Europe created the Afrikaner problem in South Africa

A recent statement by the FW de Klerk Foundation in Cape Town after the Constitutional Court’s finding in the Renate Barnard affirmative-action case, said that “[the judgement] is, in effect, a prescription for, and validation of, harmful discrimination against millions of South African citizens for an indefinite period, on no basis other than their race – and with no reference to their individual merits, circumstances or concerns”.

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

roodt_fbfotoLegalised “positive discrimination” against South African whites is now a fact of life, as is the growing racial nationalism of the country’s blacks. “Africa for the Africans” is the underlying slogan in South Africa, by which we must understand “African” in a racial sense. Many of South Africa’s radicalised black intellectuals and celebrities affirm that every African has the right to cross the border and settle in South Africa, but that whites “belong to Europe”.

Raidersblad2
Buy Dan Roodt’s new ebook essay for only $3 or R30.

In essence, what black racial nationalists assert is that Afrikaners have not naturalised after 360 years in the country. This might have been dismissed as simple talk by blacks, if it were not supported by the courts and the political system in South Africa which effectively exclude the Afrikaner minority of all political power and influence. Outside the Western Cape, there is not even a single municipality where Afrikaners have any say in how their taxes are spent, let alone a province or the central government.

Objectively speaking, Afrikaners have been disarmed, disenfranchised, culturally marginalised and now find themselves in the position summed up by the Canadian political scientist, Heribert Adam, as an “internal diaspora” in South Africa. Being an internal diaspora is but a few nuances removed from having the status of internal refugees.

Since 1994, criminal, political and social violence has been constantly rising in South Africa and Afrikaners have been victims of so-called “farm murders” and attacks during which they are tortured and executed in dehumanising ways reminiscent of ethnic war and ethnic cleansing. In the cities too, house robberies and interracial attacks are rising. Together with legislation all but prohibiting them from holding state and corporate jobs, it is clear that the only rational choice for Afrikaners is to leave as many have already done, emigrating to Australia, New Zealand and other countries in the British Commonwealth.

With the benefit of hindsight, both South Africa and the ex-Rhodesia were deliberately brought under the control of radical black-nationalist movements that saw no long-term future for whites in Southern Africa, notwithstanding the posturing of Nelson Mandela before the world media, which was simply meant to ensure a smooth transfer of military and police power to the ANC and the South African Communist Party.

Over the past decade or two we have seen many countries destabilised by the Western drive for “democracy”, which is usually an ill-concealed strategy to strip the target countries of their mineral wealth and other assets. In that respect, South Africa is no different to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen where the USA is currently fighting wars. America also has military personnel deployed in other states, including Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates.

While Europe normally pays obeisance to the USA in its global strategy and foreign adventures, lately also seen in Ukraine where Russian commentators have accused the EU of being a “lapdog” of the USA, the Old Continent carries a heavy responsibility for the destabilisation of Southern Africa. Instead of finding a compromise between the various peoples and interest groups in this part of the world, European states have consistently supported the most radical, anti-white, quasi-Marxist revolutionary groups. The rise of Malema and the Economic Freedom Fighters in South Africa portend exactly the same future for South Africa as the present Zimbabwe, with the confiscation of white-owned farms, urban property and other assets.

As in Gabriel García Márquez’s famous novel, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, we know exactly what the outcome is going to be: the ethnic cleansing of Afrikaners from South Africa, with or without even more violence than we are experiencing at present from the marauding, anomic killers that prosper under the ANC government’s policy of laissez-faire and a gradual descent into general lawlessness.

At least five European states may be held accountable for Afrikaners’ becoming a stateless people: Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, (East) Germany and our former colonial power, the United Kingdom. They financed and supported, also through propaganda and diplomatic means, the African National Congress and South African Communist Party, knowing full well that these were radical, revolutionary movements that would ultimately “chase the whites into the sea” as had occurred in several other African states, notably the Belgian Congo (currently the DRC), Algeria, and the Portuguese colonies such as Mozambique and Angola.

It is telling that, after finally seeing the writing on the wall, albeit 20 years too late, the FW de Klerk Foundation has just launched an appeal to the “international community” in trying to stem the devastating effects of permanent affirmative action upon a politically powerless minority. According to the FW de Klerk Foundation, “We must make it clear that we are not prepared to accept a status as second-­‐class citizens.”

Clearly, De Klerk merely followed European and particularly British dictates twenty years ago, in the optimistic belief that there would be some kind of Western or European “veto” in the future if things had to go wrong. However, with so many countries being destabilised by American wars, the international community would simply regard South Africa as yet another casualty of internal divisions without acknowleding the key role played by Europe in setting what used to be an organised Western-style industrial state on the road to radicalism, revolution and ethnic cleansing.

