Facebook to help Merkel censor anti-migrant posts

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was caught discussing the censorship of anti-migrant posts at the United Nations development summit Saturday while speaking with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

According to CNBC, the pair were picked up by a hot mic after Merkel confronted Zuckerberg on social media posts critical of “the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany.”

After being asked about Facebook’s efforts to curtail speech, Zuckerberg stated, “We need to do some work,” confirming he’d already started looking at ways to hinder comments in opposition to Merkel’s immigration stance.

“Are you working on this?” Merkel asked. “Yeah,” Zuckerberg responded before their microphone was cut.

In response to the shocking revelation, media outlets such as Bloomberg immediately leapt to the defense of the tech giant, insinuating that any critique of the German government’s response to the migrant crisis would be “racist” and “xenophobic.”

Only just last week, an article by Infowars’ Kit Daniels examining the pope’s controversial comments on mass immigration was pulled and barred from Facebook without explanation.

Since the migrant crisis began, news outlets across the globe have both covered up crucial facts, specifically NATO’s responsibility in destabilizing Syria, and gone out of their way to outright ignore any stories that highlight the criminal acts of migrants.

Zuckerberg’s penchant for censoring speech deemed politically incorrect is unsurprising given his meeting late last year with Lu Wei, the czar of China’s authoritarian Internet censorship system.

Source: Infowars

Facebook pledges to combat German racism

Facebook pledged Monday to combat racist hate speech on its German-language network amid an upsurge in xenophobic comments online as Germany faces an unprecedented influx of refugees.

The US social media network said it would encourage “counter speech” and step up monitoring of anti-foreigner commentary, as company representatives were due to meet German Justice Minister Heiko Maas later Monday.

Facebook said it would work with other organisations in Germany “to develop appropriate solutions to counter xenophobia and racism and to represent this online”.

It also urged users to report offensive postings and announced a partnership with the group Voluntary Self-Monitoring of Multimedia Service Providers (FSM).

As Germany faces a record influx of refugees and a backlash from the far right, social media such as Facebook have seen an upsurge of xenophobic commentary.

Opposition Greens party co-chief Katrin Goering-Eckardt several days ago read out in a YouTube clip a litany of verbal attacks that had been posted on her Facebook page, and urged the company to “finally ensure that such hatred and filth” is deleted.

She said freedom of expression is important but “has its limits when it comes to agitation to commit violence, or sickening hate speech”.

Many users say that when they complain to Facebook about offensive posts, the network often responds that after a review the post does not violate its community standards.

Users also accuse the company of double standards for cracking down swifter and harder on nudity and sexual content than on hate-mongering.

Maas said Facebook was required to delete posts in violation of German laws against incitement of racial hatred.

In his invitation to company executives he said he wanted to talk about “improving the effectiveness and transparency of your community standards”.

Facebook said it was “convinced that social media can be used effectively to discuss and question views such as xenophobia”.

Weeks ago Germany’s most popular film star, Til Schweiger, blasted fans who left dozens of anti-immigrant comments on his Facebook page after he appealed for donations for a “refugee charity”.

And a German TV journalist’s impassioned appeal last month for an “uprising of decent people against racism and attacks on asylum-seekers” was viewed more than five million times via Facebook alone within 48 hours, drawing an outpouring of both support and scorn.

Facebook said in April it would not allow the social network to be used to promote hate speech or terrorism as it unveiled a wide-ranging update of its global community standards.

Source: AFP

SA heading for internet censorship

The Film and Publication Board (FPB) has refuted rumours that its Draft Online Regulation Policy will censor internet usage in South Africa.

It says the proposed regulations are to ensure that commercial media distributions do not publish or promote illegal material such as pornography, violence and hate speech outside of the guidelines.

The FPB held a public hearing in Johannesburg on Thursday night to consider objections are from civil society and advocacy groups.

This as the FPB’s Draft Policy on Online Regulations has been met with extreme criticism. It has been called the worst internet censorship law ever planned for this country.

