Albert Brenner

Albert Brenner: Chan Island

It was not supposed to happen this way. The colonisation of the virtual world was supposed to have shown Humanity the path to the Pearly Gates.

The Baby Boomers were told that the human imagination is the unimpeded voice of the processes holding sway in the unconscious. Furthermore, fantasy has the innate abilty to circumvent the Reality Principle… thereby allowing reconciliation with “the whole, of desire with realization, of happiness with Reason” (Marcuse, 1960, p. 143).

In the world of online-gaming, the imagination rules supreme. Thus, according to Marcuse, Humanity had to be All Aboard for Ararat when we colonised Cyberspace via the human imagination.

But, lol, #Gamergate came to pass and all went tits up… sending seismic schock waves that are currently felt even in the highest echelons of political power on the planet.

It all started, as it usually does, with a revolt against injustice. In order to boost her career (and, obviously, her bank account), a certain, very mediocre, female game developer called Zoe Quinn was caught using her panties to keep her ankles warm when in the company of gaming-industry journalists. This, justifiably, raised the ire of gamers and game developers alike.

Shortly after – and predictably so – social justice warriors (SJWs) started circling the (overwhelmingly heterosexual Pale Male) gaming community in the hope of setting up yet another grievance/victimhood shop from which to peddle the penance they planned to elicit.

Cometh the time, cometh the bitch. The “cultural critic” Anita Sarkeesian who, by her her own admission, was “never interested in computer games”, then swooped in like a female Gos hawk in estrus in order to “save” the unicorns being ruthlessly rogered by those who actually created the whole gaming industry, namely, the heterosexual Pale Male.

Lo and behold… did they harsh her feminist mellow one-time shoe-shine. She, and fellow SJW ilk, didn’t have the foggiest who they were actually up against.

The gaming community comprises some of the best, brightest and most dedicated the IT revolution has ever produced – programmers, Anonymous-founders/hackers, brilliant writers, Tech start-up specialists, young philosophers, scientists, venture capitalists, game-loving Manospherians and, most importantly, the hard-working, hard-playing (young and old) Free Speech-loving Joe Average of Western Civilisation.

The battle was brutal, but the gamers prevailed. They gathered on the B-platform of 4chan (lately, also 8chan), dug in and defended themselves. And, against all odds, they successfully pushed back the feel-good politically-correct witch-hunting hordes of the latest Utopian/Progressive flavour of the month, Identity politics… for it was their “safe-space”, their New World, the only place left – after more than two decades of (the) unrelenting criminalisation of the heterosexual Pale Male.

Simply glorious. But, alas, they were fated to be victorious…

Freud and Darwin are (still) the bogeymen of modern Utopianism. Their “rehabilitation” is thus imperative if Humanity wants to (finally) set sail for Atlantis. Many have tried, all have failed – e.g. TH Huxley and P Teilhard de Chardin (even Richard Dawkins, lately) vis à vis Darwin, and Willhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse vis à vis Freud.

What does this have to do with 4/-8chan (henceforth, Chan Island)? Well, what has been in “the real” since the dawn of mankind, so also is in the “virtual”. In other words, Freud’s take on the nature of man (and Being) in the pre-IT Age, also applies to Cyberspace.

In short: Chan Island is a sterling example of the fact that harbouring any notion of a perfect existence is futile. As Freud (1930, p. 103) so eloquently put it:

“It is this battle of the Titans [ Eros and Thanatos] that our nurses and governesses [read SJWs] try to compose with their lullaby-song of Heaven.”

Having thus unceremoniously routed the founders of left-wing Baby Boomer utopianism (Marcuse and Reich), Chan Islanders automatically rose to the occasion when they saw that their physical territory, America, was being flushed down the “diversity” drain by an ever-increasing number of the Puritan-rooted right-wing Baby Boomers.

As the brilliant blogger (and co-founder of the Dark Enlightenment), Mencius Moldbug, explained;

“Puritanism has not disappeared at all – it just mutated into Unitarianism that is, non-universalist Unitarianism, now itself extinct, which begat Transcendentalism, which begat Unionism, Progressivism, and the ecumenical movement, which became the ‘super-protestant’ Establishment so derided by the late great flower children”. In short, two peas in the Utopian pot. Furthermore, as Moldbug holds, democracy inevitably sees the right move to the centre… whereupon the centre inevitably moves to the left. The current rubber-stamping of practically all Obama`s policies by the Republican Party clearly illustrates the above political dynamic.”

