Anton van Niekerk – praag.org

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.

Even 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”.

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.

Follow @danroodt

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?

Let us be!

by Albert Brenner

[followbutton username=’albertbrenner1′ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

I have been asked many times to write a column about Afrikaner identity. It`s a task I have always dreaded, for it will need to also involve examining questions like: can an atheist be an Afrikaner? Similarly, can an English-speaking white South African be an Afrikaner? Can Afrikaner political parties not supporting self-determination still be called “Afrikaner”? Or even: can non-whites be Afrikaners? Any honest elucidation of (the) Afrikaner identity must also include the less savoury aspects of said people. But then; nobody is perfect. That said, here goes…

Afrikaner identity, like all others, is comprised of three distinct, yet intimately intertwined aspects: the individual, the collective and the nation.

The individual sustains the collective which, in turn, sustains the nation… and vice versa. Meaning that it is the primary responsibility of the individual to contribute to the collective in such a way that his/her collective – in this case, the Afrikaner collective – takes precedence over all other collectives. The collective is comprised of various sub-collectives. For example, (the individual) Naas Botha – the famous ex-Springbok rugby player – has recently stated that he is in favour of race-quotas in rugby. This means that he, as an individual, does not support the Afrikaner sub-collective (Afrikaner rugby players, in this case), ergo, he is not sustaining the collective. Hence, he is a “South African”, not an Afrikaner. This obviously also applies to individuals like Dr Piet Croucamp, Fransie Cronje, Tim du Plessis, Anton van Niekerk, etc.

Moving to the collective/s; aforesaid has the primary responsibility to sustain the interests of the individual, be it as welfare organisation, church, academic institution, etc. For example, Stellenbosch University (as a collective) supports discrimination against Afrikaner students. This means it is not Afrikaner anymore… it is “South African”.

Moving to the nation; if a sub-collective is primarily involved in politics (e.g. the Freedom Front political party) its main responsibility is to strive for nationhood. The aforesaid can only be sustained if it dominates physical territory. It is possible to be a people (i.e. a collective) without physical territory. But one only has to look at the history of the Jewish People – arguably the most successful in terms of survival – in order to realise that dominance over a physical territory is the only sure-fire guarantee of/for progressive survival. This means that the (traditionally Afrikaner) Freedom Front party is not Afrikaner anymore, because it has forsaken its primary responsibility… self-determination in/on a physical territory dominated by Afrikaners.

To the tricky questions; e.g. can an atheist be an Afrikaner? Yes, but only if s/he sustains the “default” of the collective which, in the case of the Afrikaner (identity), is Christian. Meaning that as long as atheists put the well-being of the Christian Afrikaner collective above their individual well-being as atheists, they can be 100% Afrikaners. Ditto for English-speaking white South Africans – or any other white person, for that matter – in terms of language. Afrikaans is, and therefore must stay, the default. The same could be said for non-whites wanting to be Afrikaners. But this, in itself, would be self-contradictory and, ultimately, irrational. For in order to sustain the Afrikaner default identity (which is white, in terms of race), non-whites would have to forsake any and all attempts at demographic dominance.

The above-explained dynamics are also being played out in traditional Western countries with, hitherto, distinct identities. Just think about the American identity when, in 2060, white English-speaking (and mostly Christian) “Americans” will be demographically swamped by Spanish-speaking Hispanics. In short; (the) American identity will no longer be “American”.

To the specifics of (the) Afrikaner identity; we are the most inherently pharmaconian people on the planet. I derived the adjective pharmaconian from the Greek root pharmacon… meaning to heal or to kill. Afrikaners like to fight and to heal. We make the best soldiers and the best doctors. We, as a people, are absolutely unique in this regard! In terms of the former, there is no need to blow our own trumpet – others do it for us, with aplomb…

The Americans fight for a free world. The English mostly for honor glory and medals. The French and Canadians decide too late that they have to participate. The Italians are too scared to fight. The Russians have no choice. The Germans for the Fatherland. The Boers? Those sons of bitches fight for the hell of it! – American General George “Guts and Glory” Patton

Give me 20 divisions American soldiers and I will beach Europe. Give me 15 consisting of Englishmen, and I will advance to the borders of Berlin. Give me two divisions of those marvellous fighting Boers and I will remove Germany from the face of the earth. – Field Marshall Bernard L. Montgomery (Commander Allied forces WWII)

It is therefore no wonder that we love rugby so much. It has become a substitute for our warrior-like psyche. An opium, unfortunately.