According to the policy, the FPB will have the power to order publishers to remove content they deem unwanted.

This means news agencies which use online platforms may have their content taken down at the discretion of the FPB.

FPB’s Chief Operating Officer, Sipho Risiba, says the regulations are intended for registered distributors of films, games and online content producers and will not affect ordinary internet users.

However, a clause in the policy reads as follows: “With regard to any other content distributed online, the Board shall have the power to order an administrator of ANY online platform to take down any content the Board deems potentially harmful.”

With the proposed pre-classification process, breaking news and citizen journalism could be limited.

Examples of police brutality against thew white minority in South Africa could be censored.

Citizen journalists taking footage of such events on their cellphones to promote social justice issues will no longer be able to post material right away. The draft regulations will take that immediacy away.

he FPB will continue with public consultations on the Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga in June and July. Hearings have already been conducted in the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.

Critics maintain that the proposed screening on online material is a gross violation of the constitutional right to the freedom of expression including the freedom of the press.

Anti-racists are the new racists

roodt_dan_wiki

by Dan Roodt

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

Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page

South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone, figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them. Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven. Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his hands.” In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a “swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems. The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had committed suicide after his life and his business had been ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media, both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism. Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial, anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious. What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago, twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape, was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she has presented a shining example of how whites should not participate in the public arena.  It is a good thing that Louise Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of Pretoria has accepted it.”

From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s degree in creative writing from the University of the Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however. Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of “There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay, pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a “post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty, indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest, soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery, being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul. Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word. Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves. Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg, either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Celebrity "businessman" Kenny Kunene
Celebrity “businessman” Kenny Kunene

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her “feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which, according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse. As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full potential will be released and women will repossess their collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely: pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.” As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’ Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe, lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word “Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette. That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual: denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system, Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a fair trial. His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end, against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our blood?

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

Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page

Petition: Free speech for Sunette Bridges! Spraakvryheid vir Sunette!

Sunette Bridges
Sunette Bridges

Petition in support of Sunette Bridges. Fill in your name and e-mail, then click on “Sign Now”. Also tweet and share on Facebook by using the buttons on the far left of this page.

[emailpetition id=”4″]
[signaturelist id=”4″]

My verklaring oor Cancervive

deur Sunette Bridges

Hierdie is seker een van die moeilikste skrywes wat ek nog ooit moes doen. Ek het baie tyd spandeer daaraan om mooi te dink en hard gebid vir leiding oor die saak.

Ek het eergister op FB gemeld dat ek vandag in Naboomspruit optree ten bate van Cancervive. Ek is deur ‘n Boervrou in die gemeenskap genader op die optrede vir haar te doen om te help met die kaartjieverkope. Ek het ingestem om gratis vir haar te gaan optree. Hierdie vrou het self die pad van Kanker gestap en wou graag ‘n bydrae maak om dit vir ander moontlik te maak om behandeling te ontvang. Soos baie van julle seker weet, het my Pa ook Kanker gehad en is dit een van die sake wat ek al vir baie jare met graagte ondersteun.

Gistermiddag het ek ‘n oproep van my kliënt ontvang om my mee te deel dat Cancervive haar versoek het om onmiddelik my optrede vandag te kanselleer omdat hulle nie met my politieke oortuigings vereenselwig wil word nie. Die arme vrou was ongelooflik ontsteld en geweldig bekommerd oor wat sy vandag vir die mense gaan se oor hoekom ek nie by die funksie is nie. Ek was hartseer, maar het vir haar gese dat sy nie bekommerd moet wees nie en dat ek op enige ander datum in die toekoms gratis vir die mense sal kom sing. Ek het die saak daar gelaat.