What has this got to do with Darwin (and Chan Island)? Well, in The Descent of Man Darwin stated that Morality plays no tangible role in Evolution, except when it comes to inter-group conflict. From this it follows, as this author believes, that there is no logical coherence to what is deemed moral… in the absence of conflict. In other words; there is no Good & Evil when there is no conflict. Or, in short: Morality is contingent upon conflict, and vice versa.

The above is clearly illustrated by, e.g. the fact that once all opposition had been swept aside by the post-WWII Communist Chinese regime, the (vast majority) of Chinese did not blink all too hard when millions of their fellow countrymen were slaughtered under said murderous regime. It was only from the “outside” that said “evil” was “recognised/appreciated”. The same could be said for the abortion horror in America after Roe vs Wade, tacitly approved by both the GOP and Dems. Hence no wonder that the Frankensteinian horror revealed by the current scandal surrounding Planned Parenthood does not elicit too much outrage.

Be that as it may, Chan Islander rallied to the cause when they saw that the GOP establishment made no serious effort to protect America from the illegal immigrants (of non-European descent) threatening to turn their home into a Turd Word shithole. Their magnificent (Darwin-programmed) territorial instinct (honed by their war against left-wing Utopianism) immediately kicked in when they realised that the GOP has become (the) Dems-Lite.

In other words, as explained in the previous two paragraphs, they saw the coming “evil” to be visited on them once there is not (true) conflict anymore between the GOP and the Dems.

And thus the latest battle for the soul (and fate) of America unfolds…

On the one side stands the #cuck-hating Chan Islanders and, on the other side, the Progressive idealists… comprising both left-wing and right-wing Lala Landians.

Chan Island is now using its most effective weapon to date, the #cuck cannon. This weapon was originally developed on Chan Island by some of the best trolling experts… having a good laugh whilst, simultaneously, showing the “stick-it-to-the-man” middle-finger to the insidious assault on humour by the politically-correct Sheeple mindlessly following the latest dictates of Plato-initiated Progressivism.

It therefore didn’t take long for Chan Islanders to morph the cuck slight – i.e. those who failed to stand their ground – into a meme which has the innate mojo to determine who the next president of the United States of America will be.

Enter the upgraded cuck-cannon, the #cuckservative meme… in full heavy-artillery anti-PC support of brash stand-your-ground Alpha-male POTUS candidate Donald Trump!

Aimed at all those GOP “racist/Nazi”-screaming sell-outs, it has instilled the fateful dystopian fear of Freud and Darwin in the hearts of both the un-based left and right-wing, alike (pun intended). So much so, that even the world’s most popular and successful Internet search engine, Google, has deemed it imperative to suffer collateral damage by de-indexing Chan Island’s Special Forces regiment, 8chan.

But hey, it wasn’t supposed to be this way. WTF happened to all that “reconciliation with “the whole, of desire with realization, of happiness with Reason” stuff, asked the last Baby Boomer “Make Love, Not War” unicorn rider – on Darwin’s race track… where strife is the spice of Moral life.

Infernal bogeymen! Kek kek … answered Socrates, Aristoteles, Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, CS Lewis – and all the Sith Lords of the Dark Enlightenment.

References

Marcuse, H. 1960. Eros and Civilisation. A philosophical inquiry into Freud. New York: Vintage Books.

Freud, S. 1930. Civilization and its Discontents. (Translated by Riviere, J.) London: Hogarth Press.

Albert Brenner: ‘Überizing; The Democratizaion of Usury’

When caught in a current, it is always prudent to swim with the current, but to the side – to exit. The great Banking Crisis has, once again, shown that simply swimming with, or against, the current is all for naught. The current of human greed is inexhaustible. Social responsibility is last on the list in the affairs of the unholy alliance between politics and finance. Profit is privatized whilst loss is socialized all with the unashamedly overt support of the democratically elected governments of the West (Iceland being the notable exception).

To be fair; said governments had to intervene to save the System from self-imploding. Quantitative easing saved the day, for today. But what about tomorrow? Giving a drunk more booze sure sooths the longing, but it cannot, be any and all means, cure the addiction.

Marxism tried to “cure” said addiction by fervently advocating for the abolition of private property (read private capital hoarding) thereby hoping to “cold-turkey” the all-too-human need to possess/own. This “cure” obviously failed… due to the imperatives of evolutionary pressures, the dictates of Natural Law and the moral precepts in/of Christianity.