In terms of our passion for healing, we can only look at incredible doctors like Christiaan Barnard, or the fact that we had one of the very few defence forces in the world with a separate medical services arm. This pharmaconian essence of the Afrikaner also has its drawbacks. In terms of liking to fight; we tend toward bullying behaviour, especially because of our big physical size – inherited from the Dutch. This bad characteristic has always necessitated a very strong (mostly patriarchal) hierarchy… to keep the boys in line, so to speak.

The above characteristic was, in my opinion, the main reason why nearly the whole Afrikaner society collapsed after 1994, for when our leaders jumped ship, all the power structures collapsed like a house of cards. The main bullies then turned on their own people, selling them out like flies at the TRC, and in nearly every Afrikaner sphere imaginable. This thuggish behaviour is (now) exemplified by people like Piet Croucamp, Max du Preez, Pik Botha, Anton Van Niekerk, Pierre de Vos, etc.

Our passion for healing was, in my opinion, also the main motor behind the majority Yes vote in the referendum in 1992. Many Afrikaners thought that being “nice” (like e.g. the Swedes) was the only way out of all the fighting. I.e. many Afrikaners wanted to “heal” the bad relationship they had with blacks. The only problem is that this innate propensity to heal is not suited for African conditions… for here the Rule of the Jungle is still very much prevalent. And hell, what do the Swedes know about Africa in any case?!

Be that as it may; we share identity characteristics with other people that are also unique. We, like the Bushman, are in awe of Nature. No wonder the Afrikaners and the Bushmen get along so well, especially during the Angolan War. We established nature reserves long before it became cool to like the natural environment. Unlike our European peers, our art and literature is mainly devoted to the admiration of nature in connection with existential deliberations, e.g. Eugène N. Marais`s Die siel van die mier. (Eng title: The soul of the ant.)

We, as a people, prefer to spend every free minute in nature, be it camping, hunting, or visiting game/nature reserves. This also has its drawbacks. You`d hardly see an Afrikaner family going to a museum or art gallery on the weekend. This has, unfortunately, seen us lag behind our European peers.in terms of sustained “intellectuality”. But then, we live in the most beautiful country in the world… and we have been forced to fight for our continued survival as a unique people ever since we landed here 350 years ago.

Last, but definitely not least; if it were up to me, I’d change the word history to herstory when it comes to summarising the history of the Afrikaner, for the Afrikaner woman is the most unique woman on the planet. They know exactly what they want, and will go through hell and high water to get it… even if it means whipping their men all the way there.

In conclusion: I think that, given our absolutely unique pharmaconian character, the identity of the Afrikaner can best be summed up in the (moral) imperative of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger; sein lassen.

This idea/l, letting be, is a battle-cry to consciously demand and strive for an independent Lebensraum for yourself, as a unique people… as well as for all other things unique, be it other people, races, cultures, beliefs, or nature herself. Even during Apartheid, warped as it was, the Afrikaner promoted the independence of the various unique black peoples of South Africa. It is certainly not the Afrikaner’s fault that the latter did not stay true to their own identities… something they now yearn for with all their (identity-less) soul.

