Apartheid will never die because the Left needs it

On New Year’s eve, the acrimonious tone of South African public debate seems to have become even more pronounced. Just yesterday another stereotypical cultural-Marxist piece by Professor Anton van Niekerk appeared in Afrikaans on the Netwerk24 site and already conservatives are up in arms regarding his defence of permanent affirmative action and half-truths about “apartheid”, with at least three substantial responses in less than 24 hours.

danr2Even gracing the exchange of accusations, recriminations and the perennial whipping out of the race card in South Africa with the noble term, “debate”, represents a malapropism. Under left-wing, racially-obsessed government, South Africa has descended into witch hunts, invective and farce with even our venerable parliament that used to command respect in the old days now becoming a theatre of puerile, hysterical and often physical clashes. Whereas before South Africa was caricatured as a citadel of moral rectitude and Sunday observance, not to mention strict obedience to the law, it is now the most violent country in the world with at least 50 000 homicides taking place every year. Theft and robberies are so commonplace nowadays that they are no longer reported to the police, except where insurance companies require it for claims.

Whoever may be in charge in South Africa – and it is certainly not our incompetent, venal government mired in corruption scandals – must be desperate to defend un unworkable system. That is why the mantra of “apartheid” is being recited with ever greater fervour by the Marxist and liberal Left in this country. Apartheid, or “separate development” as the old government used to call it, is not only a divine or occult source of evil that perdures in the present but also a deus ex machina conveniently invoked to explain every instance of political failure. When the lights went off due to the incompetence of our state-owned electricity utility, financially plundered and abused by greedy, corrupt bureaucrats, the state president was quick to invoke “the legacy of apartheid”.

Buy Dan Roodt’s book on this site

It gets worse. There is now such a thing as “apartheid denial”, of which both Steve Hofmeyr and I will soon be accused in a court of law, no less. Apartheid has another useful function: it justifies censorship and the suppression of facts about the present communist-inspired catastrophe known as the “New South Africa”. We all know what the “new” looks like after revolution, if we recall the French, Russian, Chinese, Cambodian and other revolutions. Apparently, a group of left-wing lawyers in Johannesburg from the firm Webber Wentzel have decided that no-one will be allowed to voice any opinion or cite any facts about history before 1994 without first putting it through the cultural-Marxist filter and making sure it embellishes their preposterous tale of pristine black innocence and white evil.

Helen Zille, the left-liberal leader of the “official opposition” in parliament – in South Africa you have a choice between voting liberal, Marxist or lunatic-Marxist – subtly blames whites for the post-1994 explosion of violence in South Africa when she says:

We must show the courage to challenge any social reinforcement for racist behaviour, because small acts of intolerance have the potential to manifest in more despicable acts of aggression and degradation as we see all too often.

When a blacks torture or hurt whites, even a baby as was recently reported by the Beeld newspaper, whites are to blame. That is the gist of Zille’s and cultural-Marxist discourse in South Africa. And if you question that dogma, as some of us are wont to do, you are an ogre, a racist, an “apartheid denialist” in the language of Webber Wentzel’s band of legal inquisitors.

What Zille understands under “challenge” is a euphemism for vilification, censorship and persecution. If you deviate from the cultural-Marxist canon of South African history, you will be fined, imprisoned or both. That is what is being planned for us and Zille’s “liberal” DA – which has of course as little to do with classical liberalism as Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge had to do with democracy – will support these draconian measures to suppress our free speech.

However, at least one or two liberals are starting to see that the cultural-Marxist insistence on a pervasive, ubiquitous notion of “metaphysical apartheid” may not ultimately serve their cause. About ten days ago in the Business Day newspaper, Hans Pienaar wrote that the overuse of the term “apartheid” by his fellow liberals and leftists has now become counter-productive:

But the fact is “apartheid” has become just another “big word”, a tool that is now too blunt and bent for useful analysis.

While it can still serve as a label for tourists and campaigners, it narrows the debate too much and its ambiguities allow all its beneficiaries, white and black, to get off the hook of their conscience.

Whatever that last phrase might mean. Perhaps it is an oblique reference to white guilt, but he seems to open the door to black guilt too, which would in itself constitute a heresy that could land him in the “apartheid denial” court with me and Steve Hofmeyr soon.

In my Afrikaans novel Moltrein the narrator remarks somewhere that the word “apartheid” has been emblazoned on the globe like a gargantuan graffito, which will forever disturb meanings in South Africa. In a way, Pienaar is vaguely – and belatedly – cottoning on to that calamitous inheritance of decades of leftist propaganda and stereotyping.

To analyse history and to cite certain unpalatable facts, e.g. that no-one ever “withheld education from blacks”, is to stand accused of Orwellian thoughtcrime and “apartheid denialism” that Webber Wentzel’s lawyers want to equate to “holocaust denial” which must be similarly banned by means of German-style legal punishments for the crime of “denialism”.