As naively Progressivist as the above endeavour was and still is, in certain countries – the underlying motive to undermine said unholy alliance between politics and finance cannot be shunned outright. Fact is: the common wo/man always has to bear the burden when things go awry among these, hitherto, “powers-that-be”.

But what if modern technology has the potential to, at least, buffer the excesses of the System… to the benefit of the common man who, at the end of the day, actually sustains it? This author believes it is indeed possible to “exit” the System without (it) leading to the self-implosion (thereof).

All that is needed, is the “democratisation” of usury/banking. This is a real possibility, given the incredible advances of, especially, the IT Revolution. This revolution has, inter alia, opened up the incredible (liberating) potential of “non-mediation” – from age-old fixed structures, e.g. monopoly-capitalism.

The first example of “non-mediation” in the IT Age was Napster. This (free) file-sharing platform allowed users the liberty to download and compile their choice of music in a single data storage unit “burnt” CDs, back then. This “non-mediated” liberty to choose (your own music) led directly to the invention of the Apple iPod. And this, as we know, propelled Apple into the dizzying heights of profit unheard of before – a (current) quarterly turnover that equals the total yearly industrial output of Russia.

This process of “non-mediation” has rolled on relentlessly. It simply cannot be stopped. A new Age has dawned. A true revolution. Just last week, taxi drivers in France took to the barricades to protest against the cell-phone app called Über. This simple app directly threatens their livelihood insofar as it turns (every) common man, with a car (and time), into a taxi driver. In short; the monopoly on public transport taxi drivers had, has been broken via the process of “non-mediation”.

So why not apply the same principle to banking? Bankers have, for too long already, monopolised usury. Simply put; why not “Überize” banking especially given the extremely low interest rates offered by banks in the West nowadays?

Just imagine (theoretically) giving every common man the possibility to be a banker. Would that not be a sterling approach to “distribute” (the) wealth equally among those who actually create/d said wealth? Labour topping investment, this time round à la Piketty. Said private citizens could then, when vetted accordingly, truly be the banker. There would, obviously, be many “loan-sharking” pitfalls. But then; if properly regulated, it would certainly allow the common man to participate more directly in the financial system more than ever before!

It obvious that the common man does not have the funds/savings to act as the guarantor/financier of the 30-year mortgage plan of his/her neighbour But if (the) like-minded team up for the common purpose of taking social responsibility for the private financial decisions of the individual, this could be overcome without too much ado. It is simply a question of trust… among the like-minded.

It is indeed impossible to swim against the tide of human greed. But it is also not impossible to swim to the side, to the benefit of your neighbour who, at the end of the day, means you. Or do you want to be the sorry sucker who always picks up the tab every time the banker and his/her politician buddy profit whilst socialising loss… eternally at your expense?

I say NO!

Ergo, exit… by Überizing Usury.

The alchemism of modern physics

In his international bestseller, A brief history of time, the most famous physicist of our time, Stephen Hawking, stated that the last/final matryoshka doll in the field of Physics has been unpacked – Planck’s Constant. With this accomplished, he writes that the what of the Universe would thus soon be answered, automatically.

Because, from here, it follows that it would simply be a question of a “discussion” between “philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people… ” to unravel the why of the Universe/Existence – and once that has been done, “we would know the mind of God”.

But alas… were the whole caboodle only that simple.

A thought experiment: imagine a massive cosmic cataclysm, in our teeny tiny sector of the Universe, destroys all life on planet Earth, in an instant. Now the question: would the Rover Mars lander still exist, after said cosmic cataclysm… which killed us all?

Disciples of scientific realism would tend to say yes, because they believe in the existence of an “external reality”. Idealists, on the other hand, would tend to say no, because “reality” is seen as a “creation” of the human mind. This dichotomy in the hard sciences would, roughly, translate into the positivist-interpretivist paradigm in social science research – the famous battle lines of the infamous “paradigm wars” that have been raging since the mid-80s.

But alas, both abovementioned positions are right, or wrong… simultaneously. For if we are all dead, the very question – “does the Rover Mars lander still exist?” – can neither be posed, nor answered… for we are all (already) dead by then, remember? Yet is very safe to assume that it does indeed (still) exist, for people see other people die around them every day, and the world/existence/reality stays the same nonetheless, mostly. So, we could safely assume that the last living soul on this planet (before said cosmic cataclysm wipes him/her out) will know that the Rover Mars lander is still all forlorn, yet “real” on Mars. But, once s/he is no more, there is no certainty about its existence anymore.

