The inspiration for this posting sprung to mind after reading an article in today’s Afrikaans newspaper, Rapport. The article, which can be viewedonline here in Afrikaans, suggests that there was a clear-cut possibility (Afr. Klinkklare aanduiding) that specific words published in the August 1966 issue of Time Magazine ‘upset’ Demetrio Tsafendas to such a degree that he decided to murder Dr H F Verwoerd eleven days later, by stabbing him to death, on 6 September 1966.

At the trial, Judge Andries Beyers declared Tsafendas not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. The court ordered that he be detained “at the pleasure of the State President”, which meant that only the State President (later President) had the authority to release him. He was never released, and eventually died in Oct 1999, at the age of 81. At the time of his death, he was a patient at Sterkfontein psychiatric hospital near Krugersdorp.

If you read today’s Rapport-article attentively, you’ll notice a tiny hint of sarcasm in the reporting, and also a strong, yet subtle, impulse to substantiate the worldview that Tsafendas, and no one else, had a motive to murder Dr Verwoerd. (Oh, julle vuilgoed – Naspers!)

The August 1966 Time Magazine-article was 6 pages long, but it was one short sentence that allegedly triggered Tsafendas to murder one of the world’s most educated and respected statesmen of the 20th century. That specific sentence read as follows:

“A Greek immigrant from Cyprus was nearly refused entrance to South Africa recently because he had acquired a deep suntan on the ship.”

Was the mind of Tsafendas perhaps programmed by the covert CIA human research program – known as MK-ULTRA?  Well, if we take in the whole mountain of circumstantial evidence surrounding the death of Dr HF Verwoerd, then it indeed seems as if this devilish technique could have been used on Tsafendas, and that the above trigger-words in Time Magazine, and perhaps other trigger-words, signs or gestures was all that was needed to activate the chemicals and sensors in his brain.

While reading this report please bear in mind that it was compiled long before Alan D. Elsdon’s book, The Tall Assassin, was published. In this book, which the author claims is based on fact, Elsdon describes in vivid detail who were behind the assassination of Prime Minister HF Verwoerd, and other prominent South Africans, and how it was done. The Tall Assassin is also availabale in Afrikaans – Die Lang Generaal.

Take Note: The report I’ve published below was sourced from www.scribd.com in a poorly formatted state. I’ve taken the liberty of fixing the formatting and a few minor punctuation errors.

The revolutionary developments in South Africa culminating in the April 27, 1994 general elections and the handing over of political power to the Communist-controlled ANC have been gaining momentum since the assassination on the 6th September 1966 of Dr H F Verwoerd, the South African Prime Minister, by the Communist Demetrio Tsafendas. And it is therefore well to look afresh at the developments in their historical contexts.

Dr Verwoerd led an immensely successful Afrikaner government against the British-American-supported White parliamentary opposition and the extra-parliamentary Jewish-Communist-led Black opposition.

How successful this government was, may be seen from the evidence by opponents and enemies of Dr Verwoerd, for example that of the now defunct Rand Daily Mail, which on July 30, 1966 (five weeks before the assassination of Dr Verwoerd) wrote as follows:

Surfeit of Prosperity

Rand Daily Mail – July 30, 1966

“At the age of nearly 65 Dr Verwoerd has reached the peak of a remarkable career. No other South African prime minister has ever been in such a powerful position in the country. He is at the head of a massive majority after a resounding victory at the polls. The nation is suffering from a surfeit of prosperity and he can command almost unlimited funds for all that he needs at present in the way of military defence. He can claim that South Africa is a shining example of peace in a troubled continent, if only because overwhelming domestic power can always command peace. Finally as if that were not enough, he can face the session (of Parliament) with the knowledge that, short of an unthinkable show of force by people whom South Africans are rapidly being taught to regard as their enemies, he can snap his fingers at the United Nations. Thanks to the recent judgment of the Hague Court (on the South West Africa issue) he can afford to condescend to the world body graciously remaining a member as long as it suits him. Indeed, the Prime Minister has never had it so good!”

Note: “the nation is suffering from a surfeit of prosperity”; “South Africa is a shining example of peace on a troubled continent”; “unlimited funds for… military defence”; and “he can snap his fingers at the United Nations”. And the Rand Daily Mail was a vociferous opponent to Dr Verwoerd!

“Apartheid”

This strong position was achieved by Dr Verwoerd under a policy of separate development (apartheid). The living standards of blacks were rising at 5,4% per year against that of the Whites at 3,9% per year. In 1965 the economic growth rate was the second highest in the world at 7,9%. The rate of inflation was 2% per annum and the prime interest rate 3% per annum. Domestic savings were so great that South Africa needed no foreign loans for normal economic expansion.

A few months before the assassination, the editor of the British periodical Statist, Paul Bareau, wrote: “At the rate at which South Africa is now expanding the term ‘miracle’ is likely to be appropriate to its development over the next few years”. So, the expectations were that in ‘the next few years South Africa, under a policy of separate development (apartheid), would be in a very strong position against any economic or military threat.