‘n Rukkie later is ek meegedeel dat die besluit van Cancervive ‘n direkte uitvloeisel is van ‘n e-pos van deur ‘n ene Johan Pienaar aan Cancervive se publisiteitsmaatskappy gestuur is. In die e-pos deel Pienaar Cancervive mee dat hy geskok is om te verneem dat hulle geassosieer word met ‘n RASSIS soos ek wat deur die MRK aangekla word vir rassisme en voeg hy ook by dat hy ontevrede is met die feit dat die funksie in die AP-Kerk in Naboomsptuit se kerksaal gehou word aangesien die ook ‘n Rassistiese instansie is. Cancervive het egter gekies om nie kapsie te maak oor die saal nie, maar wel oor my optrede daar.

Daar is ‘n blad op FB wat jou al vir presies 11 maande ‘n smeerveldtog teen my voer en ek het verneem dat die e-pos op die blad gepubliseer is en hul hul lesers aangemoedig het om ook almal aan Cancervive te skryf om hul te versoek om nie met my te assosieer nie. Enkele lede van die blad het dit ook goedgedink om dieselfde skrywes op Cancervive se FB blad te gaan maak. Cancervive se eerste amptelike reaksie was om die persone mee te deel dat hulle A-polities is en ondersteuning van enigeen verwelkom. Dis nou blykbaar enigeen behalwe ek.

Die spreker van Cancervive het intussen in Naboomsruit opgedaag en dit was aan haar verduidelik dat my kliënt in ‘n reuse verknorsing was agv hul houding jeens my. Die dame, by name Frieda Henning, het my toe gekontak. Sy het vreeslik hard probeer om vir my te verduidelik dat Cancervive nie omgee van watter geloofs- of politiese oortuiging hul bydraers is nie, maar dat my deelname vir hulle in ‘n moeilike posisie plaas. Ek het aan haar verduidelik dat ek reeds ‘n e-pos aan Cancervive oor die situasie gestuur het en dat ek ‘n amptelike verklaring van hulle versoek oor hoekom my optrede gekanselleer is. Cancervive het egter alles in hul vermoeë gedoen om ‘n amptelike uitlating te vermy en my sowaar vesoek om steeds maar die vertoning te kom doen so in die stilligheid sonder dat hulle skriftelik hoef te reageer oor die insident. Dit terwyl hulle personeel reeds e-posse van die Smeerblad se lede geantwoord het waarin hulle die mense meegedeel het dat dit EK was wat my optrede gekanselleer het. Ek stel dit onomwonde dat ek op geen stadium my optrede daar gekanselleer het nie, maar dat die versoek vir my om nie daar te wees nie, ‘n direkte opdrag aan my kliënt van Cancervive af was.

Wat my stomslaan is dat Cancervive blykbaar GEEN probleem het daarmee om WIT mense in Naboomspruit, boonop lede van die APKerk, se geld te vat vir hul organisasie nie, maar nie die rugraat het om ‘n stadpunt in te neem teen ‘n ooglopende kwaadwillige smeerveldtog nie. Ek sou graag die optrede van die Smeerblad se lede as laakbaar wou beskryf, maar dit sou beteken dat ‘n mense beter van hulle sou verwag en dit is nie die geval nie. Wat ek wel laakbaar vind is die optrede van Cancervive.

Op geen stadium het ek navraag gedoen oor wie sou baat by my optrede nie. Vir my het dit oor die SAAK gegaan. Ek het ook besluit om nou eers hierdie skrywe te doen om sodoende nie vir Marinda, my kliënt in Naboomspruit enige skade te berokken of haar funksie in die wiele te ry nie, maar voel dat dit nou belangrik is om ‘n standpunt in te neem teen hierdie organisasie se optrede en die publiek in te lig oor die aangeleentheid. Ons velkleur is verkeerd vir hierdie BEE instansie. Ons politiek is verkeerd vir hierdie BEE instansie, maar duidelik is die kleur van ons geld vir hulle geen probleem nie. Dit is tyd ons ons begin om SLEGS Volkseie aksies te ondersteun en na ons eie mense om moet sien en, soos in die geval van Naspers, moet PRAAT met ons geld!

Die R25 000 wat Cancervive uit Naboomspruit se Blanke mense maak, behoort in totaal aan die gemeenskap terugbetaal te word!