This means that “knowledge of” is bound to “looking” (like said last person on Earth), not “knowing”. This is not unlike the famous Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment to explain the sheer complexity of the paradox underpinning quantum mechanics. In other words, an inevitable “two-state” state of “knowing” must be accepted. Ditto the existence of God – where faith is “looking”. The more knowledgeable reader will recognize Kantian (epis/-ontological) trancendental idealism, especially as it pertains to Husserl’s “intentionality-bound” phenomenology, at play here.

So, what does this all have to do with the (most) famous physicists of age? Well, it’s all about them dreaming/promising to finally determine only one “state of existence”, e.g. Hawking’s “knowing the mind of God”.

Hawking does indeed have an epis/-ontological “two-state” position… for as he wrote:

“Yet if there really is a complete unified theory, it would presumably determine our actions. And so the theory itself would determine the outcome of our search for it!”

Nudge nudge, equal-outcome Egalitarianism. But, be that as it may…

It means that he both holds onto a realist, as well as an idealist position. In other words, humans “created” the (ultimate) “truth”, i.e. scientific idealism/aestheticism, yet also “discovered” it… as in Platonic mathematics (scientific realism). But then, didn’t he promise that Planck’s Constant would “dissolve” one of these states, permanently?

Enter the film Interstellar – lauded and applauded by the likes of Hawking and Kip Thorne – the latter being the “science” advisor of the film. The plot line is very simple. A “dustbowl dystopia” (fatally) threatens humanity’s future. The protagonist, Cooper (and his trusted robot, TARS) are sent into space to save the physical existence of the human race. They, predictably, land up in the middle of a black hole – where TARS mysteriously, “discovers” (nudge nudge Platonic mathematics) the secret to (anti)gravity… thereby saving humanity. Now this is all fine and dandy, were it not for the alchemist nonsense when, after TARS has found the answer to (anti)gravity in the “external reality” of the black hole, it, TARS, answers Coop’s question: “How did they create it?”, with the answer: “You’ve created it.”

In other words, both “states” of the (final) Truth are accepted, yet Hawking’s matryoshka doll (Planck’s Constant) won the day, by “looking” into the box in which Schrödinger’s Cat “hides” – thus “dissolving” one of its states (of its being/existence).. and then we all lived in Lala Land afterwards.

Meaning that – apart from the huge elephant in the room, causality – modern physics simply hasn’t comprehended what the brilliant philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, has been trying to tell them since…

Ergo, modern physics is trying to have its (Utopian) cake – by “dissolving” the Cartesian Clock versus Quantum Theory paradigm – and eat it.

This is Alchemism, not Science.

Why Israel will fall

Ever since Hitler not one Western country with a single (exclusive) identity has been allowed to exist.

The chaos caused by the highly controversial (Obama mandated?) reintroduction of the word “God” and the sentence “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel” at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, is ominously foreboding of the fate that awaits Israel in the near future.

Ironically enough, it is mainly due to the utopianism of secular Jews that Israel now finds herself in the current predicament where she is increasingly vilified by the world media and protesters in the world’s capitals. From Karl Marx to KGB agent Joe Slovo (Mandela’s mentor/handler) in South Africa, these secular Jews have done their utmost to destroy cultural and racial hegemony in the name of global “Equality/Diversity”.

Jerusalem, a physical territory, is symbolic of the wider physical territory called Israel. And the State of Israel is defined by a single (exclusive) identity namely Jewishness. And that is why Israel will fall.

Ever since Hitler not one Western country with a single (exclusive) identity has been allowed to exist. Apartheid South Africa’s whites-only territory is no more, like Milosevic’s Orthodox Christian-only Yugoslavia.

The same fate awaits Israel. Its singular identity, its Jewishness, is also its Achilles heel; for the rights of the individual and the rights of non-territorial groupings is the flavor of the month in the year dominated by Pax Americana.

According to the Ten Commandments of Pax Americana, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a gay, an African, a Muslim, a Jew, et cetera, has the a-historical right to exercise his/her unique individuality in any physical territory under direct dominion of the West.

These same rights are afforded to all other non-territorial groupings like, for example, lesbians and the illegal Hispanic immigrants in Arizona – and the Somalis (and other Africans) gathered together in the world’s largest detention centre (in Saharonim) and then deported from Israeli territory.