SA becoming dominating force

It was plain that in these circumstances South Africa was poised to become the dominating and unifying force in Southern Africa against the British-American-supported terrorist onslaught on the Portuguese territories of Mozambique and Angola and on Rhodesia and South West Africa.

The powerful rise of South Africa ran counter the British- American plans for this region, which were primarily to break the White political power in each of these territories and prevent a consolidation of Whites over territorial boundaries against British-American objectives.

It is well to recall that, for instance, the Frelimo terrorists received substantial financial support from the Ford Foundation of the USA, acting most likely as a front for the CIA and the State Department and that the ANC, while banned in South Africa, had its head office in London; and almost every Communist who left South Africa for safer ground, did not go to the Kremlin, but to London. And unquestionably, the Anti- Apartheid Movement (more correctly: the Anti-Afrikaner Movement) in Britain was a British Secret Service operation against South Africa – not forgetting that the US and Britain in an act of war already in 1961 instituted an arms boycott against South Africa; and that the USA was behind Liberia and Ethiopia’s application to the International Court in 1961 to break South West Africa’s ties with South Africa.

Notwithstanding the British and American influence in international affairs, South Africa was growing stronger and stronger.

Massive Boom

Time Magazine of August 26, 1966 – eleven days before the assassination of Dr Verwoerd – wrote: “South Africa is in the midst of a massive boom. Attracted by cheap labour a gold-backed currency and high profits, investors from all over the world have ploughed money into the country, and the new industries that they have started have sent production, consumption – and the demand for labour – soaring. Such are the proportions of prosperity…” = certainly a remarkably admission by this publication well-known for its bias towards the Verwoerd government. In the same vein, a political opponent of Dr Verwoerd, Jan Botha, in his book “Verwoerd is Dead” wrote:

Whites Forged Together

From the Book – Verwoerd is Dead by Jan Francois Botha

“By the time he died, Dr Verwoerd had built his own monument which was there for all to see: the Republic of South Africa. The White people had been forged together in unity, the country was militarily strong and resilient, the police and security forces were effectively dealing with all attempts at subversion and infiltration, the country’s economy was dynamic, expanding and had become largely self-sufficient.

In the history of South Africa his name will live for ever as the leader, who, when his country was threatened with internal disorder and with economic sanctions, boycotts and open aggression from overseas, stood as a symbol of defiance, and the will and determination to survive.”

It was evident that the British-American tactics had failed and that the direct opposite of what they were trying to achieve was actually taking place.

The problem facing the British and American power brokers was not only the rising power of the South African state in the Southern African context, but also the demonstrable success of a government following a policy of separate development (apartheid), as opposed to the glaring failure of the policies of racial integration espoused by the British and American enemies of Dr Verwoerd and his government. An article in the Afrikaans Sunday newspaper, Rapport, of the 22nd May, 1994 was most revealing in this respect. Dealing with the anticipated decision for the return of South Africa to the Commonwealth after the April 27 election, the author (Jack Viviers) said that if FW de Klerk would be a party to such a decision “it would remove a large part of the hate from the view held by a considerable number of influential Britons on Afrikaners”. This animosity is a seldom acknowledged fact, the usual thing being to accuse the Afrikaners of “still fighting the Boer War”. The article reads further: “The attitude of the British, particularly the mandarins of the British Foreign Office, who were in the vanguard of the fight against the National Government, was explained to me by an equally influential Brit… Lord Deedes, former editor of the Daily Telegraph… ” So the British government was fighting the South African government – a continuation, by other means, of the Boer War.

“Lord Deedes …said that in the eyes of these British South Africans, and especially Afrikaans-speakers, had made two big mistakes. One was to leave the Commonwealth – and addition ‘to survive’.  This constitutes the height of spite and envy, implying that these Britons had hoped that South Africa would not survive, with all the dire consequences for the entire population. Only a deep-seated and incurable animosity could produce such sentiments. What follows this remarkable admission by Lord Deedes is even more remarkable. “While South Africa grew to become the economic giant of the continent, the other members of the Common-wealth virtually sank into poverty. This was the complete opposite of what they had hoped. That South Africa, under an Afrikaner government with their policy of apartheid, and no relations with the Commonwealth, should have become the economic giant of Africa was making the British Foreign Officeenvy, implying that these Britons had hoped that South Africa would not survive, with all the dire consequences for the entire population. Only a deep-seated and incurable animosity could produce such sentiments.

What follows this remarkable admission by Lord Deedes is even more remarkable. “While South Africa grew to become the economic giant of the continent, the other members of the Common-wealth virtually sank into poverty. This was the complete opposite of what they had hoped. That South Africa, under an Afrikaner government with their policy of apartheid, and no relations with the Commonwealth, should have become the economic giant of Africa was making the British Foreign Office and the US State Department to think what they had thought was unthinkable.

And what made this even worse was that countries following policies opposed to that of South Africa’s “apartheid” were sinking into poverty.

It was evident that Dr Verwoerd was winning the cold war conducted against the Afrikaner government of South Africa from the British Foreign Office and the US State Department.