Ek dank die Vader dat ek NIE afhanklik is van my sangloopbaan om te oorleef nie en dat ek dus nooit nodig sal he om my beginsels prys te gee om my siel te verkoop om te oorleef nie.

Hier is die skakel na die fotoalbum met al die detail oor hierdie siek mense se optrede… Sx

Pretoria PEN and the new occult censorship

by Dan Roodt

I belong to a writer’s organisation called Pretoria PEN which has been affiliated for the past six years to PEN International, a world-wide network of authors and journalists. Some of the people who have been presidents of PEN chapters or “centres” as they are called, have been famous writers such as Günter Grass, Václav Havel, Salman Rushdie and others.

However, since October last year I have been embroiled in an increasingly ugly procedural and quasi-political wrangle with a group of Cape authors who have hijacked Pretoria PEN. Yes, I know, lots of people in South Africa get hijacked all the time, usually facing an AK-47-wielding hijacker demanding their motor vehicle. Many also get killed or wounded in the process. Sometimes the hijackers kill their victims just for sport.

So immediately, as is our wont, I can hear a chorus of voices piping in: “Regard yourself as lucky. You are still alive!” That’s normally what people say to a hijack victim who has merely lost his car or pick-up truck. Or to a rape victim. Present-day South Africa is, after all, famous for all the wrong things, being the so-called “rape capital” of the world. We are also way up there with Colombia and a few others in the murder stakes. If only our rugby and cricket teams could maintain the same consistent standards as our murderers, we would have won the last few rugby matches against the All Blacks of New Zealand.

The three Cape authors who hijacked or tried to hijack our literary society are Fanie Olivier, John Miles and Piet Haasbroek. Strictly speaking, Olivier is a poet and not from the Cape either, as he commutes between Poznań and Durban. Poznań, as you probably know, is a Polish city. In one of my favourite short French novels by Jean-Philippe Toussaint, La salle de bain, there are some Polish painters who disturb the main character while he he has taken up residence in the bathroom, reading books and listening to football matches broadcast over the radio.

I was not disturbed by any Polish painter, a rare species in South Africa, but by a Polish email informing me that these three gentlemen were demanding the keys, figuratively speaking, to our little societal Volkswagen. We held meetings, amended our constitution and invited any dissident members to make their voices or their votes heard, to enter into debate and reasonable discussion, to no avail.

After Poznań, the action moved to Stellenbosch where on 7 March 2012 Olivier delivered a speech where he, inter alia, denounced organ music. Now, it may interest you that one of the aftereffects of apartheid or Afrikaner rule in South Africa is that the whole country is littered with organs, especially German ones, being of good quality. Many postgrads in music have written theses about the church organs of small towns. Of course, many of those small towns now bear different names and some of them are awash in sewage as the new town councils are more interested in buying Mercedes-Benzes than in maintaining their water purification systems. Visiting such run-down water purification plants has become a form of tourism among some local activists, one of them being Mr. Jaap Kelder of the National Taxpayers’ Association.

But I digress. The point of Olivier’s denuncation of organ music was that it had some connotation with Christianity. One of the sins committed by Pretoria PEN was that we had actually contracted one of those postgrads, an organist from the University of Pretoria’s music school, to come and give a recital to us after our AGM in January, boycotted by Olivier and his friends. And that was not only a faux pas, but also decidedly politically incorrect. In fact, during Olivier’s rambling little speech in Stellenbosch, the mere mention of the organ elicited howls of ridicule and guffaws of contempt.

Perhaps some background is needed. Fanie Olivier, the poet laureate of a place called Durban-Westville, has spent most of his life teaching literature at segregated universities, situated in the notorious Bantustans or “homelands” of apartheid. His father, a powerful figure and high-ranking member of a secret Afrikaner society known as the Broederbond (the Society of Brothers), was the first principal of the Indians-only University of Durban-Westville, so it is quite understandable that the heir to the throne, young Fanie, was also appointed there where he debuted with the anthology, Gom uit die sipres (Glue from the cypress).