The quirks of History never cease to amaze. Not unlike the Germanic tribes with their Völkerwanderung, the Jewish tribes had to literally wander the earth for ages in order to finally find their Heimat…only to be denied that final place of rest where they can simply be themselves and enjoy the fruits of that which they have struggled and suffered for, for so long.

Is this fair? Does anybody in the world have the moral right to deny the Jews their Heimat called Israel – a tiny 20 770 square kilometer territory in the Middle East? Haven’t the Jews suffered enough, especially given the fact that they have been physically kicked out of more than 100 countries during the past 1800 years, and have suffered innumerable pogroms – the latest being the Crown Heights Riot in Brooklyn, New York, in 1991.

Obviously this is not fair, but that is obviously also not good enough. The trials and tribulations of the Jews in Israel are about to treble exponentially.

According to an 82-page research paper called “Preparations for a Post-Israeli Middle East” – compiled by the American intelligence community and presented by Franklin Lamb – America’s leadership is urged to stop supporting Israel lest a permanent two-state solution for the Palestinian question is found forthwith. In short; America, via its foreign policy, can no longer afford to be seen as a supporter of an “Apartheid Israel”, as Desmond Tutu calls it so fondly.

Will America throw Israel to the wolves? Yes; it is a demographic inevitability. Israel’s staunchest supporters in America – white Christian males forming the base of the Republican Party – have a maximum of 10 years left to steer America’s foreign policy before they are demographically swamped by the very “individual-rights” holders and non-territorial groupings who jeered so loudly and proudly when the sentence “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel” was reintroduced into the Democratic platform a few years ago.

The end of the GOP is nigh. The vultures are circling. Just ask Paul Krugman, who unabashedly proclaimed that the Republican base is formed, “by and large [by] elderly white people arguing with empty chairs.”

Be that as it may; what can Israel try to do to maintain its unique Jewish identity once America, the (current) dominant global power, has withdrawn its support?

Well, it is quite elementary. By the nature of things, you have to exclude if you want to include, and vice versa. Male lions do it when they take over a territory – as do women when they choose a man to marry, to the exclusion of all others. This is just the way life works. And the Jews have learned this the hard way, throughout their tragic history.

Israel is now building a physical wall around its territory in order to protect its unique identity. The building of this wall – much to the chagrin of, amongst others, Pax Americana and the Muslim countries completely surrounding Israel – is, apart from the projection of its formidable military might, the only soft-power option left to maintain the physical integrity of its territory.

Will this work? No. Even Milosevic’s mighty hard-power army succumbed eventually, as did Apartheid South Africa’s soft-power pass system. It is truly game over for the state of Israel.

The identity/body politics of the secular-humanist West tops any and all soft and hard power projections aimed at maintaining a singularly exclusive identity within a clearly defined physical territory.

In Pax Americana, to paraphrase Foucault; physical territory is the prison of the individual.

Britten’s indifference

One very positive side-effect of the Red October protest was that it aired the stale house of the MSM in Mandelatopia. This breath of fresh air made the usual suspects, and a few newbies, cough convulsively, as expected.

The loudest convulsion was a coarse phlegm-ejecting piece by the foul-mouthed Irish colonial reject Chris McEvoy. It is not worth reading. The second raffish algospasm was by Georgina Guedes. She tried, via an attempt at irony, to persuade her readers that it was oh so bleeding-heart symbolic of the freedom of democratic expression in Mandelatopia seeing a “dignified” black policeman escorting and “protecting” the white Red October marchers. She somehow conveniently forgot that the “dignified” policeman’s colleagues killed another peaceful protester, Mark Tatane, not so long ago – not even to speak of the Marikana massacre, the 1000-plus deaths per year in police custody since 1994, or the fact that both the ex-bosses of the “dignified” policeman are criminals.

The third bawdy paroxysm came from Lady Nicky Falkof, fresh from her 14-year sabbatical at the feet of Her Majesty the Queen of England. Her strident call for “progressive language” (e.g. rights, minorities, diversity, etc.) to remain the sole moral property of those who run Manor Mail & Guardian – at the behest of the Queen and her moneymongers – is only out-cramped by her near-autistic fixation with proper syntax and correct spelling. I’ll deal with Miss Commonwealth Spelling Bee 2013 in my next column.