South Africa’s increasingly powerful position in the sub-continent foreshadowed a Southern Africa of White-controlled governments, economically and militarily equal to any threat or adventure from outside and also to the challenge of the communist-led and British-American supported terrorists operating in Southern Africa. (Significantly, the first terrorist attack by Swapo took place within three weeks after the assassination of Dr Verwoerd, as if they were waiting for the event).

It was evident that the peace and prosperity enjoyed in South Africa and the development of a White-controlled Southern African block were serious obstacles to the British-American objectives in Southern and South Africa, and had therefore to be ended. And in this, Dr Verwoerd was at the core of their problem. If he could be removed it would trigger a whole series of events.

As has been the practice of imperialists even in the days of the Roman Empire, the present-day American and British imperialists latch on to the rich minorities in other countries. And this was also done in South Africa. The representative of the New York Herald Tribune, Arnold Beichman, wrote in the Johannesburg Sunday Times (20th June, 1965) that ‘prominent businessmen and industrialists in South Africa exert great pressure on the Prime Minister in the hope that he and his Cabinet would stop their anti-American speeches… Among the business groups which have expressed their dissatisfaction in private circles were prominent insurance companies, banks and liquor undertakings in Cape Town and Johannesburg.

Having identified these three types of businesses, Beichman came so close to naming the specific businesses that it was not necessary to say that the spokesmen were A D Wassenaar of SANLAM (insurance), Jan Marais of Trust Bank, and Anton Rupert of Rembrandt (liquor) – all three having had strong British and American connections. Wassenaar was married to the daughter of a former Lord Mayor of London, and he was a founder member of the Council of Foreign Relations front organisation, the United States-South Africa Leader Exchange Programme (USSALEP). Jan Marais boasted that his bank was run on American lines and that he was constantly visiting the USA.

Rupert was not only a founder member of USSALEP, but the key figure in its founding. He was financed by the Rothschild group in getting his tobacco concern on a sound basis and in acquiring tobacco interests such as Rothmans in Britain. Although strongly anti-British during World War II, he soon loosened his ties with the Afrikaner nationalists and became an exponent of a Pax Americana, hosting Bobby Kennedy on his visit to South Africa in 1961 and in various ways demonstrating his identification with British-American objectives.

These Afrikaans-speaking businessmen, in their movement away from their Afrikaner nationalist compatriots, inevitably moved closer to the internationalist Anglo-American financial interests, represented by Harry Oppenheimer’s Anglo- American Corp., which constituted the core of hostility to Afrikaner nationalism, and which was the successor to the financial interests that forced Britain in the war against the Boer republics in 1899-1902. (See J A Hobson: The War in South Africa, James Nisbetl, London, 1900)

Dr Verwoerd had been preparing to meet the challenge from these quarters and for this reason he unofficially instituted an investigation into the Anglo-American Corp. under the leadership of Prof Piet Hoek. The Hoek report was a very thorough job, and was privately circulated late in1965, early 1966, and evidently Oppenheimer, Rupert and others had been aware of the investigation. When Dr Verwoerd, on the 25th January 1966 said in Parliament: “We shall oppose the power concentrations and monopolies which occur in our country, and which constitute a real danger”, it was an oblique but unmistakable reference to the Hoek Report. Those who were involved in ‘the power concentrations and monopolies” knew what this would mean to their interests. And consequently they would have thought of ways to stop it.

The Oppenheimer empire had complete control of the English newspapers in South Africa, and they dutifully conformed to the requirements of protecting the money power interests and of promoting the British-American objectives in Southern Africa against Afrikaner nationalism.

On the other hand, the abovementioned Cape business leaders were closely associated with the Nasionale Pers Piet Cillie, who in 1960-61 had tried his hand against Dr Verwoerd and got very much the worst of it. He was therefore not only generally opposed to Dr Verwoerd’s position, but he was the type of man who would have been prone to what G H Calpin in reference to Dr Verwoerd said in his book At last we’ve got our country back: “He (Dr Verwoerd) was the kind of man who might instinctively have invited the dislike of some for the sheer mathematical brilliance of his intellect… He had the mind of a computer” Cillib could not forgive Verwoerd his excellence and his success in governing the country. Consequently he was an obvious target for the American-infiltrated agents such as E S Munger.

These were the forces and the most prominent persons ranged against Dr Verwoerd and the policy of separate development in the ‘sixties. Dr Verwoerd was at the peak of his power, having successfully overcome the diplomatic and economic effects of leaving the Commonwealth in1961; uniting the white nation as never before; succeeding in creating an economic boom of unprecedented proportions; launching a program of military preparedness; crushing the Rivonia Slovo-Mandela-Communist plan of overthrowing the government by violent means; refusing to institute economic sanctions against the Rhodesian government of (an Smith after UDI and giving the Rhodesians moral and other support; practically annihilating the parliamentary opposition in the March 1966 general elections; and, very important, having the possibility of foreign intervention eliminated as a result of the International Court verdict in South Africa’s favour on the South West Africa issue.