There is an expression in Afrikaans, gedane sake het geen keer, which is more or less equivalent to the English “no use in crying over spilt milk”. Afrikaners will never rule South Africa again and the country is living through a miniature “decline of the West”, with long-forgotten African beliefs and superstitions displacing Christianity and even the secular, scientific thought of the European Enlightenment. Mbeki’s so-called AIDS denialism was but one, highly publicised challenge to science which is also taking place in many other fields.

South Africa, like Zimbabwe, has been broken and it will never be fixed, unless there takes place such a vast conceptual revolution in the world which makes possible another basis for political power besides sheer numbers and demography, but there are very few signs of such a development. In truth, no-one cares about the fact that Zimbabwe has gone from bread basket to basket case, and neither does anyone care that South Africa is slouching towards the same fate.

VOC_shipThe only question that remains is: What is to become of the Afrikaner people? We started life out here in this colony almost four centuries ago as either refugees from Catholic France or as indentured employees of the Dutch East India Company. Today and once more, we have become at best a stateless people or “minority at risk”, holding South African passports but without any say in government, in our schools, universities, municipalities or other institutions from which we are being increasingly displaced. Everywyhere, we are subjected to a rapidly intensifying racial quota system and our children hardly have the right to study, let alone to find work within the state or corporate sector. At worst, we are already internal refugees and unlike the Portuguese of Angola or Mozambique, or even the white Rhodesians, we do not have the luxury of holding European passports. In a certain sense, having destroyed or at least destabilised our heimat, Europe does not want us back.

The behaviour of Europe could perhaps be compared to that of a man burning down his brother’s house and then refusing him shelter afterwards. Being the victims of European and American geopolitical scheming and social engineering, we do not have any form of recourse as to the consequences of their destructive designs. It was also cleverly done by means of indigenous proxies or “exiled” ones, so it is going to be difficult to prove European mischief in destabilising South Africa.

Even though we speak a variant of seventeenth-century Dutch and Low German, that former lingua franca of Northern Europe from 1300 to 1600 when the Hanseatic League held sway, we have long since ceased to think of ourselves as Europeans. We named the standardised form of our language “Afrikaans” in honour of our adopted continent, that same continent which is now rejecting us in the name of the slogan, “Africa for the Africans”, understood in a racial and cultural sense. The paradox is that the anglicised or americanised African speaking English, but racially African, is able to stigmatise the white Afrikaner as a foreigner, an interloper, despite the fact that our cultural roots in this place are deeper and more ancient than his.

However, Europe too, although it does not seem to accept the principle of “Europe for the Europans”, also enthusiastically supports the notion of “Africa for the Africans”. Most European companies apply discrimination against indigenous whites with alacrity, as it is the law of the land.

Given the continuing African population explosion, with the continent’s population set to rise to 2,5 billion in the next 30 years, the demographic pressure on us is going to be relentless, added to all the other pressures such as the violence and institutionalised discrimination. What kind of racial quota do you get by the time that you constitute only one or two percent of the population? A percent or nothing?

During the call for sanctions against South Africa during the 1980s, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher opposed it on the basis that up to a million whites from here had British passports and could therefore swell the ranks of British unemployed. Presumably the same million whites of British descent could still return to the United Kingdom, like the Portuguese from Africa did or the French pieds noirs from Algeria. But what about us, descendants of the French Huguenots, the Dutch, the Flemish and the Northern Germans whose forgotten trading language from centuries gone by we still speak, write and school our children in?

If all else goes wrong, as increasingly seems likely, do we not have the same right of return as the British, the Portuguese, the pieds noirs or the Belgians, even though we are technically “non-Europeans”?

Will Europe, as it welcomes the Syrian, Iraqui, Afghan and other refugees from destabilised countries where the Anglo-Saxon oil wars have played themselves out, reject us, despite being its own flesh and blood? Not only that, but we are truly the victims of the European political junkyard dumped on South Africa, with its Swedish theory of the melting pot, of multiculturalism, of communism, of white guilt and the rest.

In more senses than one, Afrikaners are a problem of Europe’s making.

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

Gabriel Garcia Marquez dies at age 87

Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Gabriel Garcia Marquez

MEXICO CITY — Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the Colombian author whose beguiling stories of love and longing brought Latin America to life for millions of readers and put magical realism on the literary map, died on Thursday. He was 87.