In Anton van Niekerk’s article, which was published in its longer form in a peer-reviewed journal, no less, he states:

While white people in right-wing circles fulminate about smart, white youngsters who may no longer obtain easy admission to fields of study like medicine, we forget far too quickly that until relatively late in the 20th century black people did not have access to any South Africa university, let alone medicine. (My translation from the original Afrikaans – DR)

This is, of course, an outright lie. But the cultural-Marxist myth of “apartheid” as pure white evil has been so well-established in the media and at the universities that few would dare to challenge such a statement. However, the mood of the “white man in the street” or especially the white in front of his keyboard has soured to such an extent that policing “apartheid denialism” is becoming a well-nigh impossible task, as evidenced by the myriad of irate responses to Van Niekerk’s article.

For example, writing on the commentary section of Afrikaans praag, Joseph Secrève, dug up the following article from the Johannesburg newspaper The Star, published on 21 June 1947:

“First Native Woman to Qualify as Doctor

Mary Susan Malahlele, a soft spoken, pleasant faced Bapedi woman, took the Hippocratic Oath at the University of the Witwatersrand to-day as the first Native woman doctor to qualify in the Union of South Africa.
[…]
Dr. Malahlele will spend a year as a house doctor at the McCord Mission Hospital in Durban, and then plans to practice in the Pretoria area.

Her parents, Mr. and Mrs. T.C. Malahlele, of Roodepoort, where Mr. Malahlele is principal of the Native Primary School said they were very proud of their daughter when a representative of The Star met them to-day at the Douglas Smit Hostel – the residence for non-European medical students of the university.”

A whole university with fine facilities, MEDUNSA (the Medical University of South Africa), was built by the previous white government to train black doctors, as well as the Natal Medical School, with thousands of black doctors also being trained at the multiracial Universities of the Witwatersrand and Cape Town at the time. The first university for blacks in South Africa, Fort Hare, was established in 1916! Among its alumni are to be found many of Africa’s radical and revolutionary leaders, such as Nelson Mandela, Robert Mugabe, communist leader Chris Hani and others (see Wikipedia article). If whites had sinned at all, it was in training and educating their future enemies in the mistaken belief that their generosity and benevolence would be repaid in kind.

In the very near future, even mentioning such historical facts which anyone may read on Wikipedia, may become punishable crimes in South Africa as leftist intolerance grows and “apartheid denial” is criminalised, either by parliament or the activist judges of the Constitutional Court that unilaterally abolished the death penalty for murder and legalised same-sex marriages, against the wishes of the majority of the South African population, be they white or black.

Another reason why white liberals/cultural Marxists needs to wave the straw man of apartheid in front of us, is because they are fast losing control of the ANC which is becoming an ethnically black and Zulu party. Hence too, the current verbal attack by the liberal Max du Preez on South African president Jacob Zuma. Ironically, the South African government has described Du Preez’s article as “racist”, a case of the pot calling the kettle black. After having made a complete mess of South Africa, white leftists need a scapegoat. Either it will be whites in general – especially conservative whites who are completely without political influence – or it will be the titular head of the one-party state that liberals had wanted for us in the first place, Jacob Zuma, the dancing Zulu.

Blaming whites and metaphysical apartheid will however take precedence, as usual.


  • Nave Wilson

    Nice article. However i would caution against linking to Wikipedia articles or encouraging people to read Wikipedia as their main source of information when it comes to political topics. It has been proven that Wikipedia is used by certain groups for propaganda purposes, precisely because people use that website as their one stop shop for all supposedly “factual” information.

    Wikipedia is controlled by a group of moderators who aren’t as neutral as you might hope. For instance, the Wikipedia article on “cultural marxism” was recently deleted by one of the moderators who claimed it was a conspiracy theory. What’s even more astounding is that this moderator self-identifies as a proud Marxist on his profile page!

    So don’t trust Wikipedia. It’s very easy to edit pages and insert subtle propaganda. I’ve edited a few wikipedia pages myself. However my changes are usually taken down after a few hours. Other groups who have the resources can easily buy themselves a moderator’s position and then start controlling the flow of information on certain articles.

    • RSA PATRIOT

      I almost cried when I read the English Wikipedia piece on Hendrik Verwoerd. The piece on Satan gives off a less evil impression of the person being desribed.

    • Engelsman

      I tend to read Metapedia these days for information about anything that could be politically sensitive. It is the non-Politically Correct free on-line encyclopedia and has an excellent definition of Cultural Marxism (and a nice cartoon on the Thought Police). I too read Wikipedia with caution.

  • The anc are not happy now that Max has stopped quoting Slovo.