The country was in an almost unassailable position. After the International Court verdicton the South West Africa issue, Dr Verwoerd was poised to lead South Africa to a position of power in international politics and of consolidating the Whites of Southern Africa into a power block. Of course, this ran counter the plan of the international money powers and the British and American imperialists.

They had been so sure of getting a verdict against South Africa on the South West Africa issue that three days before the announcement of the Court’s verdict on the 18th July, 1966, the American Ambassador to South Africa delivered an aide memoire to Dr Verwoerd’s government that the USA would accept the Court verdict and expected the contending parties to abide by it.

The implication of this was that if Dr Verwoerd had refused to abide by an adverse verdict it would have constituted cause for military intervention by the USA in the guise of the United Nations Organisation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in anticipation of a court verdict against South Africa having the year before provided what the Chicago Tribune had called a “battle blueprint” entitled “Apartheid and United Nations Collective Measures” by Amelia Leiss for military operations against South Africa. The Carnegie Endowment has been documented “as a powerful policy- making force inside the State Department” (Freeman Digest, June, 1984).

With the court verdict going against the US expectations, the whole elaborate scheme devised for acting against South Africa with the object of ending Dr Verwoerd’s rule, came to an abrupt end, leaving Dr Verwoerd very much stronger than before and his opponents completely frustrated.

This development must be seen as the failure of the ultimate plan for stopping Dr Verwoerd, all other possibilities having been previously eliminated: the parliamentary opposition of the former United Party and the former Progressive Party, enjoying American and British support, had been rendered impotent through the loss of support; the Communist-inspired plans of overthrowing the government by violent means had been effectively thwarted by the clean-up of the Rivonia gang, ending in the conviction of Nelson Mandela and his cohorts; the break-up of the SA Communist Party cells and the arrest and conviction of its leader, ex-Rhodes scholar, Abraham Fischer, The only remaining option for stopping Dr Verwoerd was foreign intervention on the question of South West Africa, on the grounds of an anticipated international Court verdict against South Africa.

When this failed in July 1966, there was only one option left – put an end to Dr Verwoerd’s life. Cillie – Rupert and “Verwoerd must go” plan.

Nine days before the assassination of Dr Verwoerd The Sunday Tribune (Durban) published a front page report banner headlined ‘Verwoerd must go’ plan: Cape Nats back Anton Rupert”  It will be noticed that it is alleged that Piet Cillie, editor of Die Burger spearheaded the campaign and that Rupert was to replace Dr Verwoerd. It is stated that “There has been a carefully planned operation to isolate Dr Verwoerd and force a show-down” Neither Rupert nor Cillie ever repudiated this sensational report in public.

What makes Rupert’s alleged involvement more intriguing is that shortly after the assassination he was reported to have said: “The fact that Dr Verwoerd was no longer Prime Minister was the best thing that could have happened for South Africa”. I dealt with the matter in my book “Die Era van Verwoerd” published in 1992, and I wrote to Cillie referring him to this newspaper report and asking him as the alleged spearhead in what way it had been planned to remove Dr Verwoerd. Any effort to have had him removed as leader of the National Party as a result of the adoption of a motion of no-confidence was completely out of the question. So what other way was there?

In reply Cillie denied any knowledge of the Tribune report! And he refused to answer the question. Instead he said any suggestion that he had been involved in the assassination amounted to madness. And he said he was referring my letter to his lawyers. I wrote to him again emphasising the need, for historical reasons, to answer the relevant question, but nothing has since been heard from either him or his lawyers.

By all accounts it is a most remarkable thing that nine days before the assassination of Dr Verwoerd a newspaper should report: “‘Verwoerd must go’ plan” and ‘The knives are out in the Nationalist Party… and Dr Verwoerd himself is the main target”, and well-known opponents to Dr Verwoerd were allegedly involved. Remarkably, the one-man commission appointed by Dr Verwoerd’s successor to (behind closed doors) investigate the murder did not bother at all to enquire into this Sunday Tribune report, for instance examining the author about her source of information and calling on Cillie to explain his alleged involvement in a “Verwoerd must go” plan nine days before the assassination.

What made this even more remarkable was another incident in Cape Town. Three days before the assassination, a conversation took place between people on the Table Bay quay and seamen on a  Greek boat, the Eleni which had been lying in Table Bay for repairs for more than a month. Tsafendas, the assassin, had been a regular visitor to this boat and according to at least one witness had tried to buy a weapon from one of those on the boat. It will be noted from the following excerpts from the commission’s report that three days before the assassination men on the Eleni were in conversation with people on the quay and someone on the boat asked whether they knew that Dr Verwoerd was dead.

“Another visitor to the Eleni was a Mrs Kokkinidou, a widow. Both she and the Captain originally came from Kilimnos, Greece. She was accompanied by Mr Nicolai Christodoulos, a bachelor who lodges with her. Her son Constantinos Kikkinidou had started work on the Eleni in August,1966.”

On the morning of 3rd September 1966, the ship had to be moved, and for this reason the gangplank was drawn up.