A prolific writer who started out as a newspaper reporter, Garcia Marquez’s masterpiece was One Hundred Years of Solitude, a dream-like, dynastic epic that helped him win the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1982.

Garcia Marquez died at his home in Mexico City, where he had returned from hospital last week after a bout of pneumonia.

Known affectionately to friends and fans as “Gabo”, Garcia Marquez was Latin America’s best-known and most beloved author and his books have sold in the tens of millions.

Although he produced stories, essays and several short novels such as Leaf Storm and No One Writes to the Colonel early in his career, he struggled for years to find his voice as a novelist.

100yearsofsolitudeHe then found it in dramatic fashion with One Hundred Years of Solitude, an instant success on publication in 1967. Mexican author Carlos Fuentes dubbed it “Latin America’s Don Quixote” and Chilean poet Pablo Neruda also compared it to Miguel de Cervantes’ 17th century tour de force.

Garcia Marquez’s novel tells the story of seven generations of the Buendia family in the fictional village of Macondo, based on the languid town of Aracataca close to Colombia’s Caribbean coast where he was born on March 6 1927, and raised by his maternal grandparents.

In it, Garcia Marquez combines miraculous and supernatural events with the details of everyday life and the political realities of Latin America. The characters are visited by ghosts, a plague of insomnia envelops Macondo, swarms of yellow butterflies mark the arrival of a woman’s lover, a child is born with a pig’s tail and a priest levitates above the ground.

At times comical and bawdy, and at others tragic, it sold over 30-million copies, was published in dozens of languages and helped fuel a boom in Latin American fiction.

A stocky man with a quick smile, thick mustache and curly hair, Garcia Marquez said he found inspiration for the novel by drawing on childhood memories of his grandmother’s stories — laced with folklore and superstition but delivered with the straightest of faces.

“She told things that sounded supernatural and fantastic, but she told them with complete naturalness,” he said in a 1981 interview. “I discovered that what I had to do was believe in them myself, and write them with the same expression with which my grandmother told them: with a brick face.” Although One Hundred Years of Solitude was his most popular creation, other classics from Garcia Marquez included Autumn of the Patriarch, Love in the Time of Cholera and Chronicle of a Death Foretold.

Tributes poured in following his death.

“The world has lost one of its greatest visionary writers — and one of my favourites from the time I was young,” said US President Barack Obama.

“Your life, dear Gabo, will be remembered by all of us as a unique and singular gift, and as the most original story of all,” Colombian pop star Shakira wrote on her website alongside a photograph of her hugging Garcia Marquez.

In Aracataca, a lone trumpet played on Thursday night as residents held a candlelight vigil for the man who made the town famous.

Magic and reality

Garcia Marquez was one of the prime exponents of magical realism, a genre he described as embodying “myth, magic and other extraordinary phenomena”. His most prolific years coincided with a turbulent period in much of Latin America, where right-wing dictators and Marxist revolutionaries fought for power.

Chaos was often the norm, political violence ripped some countries to shreds and life verged on the surreal. Magical realism struck a chord.

“In his novels and short stories we are led into this peculiar place where the miraculous and the real converge. The extravagant flight of his own fantasy combines with traditional folk tales and facts, literary allusions and tangible — at times obtrusively graphic — descriptions approaching the matter-of-factness of reportage,” the Swedish Academy said when it awarded Garcia Marquez the Nobel Prize in 1982.

Garcia Marquez admired Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis and was also influenced by esteemed Latin American writers Juan Rulfo of Mexico and Argentina’s Jorge Luis Borges.

US author William Faulkner inspired Garcia Marquez to create “the atmosphere, the decadence, the heat” of Macondo, named after a banana plantation on the outskirts of Aracataca.

“This word had attracted my attention ever since the first trips I had made with my grandfather, but I discovered only as an adult that I liked its poetic resonance,” he wrote in his memoirs, Living to Tell the Tale. Fans will pay their last respects to him in the Palace of Fine Arts in Mexico City on Monday and he will be cremated in a private ceremony.

Politics, literary feud

Like many of his Latin American literary contemporaries, Garcia Marquez became increasingly involved in politics and flirted with communism.

He spent time in post-revolution Cuba and developed a close friendship with communist leader Fidel Castro, to whom he sent drafts of his books.

“A man of cosmic talent with the generosity of a child, a man for tomorrow,” Mr Castro once wrote of his friend. “His literature is authentic proof of his sensibility and the fact that he will never give up his origins, his Latin American inspiration and loyalty to the truth.” The US banned Garcia Marquez from visiting for years after he set up the New York branch of communist Cuba’s official news agency and was accused of funding leftist guerrillas at home.

