal.

Not only do the new regulations apply strict percentage-based criteria on the share of employees that have to be various genders, as well as African, Indian, coloured or white, they do so for specific sectors of the economy and regions. For example, for agriculture businesses in the Western Cape, 0.2% of senior management must be male Indians, while 27.6% of skilled employees must be female Africans and 14.8% coloured females.

Furthermore, these regulations will be mandatory for all businesses employing more than 50 people, and any failure to submit or implement the plan will result in a fine of up to 10% of the company’s turnover or R2.7-million, whichever is greater.

On closer inspection, thankfully there is some discretion left to the employers. For example, the totals of many targets in the exhaustive tables do not add up to 100%. However, in the skilled and professional sections, particularly as they pertain to the Western Cape, there is suspiciously little room for any discretion. This implies some broader (admittedly perverse and potentially malevolent) method behind this madness.

While it can (and will) be argued that the objectives are laudable, insofar as they pertain to redistribution and correcting the inequalities of the past, it is hard to know where to begin on the problems.

First, labour markets are essentially dynamic and fluid constructs. As it stands, South Africa’s labour market is already far too regulated and rigid for the scale of the unemployment crisis and the average level of human capital. Adding such enormously onerous directives as outlined in these regulations will increase the costs of running businesses and employing people, thereby exacerbating unemployment.

Second, reintroducing categories based on racial categories such as African, coloured and Indian would be socially cataclysmic. If signed into law, it would be the first time since the repeal of the Population Registration Act in 1991. Will employers have to resort to the “pencil test” to ensure their “targets” are being met?

Finally, the regional implications are equally disastrous. The constant movement of people between provinces has been a fundamental feature of the post-apartheid era, and an essential prerequisite for even a semi-functioning labour market. Racial and gender-based employment targets will be a disincentive for South Africans from certain population groups to move to areas where possible work for their expertise may exist, compounding regional shortages and entrenching existing racial patterns. Coloured and Indian South Africans will be particularly adversely affected as the targeted allocations for these groupings are small except in a few regions.

Ramaphosa is often accused of being a preternaturally absent president who does nothing except appoint endless committees to deliberate what can be done. On almost all dossiers of actual importance and urgency — foreign affairs, corruption, South Africa’s failing SOEs and the power crisis — he has been conspicuous by his absence.

However, and most remarkably, in the one part of the economy that really just needs the state to do nothing and exit the space altogether — making space for business to create employment opportunities in a free market wherever it can — his administration risks being self-destructively and calamitously interventionist.

For the moment, the new regulations are open to public comment and deliberations until June 12. As the amended Act has already been signed into law, Minister Thulas Nxesi has full discretion on the regulations, and there is no guarantee he will change them. All South Africans — be they employers, employees or unemployed — should be praying that something happens between now and the Act coming into force.

Deflecting criticism with the clichéd excuse of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is dubious. Some agenda of malfeasance seems to be at work. Perhaps the ANC’s eye is already on deals to be done in 2024. Either way, if these regulations are not heavily amended, great damage to an already crippled economy is sure to be done. DM

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2023-05-30-employment-equity-act-yet-another-act-of-absurd-south-african-self-harm-looms/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5348903&forum_id=2#46382036)