“The night watch, Stollenkamp, stood on deck because he was unable to get off the ship, and the morning watch, Maile, stood on the quay. The latter had a copy of the Cape Times with him. Near Mr Stollenkamp stood Constantinos Kikkinidou. On the quay Mrs Kokkinidou and Mr Cristo-doulos stood a short distance from Mr Maile. As there are some discrepancies in the versions of what exactly happened then, the account of each of these five persons is given. Four gave oral evidence and a statement was received from Constantinos Kokkinidou”.

Paragraph 81: “Mr Maile said that Mrs Kokkinidou asked him: ‘ls Verwoerd dead’. He says that he then called spontaneously to Stollenkamp and asked whether Dr Verwoerd was dead…”

Paragraph 82: “Mrs Kokkihidou says that her son shouted to her from the deck and asked whether she had heard the news that Dr Verwoerd was dead?”

Paragraph 83: “Mr Christodoulos confirmed Mrs Kokkinidoub evidence’.

Paragraph 84: “Constantinos Kokkinidou stated that the night watch said to them “Do you know what? Dr Verwoerd has been killed’…”

Paragraph 85: “Stollenkamp says that Maile told him that Dr Verwoerd was dead… ”

Paragraph 86: “lt is impossible to establish with any certainty exactly what was said. However there is no doubt that Dr Verwoerd’s death was mentioned on that morning, three days before his death. What makes these incidents more than a coincidence is the fact that this was said at the ship which was visited daily for almost 40 days by the man who killed Dr Verwoerd, where he bought a pistol and tried to buy a knife which he wanted to use – according to at least one statement made by him subsequently – to kill Dr Verwoerd.

The fact that Dr Verwoerd’s death was mentioned at that ship was probably more than pure coincidence’. Although significantly saying: ” That the fact that Dr Verwoerd’s death was mentioned at that ship was probably more than pure coincidence”, the Commissioner, strangely, did not go into this any further! If it was not coincidence, then of course it pointed to prior knowledge of Dr Verwoerd’s impending death. Yet the Commissioner just left it at that, and for instance did not even inquire into the connections of the Eleni, which incidentally left Table Bay harbour on the day of the assassination.

Evidently, the conversation on the 3rd September shows that in those quarters there was some knowledge of a planned attempt on Dr Verwoerd’s life.

This was made more intriguing by another incident. On the day of the assassination, September 6, The Evening Standard of London carried the following report: “Young man on Dieppe-Newhaven ferry asked if there was any news of the Verwoerd’s assassination – last Friday (i.e.2nd September).  Man he asked was Mr Allan Lomas, New Liberal candidate for Islington East in last General Election. Mr Lomas said today: “I was waiting to buy newspaper and coffee when young man asked – because he had no change to buy a paper – whether there was any report on Verwoerd assassination. I scanned paper and said he could borrow it as I was finished. I looked in Sunday papers and made inquiries about any attempts on Dr Verwoerd’s life but of course found nothing.”

It is very strange! So, also in Europe (or Britain) there was some indication of an anticipated assassination of Dr Verwoerd.

The Commissioner, instead of dealing properly with this as a most extraordinary event, gave a superficial account of enquiries made by someone (unnamed) at the SA Embassy in London. The Commissioner left the million dollar question unanswered: how is it possible that such a newspaper report could have been published on the day of the assassination if there had not been some prior anticipation that an attempt on Dr Verwoerd’s life would be made?

The Commissioner instead took it on him to discredit the man who gave the information to the newspaper merely on the evidence of an unnamed official who had described this person as someone who “did not make a good impression”, which is completely irrelevant to the matter of how the man concerned could have raised the question of assassination of Dr Verwoerd four days before the actual assassination. These two apparently unrelated occurrences shortly before the assassination irresistibly suggest a widely-planned action, about which some information had been leaked, either accidentally or intentionally.

Much can be written about the assassin, Demetrio Tsafendas, but it would be wrong to put him and his dastardly act in the central position. Whatever and whoever was behind Tsafendas maybe speculated about in light of the circumstances dealt with above, but that he was “a lone killer” acting completely on his own is palpable nonsense. Tsafendas was identified by the South African authorities as a Communist in June 1937, when he had applied for permanent residence in South Africa and was refused. He later admitted that he had joined the Communist Party in1939.

In the early forties he was in the USA and served on various ships. In December 1946 he was admitted to the North Grafton Hospital where it was noted that he had become a Communist at the age of twenty. But it was also noted that “he faked mental illness because he was afraid to ship out because of numerous leakings in the ship”.

In 1947 he again applied for permanent residence in South Africa but was refused on the grounds “that he was a Communist”. And in 1959 his name was placed on the so- called black list of the Department of Home Affairs.

In May 1959 he went to Britain and while there he was noticed in the company of leftists. Tsafendas said that some of these persons in private raised the possibility of having the Prime Minister of South Africa shot. Less than a year later in April 1960 Dr Verwoerd was, at short range, shot twice in his face by David Beresford Pratt, who had also been to Britain and had been involved in political activities of the Liberal Party. Miraculously Dr Verwoerd survived this attempt on his life.