He once condemned the US war on drugs as “nothing more than an instrument of intervention in Latin America” but he became friends with former US president Bill Clinton.

“He captured the pain and joy of our common humanity in settings both real and magical. I was honoured to be his friend and to know his great heart and brilliant mind for more than 20 years,” Mr Clinton said on Thursday.

Despite his reputation as a left-leaning intellectual, critics say Garcia Marquez didn’t do as much as he could have done to help negotiate an end to Colombia’s long conflict, which has killed tens of thousands of people.

Instead, he left his homeland and went to live in Mexico.

The damning criticism he leveled at his homeland still rings heavily in the ears of some Colombians.

He was also a protagonist in one of literature’s most talked-about feuds with fellow Nobel laureate Mario Vargas Llosa of Peru.

The writers, who were once friends, stopped speaking to each other after a day in 1976 when Mr Vargas Llosa gave Garcia Marquez a black eye in a dispute — depending on who one believes — over politics or Mr Vargas Llosa’s wife.

But Mr Vargas Llosa paid tribute to Garcia Marquez on Thursday, calling him a “great writer” whose novels would live on.

Politics and literary spats aside, Garcia Marquez’s writing pace slowed down in the late 1990s.

A heavy smoker for most of his life, he was diagnosed with lymphatic cancer in 1999, although the disease went into remission after chemotherapy treatment.

None of his latest works achieved the success of his earlier novels.

One of those, Love in the Time of Cholera, told the story of a 50-year love affair inspired by his parents’ courtship.

It was made into a movie starring Spanish actor Javier Bardem in 2007, but many critics were disappointed and said capturing the sensuous romance of Garcia Marquez’s novel had proved too tough a challenge.

Garcia Marquez’s most recent work of fiction, Memories of My Melancholy Whores, got mixed reviews when it was released in 2004. The short novel is about a 90-year-old man’s obsession with a 14-year-old virgin, a theme some readers found disturbing.

Garcia Marquez is survived by Mercedes Barcha, his wife of more than 55 years, and by two sons, Rodrigo and Gonzalo.

When he was working, Garcia Marquez would wake up before dawn every day, read a book, skim through the newspapers and then write for four hours. His wife would put a yellow rose on his desk.

His last public appearance was on his 87th birthday in March when he came out from his Mexico City home to smile and wave at well-wishers, a yellow rose in the lapel of his gray suit. – Reuters

South Africa’s war of perspectives and the whites’ dwindling fortunes

roodt_dan_wiki

by Dan Roodt dan[at]praag.org

Ever since Britain started getting seriously interested in South Africa after the discovery of diamonds at Kimberley in 1866, there have been at least two conflicting views of the country. Throughout the twentieth century too, South Africa has borne the brunt of the Western ideological revolutions, all the way from colonialism and so-called “white supremacy” to contemporary political correctness. In fact, in the aftermath of the Mandela funeral, one could almost speak of the West’s religious devotion to black Africans who are being endowed with all the capricious amoral innocence of Greek gods.

More precisely, South Africa has been the theatre of an “epistemic war” if I could be excused such a French-sounding term. Apart from the very palpable shifts in demographic, political, economic and military power towards South African blacks, locals are also acutely aware of how the Western world view is no longer the dominant one in South Africa.

A few years ago I spoke to a liberal, anglophone, Jewish woman who lived in Johannesburg but who had some connection to the huge Baragwanath hospital in Soweto, one of the proud achievements of the former Afrikaner-led government. Within the Afrikaner mind, blacks had wanted not real political power but hospitals, schools, universities and jobs which is why they put so much effort into constructing such public institutions. Those institutions are currently being derided as having been entirely useless and a sop, or an insult to blacks, especically to the divine black leaders such as Mandela.

The point is, however, that since the black takeover in the country “they have changed the frame of reference” as my liberal Jewish friend put it. But she wasn’t really speaking in general terms, referring to the broad sweep of history and politics. First and foremost, she was speaking in medical terms. What she was saying, was that with the new order had come a new way of looking at healthcare, at patients and the function of a hospital. In short, the age-old belief systems of Africans have been reasserting themselves and “success” is no longer measured in white or European terms. That is why, when whites decry the deterioration of the state hospital system, as well as standards of professionalism and hygiene there, blacks are quick to retort with the ubiquitous cry of “racism”. After all, blacks are now in charge and they make the rules and set the standards against which a hospital, a school, a university or even a government will be measured.