The most interesting throe was thrown by the ever-so-swanky MSM darling, Sarah Britten. Her piece, albeit well-argued and neatly packaged, was pure sentiment. And it was precisely this appeal to emotion which prompted me to, once more, put my theory about white liberal irrationality to the test.

It only took six tweets of 140 letters/characters each to confirm said theory.This was how it was done. I simply asked her if she supported black lesbians protesting against “corrective” rape. She answered in the affirmative, of course. Then I pointed out that rape affects all women, not just black lesbians. Meaning that black lesbians form a sub-group protesting that which affects them specifically namely “corrective” rape. But, as mentioned before, rape affects all women, not just black lesbians.

From this it follows that it is logically and, even more importantly, morally inconsistent to laud one sub-group (black lesbians, in this case) for their “discriminatory” form of protest – i.e.they only protest against corrective rape, and not all rape – whilst demonising another (in this case, Red October whites) by accusing them of partaking in a “discriminatory” form of protest.. based on the fact that crime affects all, not just whites. Ergo, the rationale underpinning the protest by whites against their slaughter at the hands of blacks is no different to that of black lesbians protesting against corrective rape. Yet, the former is demonised while the latter is lauded and applauded by Britten and her MSM ilk.

It suffices to say that that which is good for the black lesbian goose is not good for the Red October white gander. This means that people like Britten discriminate on the basis of race – in terms of the above-mentioned biased sentiments expressed publicly. Given the above context, and what we know from all the standard definitions of racism, this would make Britten a racist.

Yet I doubt whether Britten could be classified as a racist, for she loves all those whites and blacks, et cetera, who agree with her. Meaning that her irrationality must be founded on something other than race-based zealotry. Or is it?

Britten is part and parcel of the upper-class British establishment in Mandelatopia. This group is the richest and (still) most influential collective in the country. They are just another appendage of her Majesty the Queen of England. And, as we know, England is the fons et origo of Pax Britannica. This (former) global empire was built by men like Cecil John Rhodes… whose moral motivations can best be summed up by the following quote; “

I contend that we British are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence…

At first glance the above quote seems like the paragon of racism. Not even Verwoerd ever said anything remotely similar. But I think it goes deeper than that. Is it “hate”? I mean, you really need to dislike others quite a lot to refer to them as “despicable specimens of human beings”. In short: are upper-class Brits like Britten hateful racists, like their forebearers, like Rhodes?

I think not. They are simply indifferent to all others, other than themselves. If dislike were an adjective, hate would be its comparative… and indifference its superlative. I mean it is beyond hate to, for example, kill 33 000 women and children in concentration camps and coldly go about carrying out a scorched-earth policy which reduced a unique nation to the poorest white nation on the planet, just for the sake of gold and diamonds. Similarly, it is beyond hate to try and turn the whole population of one of the oldest civilisations on the planet, the Chinese, into opium drug addicts… simply because your love of/for tea caused a huge trade deficit at the time.

It is a cardinal mistake to think that this indifference has, somehow, mysteriously vacated the non-soul of the British upper-class. Just think about the following fact: England is the only country in the Western world which (still) has such a huge divide between the upper and middle class. This divide is rigorously enforced, by complete indifference to the wishes and aspirations of the British middle and lower classes.

And this indifference is still very much present in modern South Africa. Just listen to Nobel Prize winner Nadine Gordimer – a representative of the British elite in this country:

Afrikaner women are lower than rats, closer related to plants, just fit enough to be raped in an act of genus preservation.

Lovely lady, ain’t she? She may have said “hate”, but it is clear from the magnitude of her hate that it is indifference. They only disguise their indifference as hate, so as to appear as if they actually give a continental toss… as if they actually still have one shred of humanity left.

Meaning that the imperial indifference that was once projected (and protected) by the military might of the old British Empire has simply morphed into an imperial indifference enforced by morality. In short; what the sword did for Rhodes, neo-liberalism (à la Pax Brittanica) is now doing for Gordimer, Britten and their useful idiots like Helen Zille, boy-man Fransie Cronje, Eusebius McKaiser, Piet Croucamp, Djonitin Jansen, Anton van Niekerk, Tim du Plessis, Max du Preez, Leopold Scholtz, Willie Esterhuyse, FW de Klerk and ilk.

Therefore never think that they actually care. They feel zilch for other nations, other peoples, cultures, traditions and their moral idiosyncrasies. They are completely indifferent to the plight of all others, especially poor blacks and the white farmers in this country.