In November 1963 Tsafendas entered South Africa illegally, and in February 1964 he applied for permanent residence. In his application he stated that he did not suffer from any mental illness, and a medical certificate to this effect was attached. Strangely unaware of files containing Tsafendas’ previous history, the Immigration Board granted him permanent residence. Tsafendas thereafter worked for various employers in South Africa. In March 1965 he was medically examined by the South African Railway and Harbours and they founded nothing wrong with him .

In August 1965 he applied to be reclassified as a Coloured and it was then decided that he should be deported. The Minister of Home Affairs signed the deportation order on the 8th August, 1966, but on the date of the assassination the order had not been sent to the SA Police for execution. On the 20th July, 1966 Tsafendas was appointed as a messenger in the House of Assembly with effect from the 1st August, 1966.  And on the 6th September, 1966 he assassinated Dr Verwoerd in the House of Assembly.

Now certain aspects of the assassination must be looked at more closely. Tsafendas after such a short time in parliamentary service could not have had sufficient insight in parliamentary proceedings to know what time would be the most suitable for the attack. He must have been advised that the most unguarded and most relaxed time was shortly before the commencement of the day’s proceedings, when MP’s strolled to their benches chatting, or seated already, paged through documents. This was the atmosphere in which he entered the Assembly Chamber and proceeded to where Dr Verwoerd was seated. He stabbed Dr Verwoerd four times, three of the wounds being of a fatal nature.

A medical doctor in the House who attended to Dr Verwoerd was afterwards reported to have said that “the assassin must have received training in the art of wielding a knife”. And an Afrikaans Sunday paper reported that from medical evidence it was evident that the assassin must have had thorough training. Yet the one-man commission appointed by Dr Verwoerd’s successor agreed with the finding of the medical practitioner who did the autopsy that there was “no ground for the rumour that the wounds had been inflicted by an expert”.

This is of the same quality as the second paragraph of the Chapter of the Commission’s report entitled “Were there accomplices?” It reads as follows: “The Commission could find no evidence which could justify a finding that there were accomplices”.

In itself this would have caused eyebrows to raise, but what made it more suspect was the remarks of the man who had appointed the Commission, B J Vorster, Dr Verwoerd’s successor. The day after the assassination (September 7) The Star (Johannesburg) had a headline: “No sign of assassination plot. This was the work of a lone killer says Vorster”.

Now, this was most extraordinary, the Minister responsible pronouncing a verdict before any evidence could be led and a finding made. It stands to reason that the man subsequently appointed by him to conduct the investigation could not very well have repudiated his principal by making a finding to the contrary and thereby call attention to this suspicious action on Vorster’s part, clearly aimed at forestalling any finding of a conspiracy or of involvement of accomplices.

Apart from this flagrantly irresponsible and grave infringement on the province of the subsequently appointed Commission of Enquiry, Vorster’s role as Minister of Justice and therefore of Security, making him responsible for the security of Dr Verwoerd, is extremely questionable. It is the more questionable in view of his role in subsequently systematically destroying the foundations upon which Dr Verwoerd had built.

Another example of his handling of the events after the assassination centred on a press report that the Security Police had had a file on Tsafendas, and that when the head of the Security Police was phoned on the day of the assassination he in a short while had a file with him. The amazing thing that then happened was that Vorster issued a statement that “the report that the Security Police had a file on Tsafendas was devoid of all truth’. This was an evident cover-up as it was later revealed that the Security Police had had no less than four files on Tsafendas.

But only one was available from a room with “dead files”. One had been destroyed without authority, another had also been destroyed, and the fourth was completely missing. Vorster’s statement denying that there was a file was therefore calculated to mislead the public Vorster protected.

The revelations about the various files came only after Vorster, in the emotional atmosphere subsequent to the assassination, had been elected to succeed Dr Verwoerd.

And the repudiation of the initial press report about a file on Tsafendas was evidently made to prevent any suggestion that there had been negligence on the part of the Security Police which, if confirmed before the election of Dr Verwoerd’s successor, would have reflected so adversely on Vorster as the responsible minister, that it would probably have eliminated him as a possible successor to Dr Verwoerd. Vorster, unknown to most of his supporters, was on friendly terms with Anton Rupert, who was allegedly involved in the “Verwoerd must go plan”. And Vorster, Rupert and other financial imperialists subsequently worked together in destroying what Dr Verwoerd had built.

It was later revealed in two books – South Africa Inc. and E Oppenheimer and Son – that Vorster had had cordial relations with Harry Oppenheimer of Anglo-American – something that would have destroyed his chances of succeeding Dr Verwoerd, had it been known to the majority of the National Party Caucus.

If one proceeds from the premise that at the assassination of a political leader one must ask: who benefited from the death, then there are several obvious candidates.

The first is Vorster and his immediate associates, who were put at the levers of power – an immense gain both personally and politically. The second group is the Verwoerd opponents in the National Party, like Anton Rupert and Piet Cillie. The third is the money powers with in the lead Harry Oppenheimer and Anton Rupert, who opposed Dr Verwoerd and knew that he was going to limit their monopolistic operations.