  • RSA PATRIOT

    We will not succumb to a group of people restraining ourselves to an absolute adherance to the alignment of leftist beliefs regarding the past. We will speak the truth, and if the truth sounds like “apartheid denialism” then so be it!

    We never denied Apartheid. We presicely acknowledge the existence of it to prove wrong the leftist propaganda. What we do deny, is the leftist propaganda.

  • Chris1

    White people need to understand the true identity of those behind cultural Marxism and realine themselves with the truth.

    No more black maids, garden boys etc.

    http://christogenea.org/podcasts/christogenea-europe-december-28th-2014-introductory-christian-identity

    • Nan

      I agree, I have also lately came to understand what is going on and it is shocking, we are being deceived and used and murdered by the ones that are using the blacks to do their dirty work. The Edomite/ Zionist Jews are more dangerous than any out there. But I agree no more black maids etc.

    • Trippie

      I disagree. I will never let my black maid go. I think we simply have to give them equal rights. She can dine with me, and even use my bath. Many of them don’t have that luxury. We have to be in heart and sole Christians.

  • Engelsman

    Excellent article. Apartheid “denialism” being equated with Holocaust denialism and being made a crime (as in Germany) is probably just around the corner.

    If questioning or investigating an historical event is made a crime, the only conclusion that I can draw from this is that the popular or mainstream version of this event is incorrect or will not stand up to scrutiny.

    Labelling someone as a “Holocaust Denialist” or “Conspiracy Theorist” or
    “Apartheid Denialist” is a trite tactic used by the liberal media but
    it is also a very subtle form of censorship which has the appearance of
    free speech and impartiality.

    Labels like “Holocaust Denialist” or “Conspiracy Theorist” are used to erode the credibility of the person so labelled; it’s so that one either won’t read or listen to what that person is saying, or they will be disregarded as a crank or lunatic.

    The only labels that should cause people to have this reaction of dismissing whatever is said is really “Cultural Marxist” or “Mainstream Journalist” or “Liberal Politician” – and even then, one should still keep one’s brain engaged and pay attention to what is being said, just on the principle of making up one’s own mind, however tiresome this will be.

  • Vulture

    Apartheid wasn’t an evil system. There was no slavery, concentration camps, genocide etc. All it was was separate development. It wasn’t even real segregation.
    I think we should embrace this term Apartheid because it’s become some sort of “boogyman-word” which used by the left to scare people. “Apartheid” sits next to words such as “holocaust” and “slavery”, when it objectively cannot be compared to those things.

    • disqus_8PPZsQ0T41

      Apartheid wasn’t evil? Oh great, then I take it you won’t mind having it re-instated, and being treated as blacks where? I mean, it’s only a little forceful eviction from your current land to townships and shacks…perhaps imprisonment, exile, assassinations and a Sharpeville massacre or two if you revolt; having the state limit your potential jobs & businesses, and determine your income, what property you can own, how high you can climb up the economic ladder; overwhelmingly less public spending on white houses, roads, schools, infrastructure, security…to engineer your social inferiority – never mind a public education system designed to ensure you remain cheap labour (remember Bantu education – per capita governmental spending on black education being one-tenth of the spending on white?)

      Apartheid was “Seperate development” ™,but it wasn’t “Seperate and Fair development”. It wasn’t as bad as New World chattel slavery or The Holocaust, but it’s still an appalling system of social engineering, that unfortunately taints everything great about the old South Africa. I really doubt you’d want to be a black living in Apartheid South Africa.

      The worst thing about the new South Africa is that instead of rejecting Apartheid & moving towards systems of liberty & libertarianism – it’s the leftists, socialists, Marxists & communists who won. That’s the big threat now: Leftist social engineering.

      • Pete Mears

        I think the whites tried to make it ‘fair’, but it didn’t work. At last they tried to make it fair by giving the masses what they wanted. Somehow I get the feeling it was not enough. Apartheid as a concept functions on a mythological level in rhetoric today. It has been punching above its weight for decades now…

  • Pete Mears

    Max du Preez’s latest article on News24 equates the British concentration camps with Apartheid, saying denialists won’t understand the trauma blacks were subjected to. Yes, perhaps and perhaps not. But freedom as understood by the black man on the street has yet to arrive, and probably won’t ever because of a cultural mindset of collective entitlement and historical victimisation. As long as the struggle narrative is told, and perhaps because of it, the ANC will continue to exist.

  • Granville Mckenzie

    Frankly I think Max dP is weak. Like most of the ANC government he is weak. He succumbed to the temptation of money and fame in return for half truths and lies. Similar to the USA, our nation is being Brainwashed by the media and the time (to quote the doors) to hesitate is though! Thank you Mr Roodt for trying to keep a balance. Ooorah! #Nkandlaburnsfirst