The quickest way to rid this warm country of these cold bastards would be to unleash Raka in the form of a Mugabe-Malema on them. But that would lead to wanton slaughter; something the Afrikaner, unlike the British upper-class, has not got the stomach for, unfortunately. The Afrikaner hates wanton slaughter… that is why they organized the Red October protest.

The most humane way to ship their pitiless afters back to their crappy little mud-island with its Islam(ic) weather (partly Sunni, mostly Shiite) would therefore be to treat them with the exact same indifference they display towards all and sundry on the planet. Now that would be cricket, wouldn`t it, Sarah?

Afrikaner H-G men

Kurt Vonnegut`s seminal science-fiction short story Harrison Bergeron paints a bleak dystopian future in which equal-outcome egalitarianism reigns supreme.

In this story everybody has been forced, by the government, to be equal in every respect. Those, like 14-year old Harrison (an exceptionally gifted student and athlete) and his father, George (a physically big and highly intelligent man), have to wear artificial “handicaps/hindrances” on their bodies in order to make them “equal” to their lessers.

In addition to being weighed down by 300 pounds of scrap metal, Harrison must also wear spectacles with thick wavy lenses “intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches besides”. And, like his father, he is required by law to wear a mental handicap radio in his ear that is tuned to a government transmitter. “Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains”.

This was their fate… their existence in The Prismon of Equality. A world in which “nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else”. A world of absolute equality, as enforced by the Handicapper General and her henchmen, the H-G men.

And this is the story of 21^st-century South Africa. A dystopian reality where the Pale Male has, by acts of law, been burdened with so many hindrances/handicaps that he has become all but a slave in name.

Harrison is the clever young white South African man who will not be admitted to university, even if he has the highest academic marks. He is the ambitious young man who will not find employment in a government department, even if he is the best man for the job. He is the top sportsman who will not be allowed into the team because of race quotas.

George is the big intelligent Boer (and the hard-working white English-speaking professional) who has to carry the responsibility (the burden) of producing healthy and affordable food to feed 60 million people, and pay for the 17 million blacks living off government welfare grants. He is the one that pays the salaries of the most bloated government on the planet, the heart of the black middle-class. He is the one diligently paying his taxes… only to have to see how his own sons and daughters suffer the same fate as Harrison.

And then there are the H-G men and their boss, the Handicapper General. In Afrikaner circles, Piet Croucamp is the latter – always trying his utmost to ensure that Afrikaners never assert their unique identity. Always morally criminalizing them when they dare speak out against their debilitating bondage.

And people like Anton van Niekerk, Tim du Plessis, Max du Preez, Koos Kombuis, Willie Esterhuyse, Christi van der Westhuizen, Pierre de Vos, Sampie Terreblanche, FW de Klerk, Pik Botha, Leopold Scholtz, et cetera, are the H-G men.

They are responsible for ensuring that the Afrikaner stays “equal” in all aspects of their existence. Every time when George starts to rebel against his “equalizing” burdens, the mental handicap in his ear starts to screech hysterically.

It is the voice of Naspers … incessantly screaming; RACIST! HATER! APARTHEID! RACIST! HATER! APARTHEID! RACIST! HATER! APARTHEID!

And just like in Vonnegut`s story, the Handicapper General and his H-G men are not burdened by any hindrances/handicaps whatsoever. On the contrary; they are free to do as they please, for they are the enforcers, the rule-makers… the inquisitors of our Zeitgeist.

They, the Afrikaner H-G men, all studied during Apartheid. They all started fantastic careers during Apartheid. I.e. they benefitted tremendously from Apartheid. Yet they have no moral qualms whatsoever to police the burdening of their own people – their own children, family and friends… like the H-G men in Vonnegut’s story.

It is a sickening hypocrisy and selfishness unequaled. For not even an animal will deliberately disfigure the very being and future of its offspring in order to benefit itself.

Be that as it may; Vonnegut`s story has become reality… right here in Mandelatopia. Its prescience was uncanny. Yet, there are two chapters that Vonnegut did not write. They are the most important chapters, namely; how did it get to that point where unique people like Harrison, George and the Afrikaner accepted being burdened – being enslaved by equal-outcome egalitarianism – in the first place?

And how did they finally manage to free themselves…?

These are the chapters we are writing now, here on Praag.

Watch Harrison Bergeron the movie on YouTube.