The fourth, and perhaps the most important is the British-American powers behind the ANC, who were out to break the Afrikaners’ political power and get South Africa in line with the other Communist-controlled Southern African States of Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia.

Tsafendas undoubtedly was a Communist, but it is not to the Soviet and the KGB that one must look for clues to the assassination of Dr Verwoerd. Tsafendas’ Communist leanings was a useful shield behind which others in Britain, the USA and probably also Israel, as well as some in South Africa operated. For all of these Dr Verwoerd constituted a stark obstacle to their aims. In his adherence to principles he was gaining in power and international stature.

Dr Verwoerd’s refusal to make concessions under pressure from outside was soon undermined by his successor, B J Vorster, who was not only ill-equipped, but almost entirely unqualified to handle foreign policy. He was made to believe that by abandoning Dr Verwoerd’s “granite” stand and making concessions, he would buy off British and American enmity and would gain their support.

In this he was most likely influenced by the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hilgaard Muller, ex-Rhodes scholar, an inept politician, who kept on course under Dr Verwoerd but on his death became the link between Vorster and the British Foreign Office through certain of his Oxford contemporaries, particularly James Callaghan, then Secretary for Foreign Affairs under Harold Wilson, resulting in a meeting between Vorster and Callaghan in December 1974.

From April 1974 to August 1976 Vorster betrayed the Whites of Mozambique, allowing the Communists to take over, as also the Whites of Rhodesia, introducing economic sanctions against Rhodesia and pressurising (an Smith to accept Black rule; and the Whites of South West Africa, by accepting the so-called Western Powers’ formula which was then translated into the infamous Resolution 435 of the UN Security Council, which laid the foundation for the Communist take-over of South West Africa. Thus the possibility of a White-controlled Southern Africa, with South Africa as its power centre, was destroyed and the conditions created for the last bastion against Communism in Southern Africa to fall to the Communists-controlled ANC in a bloodless coup, facilitated by FW de Klerk who continued the course of action spelled out by Vorster in the nineteen seventies.

What must be noted is that the government formed by the new State President is all but representative of Black majority rule. The government presently consist of 27 ministers and 12 deputy ministers, apart from the President and two deputy presidents. Of the 18 ANC representatives in the Cabinet appointed by the President at least 10 are members of the Communist Party, and several more suspected Communists. And of the nine deputy ministers representing the ANC at least four are Communists. The significance of this is that the South African Communist Party (SACP) on its own would not have been able to get a single member of parliament elected, yet it is in a commanding position in the government – in the name of majority rule!

The list of office bearers as at 1st July, 1994 are as follows:

President : Nelson Mandela (ANC)
Vice Presidents: Thabo Mbeki (ANC, former member of SACP); FW De Klerk (NP)
Minister of Justice: Dullah Omar (SACP)
Deputy: Chris Fismer (NP)
Minister of Defence Joe Modise (ANC, Former Chief of Staff of Mkonto we Sizwe)
Deputy: Ronnie Kasrils (SACP)
Minister of Safety and Security: Sidney Mafumadi (SACP)
Deputy: Joe Matthews (IFP)
Minister of Education: Sibusiso Bengu (ANC)
Deputy: Renier Schoeman (NP)
Minister of Commerce and Industry: Trevor Manuel (Alleged SACP)
Minister of Foreign Affairs : Alfred Nzo (SACP)
Deputy: Aziz Pahad (SACP)
Minister of Labour: Tito Mboweni (SACP)
Minister of Post, Telecommunications and Broadcasting: Pallo Jordan (Alleged SACP)
Minister of Health Nkozane Zuma (SACP, wife of Jacob Zuma, well- known Com-munist)
Minister of Transport: Mac Maharaj (SACP)
Minister of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development: Roelf Meyer (NP)
Deputy: Mohammed Valli Moosa (SACP)
Minister of Land Affairs Derek Hanekom (Alleged SACP)
Deputy: Tobie Meyer (NP)
Minister of Public Concerns: Stella Sigcau (ANC)
Minister of Civil Service and Administration : Zola Skweyiya (ANC)
Minister of Housing: Joe Slovo (SACP)
Minister of Public Works Jeff Radebe (SACP)
Minister of Correctional Services: Sipho Mzimela (IFP)
Minister of Finance Derek Keys (NP, but appointed by Mandela) *
Minister of Agriculture: Kraai van Niekerk (NP)
Deputy: Thoko Msane (ANC)
Minister of Sport: Steve Tshwete (SACP)
Minister of Home Affairs : Mangosuthu Buthelezi (IFP)
Deputy : Penuell Maduna (SACP)
Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry: Kader Asmal (alleged SACP)
Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs: Pik Botha (NP)
Minister of Environment and Tourism : Dawie De Villiers (NP)
Deputy: Bantu Holomisa (ANC)
Minister of Welfare and Population Development: Abe Williams (NP)
Deputy : Sankie Nkondo
Minister of Art, Culture, Sience and Technologie: Ben Ngubane (SACP)
Deputy :Winnie Mandela (Alleged SACP)
Minister without Ponfolio : Jay Naiddoo (SACP)

*Resigned, replaced by Chris Liebenberg, long standing ANC confidant.