Later he was a professor of Afrikaans at the University of Venda, in the former homeland known as the Republic of Venda. I am unaware that he ever took up Venda citizenship, although he may have learnt the language. For those who know little about South Africa, the Limpopo province, where the majority of Vendas live, in the former Republic of Venda, is where most ritual murders take place. A few hundred people get killed every year, to make medicine from body parts. Children too. Of course, this is never put on our tourist brochures and few people dare to write about it, except some bored court reporters who may happen to stumble upon such a case being heard. Usually, such reports are anodyne, with the race and ethnicity of murderer and victim carefully omitted and published towards the bottom of the inner pages of newspapers where only the very curious ever venture.

The thing about ritual murders is that they entail a belief in the occult. Some hijackers also buy muti, or medicine, from so-called sangomas or witch doctors, before setting out on the day’s business, pistol or assault rifle in hand. But “occult”, for those who know Latin, also has another meaning: “that which is concealed or difficult to detect”. Now, I am not of the school that looks for “influences” in an author’s work, but perhaps Fanie Olivier did to some extent acculturate during his many years at the University of Venda.

He has an uncanny belief in the powers of obfuscation, the ruse, making simple things abstruse, even claiming that our society, Pretoria PEN, “ceased to exist long ago”, as if he were waving Harry Potter’s magic wand or throwing the bones in a dark hut in Venda while declaiming some powerful incantation that will change a man into a croccodile or cause someone to drop dead hundreds of kilometres away.

I know vampires are fashionable too. Or the girl with the dragon tattoo. But the next scene in Fast Fanie’s racy tale (a previous cricket player here had the nickname, “Vinnige Fanie”) shifts to South Korea where, during the annual congress of PEN International, he presents himself as not only the President of Pretoria PEN, having hijacked us by remote control, magically, as it were, by email from Poland, but also its chief name-changer. Now, it so happens that name changes are another touchy topic in South Africa. One day you may be driving down a street, and the next the name may be changed to that of some Party stalwart or some arcane figure from a non-existent past, such as the mythical Chief Tshwane who, legend has it, founded a lost city, more or less in the same place as present-day Pretoria and therefore deserves to be eponymously honoured.

In the book South Africa’s Brave New World, R.W. Johnson ascribes a lot of the current South African obsessions with gambling, palaces and lost cities to the influence of entrepreneur Sol Kerzner who built a series of such casino palaces and follies, replete with artificial waterfalls and lakes, even beaches, in another Bantustan, the Republic of Bophutatswana. Johnson states somewhere that SA has now become “one big Bantustan”. Not far from where I live, there is a Renaissance Tuscan village with a casino and shops inside and artifical stars twinkling on the ceiling. Very African, you might say.

In a Bantustan, by knowing the right people and oiling the right palms, you could become a millionaire, and go off to Las Vegas or the Bahamas and repeat the trick there. Just look at Sol Kerzner. Vinnige Fanie is a man of ambition who knows his way around any Bantustan, especially the Grand Bantustan that Johnson refers to. He is also a lawyer, an advocate at the Durban bar, so able to ensnare hapless authors in his byzantine legalistic strategems.

But let’s stick to our plot and get back to the city of Gyeongju in South Korea. This is also historical, for it must be the first name change in history that was decreed in a completely different country, in the Far East, where dragons and not kitsch concrete elephants usually adorn the palaces. Poor old Pretoria, poor old Kruger whose statue still stands – for the time being at least – on Church Square, Pretoria. There he gets polluted by pigeon droppings and some pieces of his bronze get hacked off, nay hijacked by entrepreneurial individuals,  who sell them to scrap metal dealers. And Church Street was found to be such an offensive name that it was changed to… what? I will have to look it up on Google, one moment…

This is all very confusing. Church Street in Pretoria was so offensively long, being one of the first streets laid out in the city, that its name had to be changed to four other names: Helen Joseph, WF Nkomo, Stanza Bopape and Elias Motswaledi.