A discussion about the difference between the Boer and the Afrikaner is conspicuous by its absence in this column. In my opinion, the Boer is just a much hardier version of the Afrikaner – true grit… best summed up by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Take a community of Dutchman of the type of those who defended themselves for fifty years against all the power of Spain at a time when Spain was the greatest power in the world.Intermix with them a strain of those inflexible French Huguenots, who gave up their name and left their country forever at the time of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The product must obviously be one of the most rugged, virile, unconquerable races ever seen upon the face of the earth. Take these formidable people and train them for seven generations in constant warfare against savage men and ferocious beasts, in circumstances in which no weakling could survive; place them so that they acquire skill with weapons and in horsemanship, give them a country which is immanently suited to the tactics of the huntsman, the marksman and the rider. Then, finally, put a fine temper upon their military qualities by a dour fatalistic Old Testament religion and an ardent and consuming patriotism.Combine all these qualities and all these impulses in one individual and you have the modern Boer.

That said; the very survival of the Afrikaner is now at stake. At the heart of this war is the battle for his identity. It is now up to the Afrikaner to decide his own fate… for letting others be definitely does not imply forsaking your own right to be!

[followbutton username=’albertbrenner1′ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Master and slave

by Albert Brenner

It is always so amusing to witness the blatant hypocrisy on display when (the) Slave becomes Master. The Enlightenment philosopher Friedrich Hegel`s masterful little piece, the Master-Slave dialectic, has been the fons et origo of all the various discourses by the Other to claim/gain power.

From Simone de Beauvoir`s First Wave Feminism, Frantz Fanon’s Black Consciousness Movement to the modern Gay and Lesbian Movement, all call on Hegel. It was even the inspiration behind Francis Fukuyama’s rather dull neo-liberal utopianism in his international best-seller The End of History and the Last Man. It is rather trite, but it needs elucidation… especially if one wants to understand the pseudo-intellectual madness underpinning Mandelatopia.

According to Hegel, the Slave first becomes just like the (hated) Master s/he has overthrown. I.e. the former institutes the exact same regime that supported the latter. In subsequent stages, the consciousness of these two antagonists are suppose to fuse – bringing about a “higher plane of Reality” through the synthesis of the thesis (i.e. The Master) and the antithesis (i.e. The Slave).

It suffices to say that this synthesis has never happened. Hegel was a typical German idealist… always dreaming of Utopia. Yet, his dialectic, in itself, exists – and is evident in many spheres of reality, e.g. Anthony Giddens’s Third Way (socialism), as a synthesis between capitalism and communism. As to Hegel’s overt utopianism; Sir Karl Popper dealt it the death-blow with his fantastic book The Poverty of Historicism.

Be that as it may; we can clearly see that the new Master of South Africa, the ANC/SACP/COSATU alliance, has instituted the exact same discriminatory regime as the old NP Apartheid government. Affirmative action, Black Economic Empowerment, race quotas in sport teams, race quotas at universities, et cetera, are the hallmarks of the new Master’s claim to the moral high ground. Like Master, like Slave.

In order to legitimise his/her overt discriminatory regime – the exact same overt discriminatory regime the (hitherto Slave) fought against – s/he must couch it in terms and concepts that deny his/her blatant inherent hypocrisy.

Sigmund Freud sees the above need as a form of guilt assuagement; in terms of the Oedipus recriminations experienced by the Brother Clan once they have killed the Great Patriarch (nudge nudge, Groot Krokodil PW Botha). I mean seriously, one ought to feel guilty, especially as an academic, when one (morally) justifies a regime that is exactly the same as the one that was overthrown… in the name of freeing the oppressed from the oppressor!

The above guilt assuagement in Mandelatopia comes in three forms. Firstly; “re-dressing the wrongs of the past”. The silliness of such an endeavour is obvious. How can one, for example, accurately weigh what needs to be “re-dressed” when the scales were not even to start off with. Blacks in South Africa do have a “default burden”, to borrow a term from artist and activist Steve Hofmeyer. It is a fact that they were pretty much pre-Neolithic in culture till recently. Add to this a (black) population that doubles in size every 30 years then it is physically impossible to “re-dress” anything, even in a remotely fair and just manner.