What it also remarkable in this list is that the “majority rule” has four Indians (Omar, Naidoo, Maharaj and Asmal) as ministers and two as deputy ministers: Pahad and Valli Moosa), while Indians as a group would hardly have succeeded in getting so many representatives elected to the 400-strong parliament on a proportional basis. They are all Communists, although Asmal’s membership has not been confirmed.

The Communist, Slovo is a Jew as most probably also Trevor Manuel. Apart from the equivocal position occupied by Derek Keys, there is only one English South African among the ministers and deputies, Alec Erwin. The only Afrikaans-speaker representing the ANC, Hanekom, (suspected to be a Communist) has now been joined by Chris Liebenberg, a nominal Afrikaner, in place of Derek Keys, who saw that it was impossible to reconcile sound financial administration with communist doctrine and the demands of trade union leaders.

Another noteworthy fact is that several appointments of Ministers and deputies were made after the initial announcements of appointments. These are Steve Tshwete, Aziz Pahad, Winnie Mandela, Valli Moosa, Alec Erwin and Ronnie Kasrils. They are all Communists whose membership has been confirmed, except in the case of Winnie Mandela, who was suspected by the previous government of being a Communist.

Their appointments were either withheld earlier in order to soften the impression of Communist domination, or they were made under pressure from the SACP and the more radical section of the ANC. This is of particular significance in view of the existence and operations of “the creeping coup” in the SACP revealed by The International Freedom Foundation in April 1991. It was initiated in the early eighties by Slovo, Maharaj, Kasrils and the deceased Hani “to capture every senior position within the ANC”. international Freedom Foundation said that this process was “virtually complete”.

The Foundation revealed that only eight of the 35 member National Executive Committee (NEC)of the ANC were not Communists before the release of Mandela. After Mandela and Sisulu had joined the NEC the ratio was 26 Communists against ten non-Communists. The operations of this “creeping coup” are probably behind the late appointments of Communists as Ministers and deputy ministers.

It will be noted that Communists have been appointed as deputies in key departments to act as watchdogs over the Ministers concerned and are probably marked as successors to the present incumbents – Ronnie Kasrils to replace the enigmatic Modise; Aziz Pahad to replace the inept Nzo; Valli Moosa to take over from Roelf Meyer when “the National unity” ends; Alec Erwin to succeed Chris Liebenberg; Penuel Meduna to take over from Buthelezi when the simmering friction between the ANC and the IFP comes to a head.

Other key positions have already been secured by the appointment of Communists as Ministers. Pik Botha is apparently so well trusted by the ANC-SACP that no ANC deputy was appointed to keep a watch on him. The appointment of deputies such as Fismer under Dullah Omar, Schoemanunder Bengu, Tobie Meyer under Hanekom, and Joe Matthews under Mafumadi were evidently made as a gesture to the NP and the IFP. They will have no authority or influence in the departments concerned but will have to bear responsibility for whatever policies are applied by their ANC-SACP superiors.

Although the evidence of Communist control of the government is clear, the money powers in South Africa seem to think that they will be able to steer the ANC clear from increasing application of Communist doctrine. Mr Harry Oppenheimer of the Anglo-American Corp is reported to have said that he “likes Mr Mandela very, very much”, which signifies a close relationship between the leader of a Communist dominated terrorist organisation and the man who identifies himself as the second richest man in the world – after the Sultan of Brunei.

Oppenheimer further said that Mandela had sought his approval of two Cabinet appointments -probably those of Derek Keys and Pik Botha, the former having come from one of the companies closely associated with Oppenheimer and the latter being a Freemason who is a holder of The Order of Malta (in the company of Dr Piet Koornhof, former Cabinet Minister and ambassador). Both departments – Finance and Mineral and Energy Affairs – are close to the heart of the money powers in South Africa and it is most likely that Oppenheimer would have sought to have “his men” appointed.

The national unity of the government trumpeted by Mandela is a fiction, as may be seen from the fact that in the April election only 2% of Blacks voted for the NP, the Democratic Party and the Freedom Front, while only 3% of Whites voted for the ANC. The near disastrous economic position of the country and the absence of respect for law and order in the wake of incessant “change” and “reform” make an orderly transition to a radically new constitutional set-up impossible.

The “government of national unity” is doomed to fall apart. The new situation presents a formidable challenge to the Afrikaners and their English speaking White compatriots. The hardcore of the Afrikaner people is accepting that the new constitutional set-up will not last long and will lead to ethnic friction and political disintegration, a matter to be dealt with separately in a subsequent review.

The spirit of rejection and resistance among Afrikaners, which was treacherously deflected by Gen Constand Viljoen and his cronies, is again rising. And there is capable leadership outside Parliament to weld it into a force.

The above report was sourced from: www.scribd.com  Formatting and minor punctuation errors were fixed by Tia Mysoa.