The only name that I recognise among those ones, is that of Helen Joseph, who happened to be a communist and not some legendary chief of the city lost in the mists of time, out of Rider Haggard or Edgar Rice Burroughs.

There is such a thing as Cape Communism. Or the Stellenbosch school of Marxism, which is why the university there is sometimes referred to as Stalinbosch. It is also a place where authors get banned if they do not say the right things, like I was banned from appearing on campus in 2005 during the Woordfees festival but finally managed to participate in a panel discussion only because I had armed bodyguards protecting me from being attacked by rabid Red Guards who regarded me as a bad influence on the public. In fact, I have it on good authority that some zealots are pressing for my books to be removed from the library of the University of Stellenbosch for being sexist or racist or both.

One of the people who accused me of “sexism” was André Brink who writes barely disguised autobiographical novels boasting about the number of his female conquests and in his latest novel, Philida, makes liberal use of the ethnic slur, “kaffir”, for which people in South Africa normally get dragged before the Equality Court and fined or even imprisoned. See the logic there? I don’t.

But back to Gyeongju where Pretoria PEN became the latest casualty of the ANC government’s name change policy, no doubt because it was seen as an “offensive” name, as offensive as the capital’s name or Paul Kruger’s name whose statue is being slowly devoured by the clients of scrap metal dealers. According to Fanie Olivier, delivering his rambling speech in Stellenbosch, “Pretoria PEN” was a “random” name. (He used the Afrikaans word “lukraak”, which more or less means random.)

One month after the meeting in Gyeongju, shortly after asking for Fanie Olivier’s address as it seems that this little exercise, plagiarised from the writings of Franz Kafka, will now go to court, I receive a laconic email from PEN International stating the following:

“We are writing to inform you that on 14 September 2012 the PEN International Assembly of Delegates at the 78th PEN Congress in Gyeongju, Korea voted to change the Pretoria PEN Centre’s name to PEN Afrikaans.
Following this decision, Pretoria PEN no longer exists as a Centre of PEN International.”

How curious. So our legally constituted literary society, founded in the real city of Pretoria, not some fictional realm of the imagination or the ANC government’s commissars, may be vaporised without even consulting us. No right of appeal, nothing.

Talking of commissars, is it any coincidence that the South African Minister of Higher Education also happens to be the leader of the Communist Party, that old blade runner, known as Blade Nzimande? Logically, those academics down at the University of Stellenbosch where the new “cloned” but rebranded Pretoria PEN is ostensibly headquartered, have to kow-tow to their minister who has wide powers to appoint and dissolve university councils. So now we understand a bit better how so many intellectual champions of apartheid and the Bible have now converted to another Book and find organ music execrable.

However, if literature is becoming more and more state-controlled in our de facto one-party state (65% of the population and 90% of black people vote for the ANC and its SACP alliance partner), there are also the corporate powers to consider. Often the big corporations and government work closely together, especially when contracts are awarded. It is generally accepted that the “New South Africa” is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Not for nothing have we coined the term “tenderpreneur” to describe people doing business with the state.

Add to this mix the National Intelligence Agency whose white, Afrikaner members are apparently so desperate to keep their jobs amid rampant affirmative action that they will do anything to ensnare their own people in acts of high treason, conspiracy and sex scandals. Facebook and the commentary sections of South African web pages are apparently rife with NIA trolls who sow dissension, ridicule and slander. Public figures seen to be “dissidents” or “outspoken” are regularly vilified.

Quite a few members of Pretoria PEN, such as myself and singer/writer Steve Hofmeyr, have been subjected to whole campaigns, also in the media. Several people regularly posted a satirical poem that I had written as a 20-year old everywhere he could and also sent it to thousands of people by email, completely disregarding any copyright I may hold over the poem. One such person was apparently an English-speaking member of a far-right group who considered me to be a danger to society for having written such scabrous satirical poetry in my young days.