It is really hard to understand the hullabaloo over President Zuma’s expenditure on what amounts to a private Zulu homestead or kraal at Nkandla. Compared to the billions being frittered away in corruption and unauthorised expenditure, the R240 million (about $20 million) involved seems almost paltry.

It is a truism of historians and philosophers alike, that one’s assessment of a situation – any situation – depends on one’s perspective. Not so long ago I read a paragraph by French political philosopher Alain de Benoist wherein he said:

… I am not fighting for the white race. I am not fighting for France. I am fighting for a world view. I am a philosopher, a theoretician, and I fight to explain my world view. And in this world view, Europe, race, culture, and identity all have roles. They are not excluded. But mainly I am working in defense of a world view. Of course, I am very interested in the future and destiny of my own nation, race, and culture, but I am also interested in the future of every other group.

That all sounds very interesting, but somewhat abstract. To the Afrikaner farmer who is being attacked in his or her home by a group of blacks who had imbibed some form of “medicine” or muti to make them invincible, the quesion is one, not of philosophy but of survival.

At a more mundane or political level, the clash is one of perspectives, even a traditional fight between the left and the right. In South Africa, any statement expressing concern over the future of whites or their well-being is almost always characterised as “right-wing”. Blacks are simply too good-natured and inherently moral ever to commit evil on a significant scale against whites.

This is also the foreign perspective. A Marxist theologian in Germany or a pro-white militant in America would concur that whites “have no place in South Africa, at the southern tip of a black continent”. On the other hand, the Afrikaner perspective is quite the opposite. They feel deeply rooted in South Africa and reject the “black supremacism” of both the foreign whites and the anglicised, superficially Westernised blacks who see them as being “not indigenous” to the country or the continent.

For most of the twentieth century, there has been a perspectival war around the notion of whether Afrikaners or whites really “belong” in South Africa or not. Once, I was shocked to see the former leader of the opposition, Tony Leon, being bluntly told by a BBC announcer on the programme Hard Talk that he was a “white politician” and that South Africa had always been “their country” – meaning that of the blacks – even in former centuries when their numbers were limited to about a million, nomadically drifting through parts of a mostly unpopulated territory twice the size of France.

Buy Dan Roodt's book through Amazon.com
Buy Dan Roodt’s book through Amazon.com

History, as the ruling ANC politicians usually put it in their quasi-communist way, is “a terrain of ideological struggle”. Needless to say, whites have lost that ideological struggle – or the perspectival war over the past – hands down. It is now better to kiss the feet of Mandela’s bronze colosssus than to voice your own opinions or interpretation of history.

Faulkner, that strange author from the American South who uses the “N word” in his novels but depicts his own Southern whites with relentless cynicism, once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” So there will always be a feud over history, everyone’s history.

But looking at the future of South Africa, or even our present safety in a physical sense, it also depends on one’s perspective. To foreigners and overseas correspondents in South Africa, this is Mandelatopia, a liberal democracy with same-sex marriages and universal suffrage – although cannabis is not yet quite legal. According to this view, which is based on a very superficial “multicultural” reading, “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity”, as it is stated in our incongruous constitution, replete with rancour and affirmative-action clauses.

Many whites, especially women, have a sense of impending doom. The crime, corruption and general sense of lawlessness portend worse to come. Usually, they are not arguing against the dominant ideology with its illusions of democratic bliss. Rather, they intuit some kind of typically African implosion or civil war during which whites will be punished for all the evil they have wrought in their zeal to “uplift” and “civlise” blacks, admittedly ridiculous notions within the present context.

To the pessimist or the more intuitive analyst, South Africa’s future represents the “chronicle of a death foretold”, or many deaths, if you will pardon my paraphrasing the fetching title of Gabriel Márquez’s little novel. It will be Zimbabwe on a much vaster scale, and much bloodier. It is already much bloodier, and ultimately the country will be ethnically cleansed of its Caucasian undesirables, probably to universal acclaim.

Depending on one’s point of view, South Africa is either a “problem that has been happily solved” or a disaster in the making. Looking at the past, especially the nineteenth century when indigenous whites were as weak as they are now and were regularly massacred by blacks, as well as the history of postcolonial Africa, I am not macho enough to cast all caution to the winds and believe in the foreign male fantasy of a South Africa that is some kind of Switzerland or Singapore, clean, tolerant and law-abiding.

There being no common ground in this war of perspectives, no rational debate will take place either. I am inclined to trust those “womanly” truths that are as unspeakable as they are likely to come to pass.

Donate or subscribe to praag!