The second form of guilt assuagement is “healing the wounds of the past”. This nonsense even outshines Scientology… for one can only heal something that was healed in the first place. Never in the history of South Africa has there ever been a “healed” body (politic). The Boers fought the Brits, the Brits fought the Zulus, the Zulus the Shangaans, the Brits the Zulus, et cetera, et cetera. Meaning that endeavouring to “heal” something that was not “whole/healed” in the first place is physically impossible and intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

The third form of guilt assuagement is (the) propagation of, and adherence to, “Whiteness Studies” theory. This has become the intellectual instrument of choice of anti-Afrikaner Afrikaner academics like Piet Croucamp, Anton van Niekerk, Christi van der Westhuizen, Amanda Gouws, et cetera.

It suffices to say that this pseudo-intellectual guano is just a feel-good academic disguise for stripping the (heterosexual) Pale Male of his power… as called for by the father of this nonsense, Noel Ignatiev. His call to “abolish the white race” is nothing but a call for the Master (the heterosexual Pale Male) to be killed by the Slave (the Other), globally.

Okay, enough theory; let us examine how Hegel and Freud’s theories work in practice. Enter the half-wit, Dr Piet Croucamp. Peester Piet (henceforth, PP) first rose to prominence when he threw his lot in with the (hitherto) Slave during a speech by Mandela at the University of Stellenbosch in 1991. According to an article (see picture, click to enlarge) in the Vrye Weekblad of Max du Preez (a useful idiot of George Soros), PP had brawled with some “right-wing” students because they were being “intolerant”.

Find below a translation of the most important parts of this article, titled “I cannot tolerate intolerance”:

“But I get seriously pissed off when people are intolerant…when people don`t want to listen and just pay attention to their own boring rhetoric.”
“I do not have specific political views and beliefs. It is just that I cannot tolerate intolerance. Here it concerns the nice old classic Socratic idea of (an) open-ended debate.”
“I would have hit lefties as well if they had screamed down speakers and displayed such intolerance. It is, at the end of the day, (the) participation that counts – whether somebody is a fascist, a racist or a liberal, is irrelevant.”

Now, what tolerance, in terms of his much-professed “open-ended Socratic style of debate”, did PP display towards Dr Louise Mabille when she published her article, Die vreemde veraad van feministe teenoor die Weste, on Praag? What “participation” did he allow her… given the fact that he said even “racists” must be allowed to “say their say” without hindrance? Why did he not hit himself, seeing that he had said he would hit “lefties” as well if they displayed such intolerance?

The answer to all these questions can be summed up in one sentence. PP is the Master now… and the Master, by his/her very nature, is always intolerant! Like, for example, the previous regime’s use of state coercion to silence Steve Biko, so PP used the power of state instruments (in this case, the UP senate and SAHRC) to silence Dr Mabille… even before she had the opportunity to “say her say”!

That PP, is too dumb to understand that he has become that hated Master he so loathed as (champion of the) Slave way back then, must be due to the fact that he did his doctorate in minbus-taxi berths, or something equally academically frivolous.

And not only is PP intellectually under-endowed, he is also a lying sack of guano. He lied in public when he said that Dr Mabille wrote that blacks had a genetic “inclination” to commit baby rape. She said no such thing! She said it was a cultural phenomenon among black ethnic groups. This is an empirical fact confirmed by leading medical professionals, top ANC leaders, black social workers, et cetera.

Now why didn’t PP lodge a complaint against the above-mentioned persons and institutions as well? And why hasn’t the SAHRC laid “hate speech” charges against all the above-mentioned international news agencies and their reporters? Well, they, like PP, are all (still) part and parcel of the same thuggish being, the Master.

But one day, soon, some Slave, like my recalcitrant self, will rise up and hit Master PP full in the face, for it is foreordained by Hegel’s Master-Slave dialectic. How exciting, how boring…

PS. Hey Peester Piet, jammer, Meester Piet… wat het van jou Simsonhare geword?!