Is it pure coincidence that while Fanie Olivier is waging his behind-the-scenes email campaign against Pretoria PEN, there should be another group of trolls on Wikipedia publishing half-truths and distortions about me? When I enquire about their identity, I get promptly banned from Wikipedia! The anonymous literary critics on Wikipedia have also ascertained that I suffer from mental retardation, being insufferably stupid, and that all my books put together contain “nothing of any merit”. At least these Wiki-writers, even if faceless, are not ambiguous.

Part of Fanie Olivier and his henchmen’s approach was to “leak information” to friends, journalists at the Cape Town daily Die Burger and other Naspers publications who would then try to stigmatise me and others. Naspers tabloid Sondag went so far as to draw a completely spurious association between me and a supposed adult-dating site, suggesting that I was a pornographer. Naturally I complained to the Press Ombudsman of South Africa, who ordered the newspaper to publish an apology on its front page. The newspaper lodged one appeal after the other, but each time the original decision was upheld. In a final desperate attempt to stall the apology, the newspaper is suing the Press Ombudsman, a historical first in South Africa.

The journalist from Die Burger who had published Fanie Olivier’s “leak” was also ordered by the Ombudsman to publish an apology to me and Pretoria PEN at the beginning of 2012. That was before Naspers got around to the idea that it could bully the Ombud through lengthy court cases.

Only a few months ago, as president of Pretoria PEN, I testified before the Media Commission about press freedom in South Africa and mechanisms for keeping the Naspers group, which has a total monopoly in Afrikaans media, under control without curtailing freedom of the press.

I strongly suspect that the takeover attempt by Fanie Olivier, John Miles and Piet Haasbroek is being financed by some Naspers entity, such as one of their book-publishing concerns down in Cape Town. An unnamed “sponsor” paid for three people to fly to Gyeongju. At the very least, the name of this sponsor should be revealed, for the sake of transparency.

In the meantime, the Naspers propaganda machine is destroying authors’ or performers’ reputations, almost at will. This is the new censorship in South Africa which, in deference to Fanie Olivier and his fellow travellers, I would call “occult censorship”. It is vague, but no less insidious and effective.

In the old days we had the staid Judge Lammie Snyman and his fellow censors who saw it as their prerogative to protect us from communist or terrorist propaganda and obscenity. They were easy to deal with and almost counter-productive. They made heroes out of people like André Brink or Nadine Gordimer whose books were banned for a few short months or slightly longer before they were unbanned on appeal. Today, we are caught between Scylla and Charybdis, the state that wants to control everything according to the East German model, and the Naspers media monopoly that prides itself on being able to make or break anyone’s reputation. If you had deep pockets, you could take them on in the courts, or otherwise through the Ombudsman. As I have found out, even the Ombudsman will only give you a Pyrrhic victory as Naspers sees itself not bound by any adverse decision from the so-called “self-regulatory body”.

When the Naspers Sunday paper Rapport published the infamous interview with another Pretoria PEN member, Annelie Botes, on 21 November 2010 I immediately saw all the hallmarks of another character assassination. Preying on Annelie’s honesty and concern about crime and violence in South Africa, they focussed on one sentence where she spoke of her inner fears as a member of an ethnic and racial minority. The context was completely disregarded and she was immediately calumnied as xenophobic, even racist.

Annelie Botes is probably the most popular literary author in South Africa. Locally, she far outsells André Brink, Nadine Gordimer, J.M. Coetzee or any of the big names in South African literary fiction. She addresses difficult and courageous themes, such as autism, incest and child abuse in her works. The public loves her for it.

However, as a result of the Rapport interview, the K. Sello Duiker award was taken away from her and just yesterday she confessed on Facebook that her latest manuscript had been rejected by her publisher. In this way, another talented and widely-read author is being silenced.

I see on the CV of Annelie Botes that she also has a teaching licentiate in classical music – the piano – and was at one time a church organist. As a result, she will never be acceptable to any PEN Centre down in Cape Town, least of all one that meets on the campus of Stellenbosch University, with Philistine Fanie as its president.

Let’s make the organ our new resistance symbol, I feel! And the pen, of course, which may just be mightier than the hijacker’s AK-47, even in this country where violence and revolution have been romanticized for so long.

I receive quite a bit of fan mail, despite being banned in Stellenbosch. The other day I got a note from a young hacker who offered to hack the ebooks of all my literary enemies and upload them to the Swedish Pirate Bay and similar websites. That way no one would have to buy their books ever again; they and their publishers would make losses. I declined his offer, being something of a victim of piracy or “hacked” and dismembered works myself.

However, I thought to myself afterwards, have things become so desperate that such extreme measures, sabotaging or pirating the books of others, should be considered? Indeed, there is a sense of “living on the edge” in South Africa. We are locked into a struggle for survival, and in some respects our whole world is caving in around us. Whether it is the Marikana mining massacre or just another everyday xenophobic killing of an immigrant from another African country, or a farm murder, we are living in an “age of iron”, to borrow a phrase from J.M. Coetzee. The latter preferred emigration to Australia.

The theme of fear that Annelie Botes broached in her interview is becoming more and more palpable. Another colleague and Pretoria PEN member, Gustav Venter, has just published his novel Die amigdala van Alrina Smal in which a woman goes almost insane with fear after a sexual assault. Will it even be reviewed by the printed press, I wonder? It also deviates from the post-card multicultural paradise that everybody sees in South Africa and for that reason might fall victim to the new occult censorship.

Effectively, Annelie Botes, Steve Hofmeyr, Gustav Venter, Fransi Phillips and all the other innovative and courageous authors depicting our contemporary reality in their works, together with me, have been excluded from PEN International without due process or any right of appeal. The censors of Stellenbosch and the media monopoly have spoken.

Yet we do need to organise ourselves to confront our imminent exclusion from the literary community, in South Africa and abroad. Already Fanie Olivier is making legal threats to us if we continue to exercise that right as we have been doing since 2004. He claims to have the support of the London management of PEN International.

But we have the right to associate with one another, as well as the right to communicate with other authors and NGOs all over the world. Let no one intimidate us into surrendering that right, nor into giving up the fight for free speech in South Africa.

Jared Taylor makes plea for White Student Union in Towson

Member of Youth for Western Civilization

by Kyle Rogers of examiner.com

Pro-American activist Jared Taylor spoke at Towson University near Baltimore to argue for the need for a White Student Union on campus.

Taylor is the author of Paved With Good Intentions, and the president of New Century Foundation. Local Charleston residents may recognize his name as he has been a repeat guest on the Rocky D radio show.

Several groups at Towson, most notably the Black Student Union, are advocating racial discrimination against whites. They say the University should not allow a White Student Union, even though it provides lavish funding for every other racial group to organize. The University tried to keep Taylor from coming by charging him $1,600 for “security.” The University lets all manner of radical left-wing and black power activists use campus facilities and provides them with security free of charge.

The Black Student Union organized against the speech. That group packed the conference room early, causing many supporters of Jared Taylor to be shut out. Only two hundred people were allowed in the room. A large number of supporters of Jared Taylor who came from out of town were denied entry.

The Towson Black Student Union takes a militant stance on campus. The official facebook page for the group shows two of its leaders giving black power salutes. They also have a black panther painted on the wall of their University-funded Black Student Union facility. Their official website displays the black power flag emblem used by the New Black Panther Party.

The speech was organized by a student named Matthew Heimbach. He has run an official campus group in the past. It was called “Youth For Western Civilization.” Heimbach, and other members of the group were viciously harassed on campus. They were bombarded with death threats and threats of being gang raped. Campus police turned a blind eye. Their faculty sponsor was harassed into withdrawing his sponsorship.

Jared Taylor made an eloquent half-hour presentation and then answered questions for an hour. The entire event was recorded. Click the video in this article to watch it.