Dear libtards, aren’t you attracted by Zimbabwe?

Dear libtards,

Every other week, someone of your persuasion, either a feminist or antiracist or a professor of whiteness studies or cultural Marxist writes an open letter starting with “Dear white people”, containing a blast of inanities.

This seems to be some kind of fashion or trend, probably copied from someone in the USA or Great Britain. It is not that you have any appreciation for the open letter or all those European philosophical treatises (or novels even) utilising the epistolary form. After all, libtardism starts where Westernism of Europeanism leaves off. As Jakes Gerwel, after whom a boulevard has just been renamed in Cape Town by the DA in all its politically correct fervour, once said: “We need an African renaissance. The only outcome of the European one was apartheid.”

roodt_fbfotoDante, Michelangelo, German Idealism, the French philosophes, Baroque art, Beethoven and Mozart, all of that stuff is quite worthless to you as you are dedicated precisely to putting an end not only to all white culture but to the white race itself. Reading the nonsensical obituaries to André Brink, or André P. Brink as he is known in Afrikaans, these last few days, I am struck by the fact that no-one had enquired why he had had, not only countless mistresses and six wives, but six white wives. Does that not, by definition — and from the libtard perspective — make him a racist? After all, there are tens of millions of women of colour in this country, of various sizes and shapes, not to mention nationalities. Surely, if he had been a sincere libtard himself, as he so often professed to be, he would have found at least one of them who struck his fancy? Instead, he stuck to his own race, the much-maligned white race, and committed marriage no less than six times with a woman that the American system labels “Caucasian”. Not Asian, Caucasian. And with a person of the opposite sex, whereas he might very well have married someone of his own sex, desire being polymorphously perverse as Freud and many of his more hip followers have stated so often.

That leads me to my first gripe with you libtards who insist on polluting the airwaves and the newspaper columns – you seem to have a complete monopoly on what is known as the MSM or “mainstream media” – with your righteous appeals for more affirmative action, more “transformation”, more equality, more censorship of dissident opinions, more punishment for the racists and the politically incorrect, and more lenient treatment of the criminals who terrorise us here in South Africa: why do you not practise what you preach? Why do all you libtards live in majority-white or middle-class areas with private security guards, armed response and all the unnecessary and “paranoid” accoutrements of “privatised apartheid” as many of you have called it? Why do you not live in all those interesting, colourful – not to forget “vibrant” – communities whose virtues you extol in all of your litanies against racism, sexism, patriarchy and whiteness? Places that go by the names of Soweto, Alexandra, Diepsloot, the same Diepsloot about which the “doyen of South African journalism, professor Anton Harber” wrote an eponymous eulogy in book form?

Or is hypocrisy, like “non-racialism”, “non-sexism”, “non-genderism” and all the other non-creeds you cite ad nauseam, a basic tenet of libtardism? For example, some American study found that 96% of liberal journalists lived in majority-white areas. I still remember that Mad Max du Preez, the renegade Afrikaner and fanatical libtard, exhorted all whites to go and live in the black townships about fifteen years ago in the Rapport. Alas, Max himself never set the example. So what is this, are all libtards… God forbid, racist? But don’t sell your house in Parkhurst or your equally cosy little flat in Sea Point yet, I have a much better idea which should become clearer in a moment.

Let’s admit it: South Africa is a divided country and getting more divided by the day. Compounding the already strong ethnic and linguistic divisions in South Africa, is the ideological division. It used to be Left-Right, but nowadays I would call it Libtard-Normal. I know, I know, I have read Michel Foucault, in French to boot, and a few of his American disciples, so I know that normality or being normalised is a very bad thing. Being a scizophrenic or a car hijacker is so much better than being an accountant with a nine-to-five job and firmly heterosexual tendencies. As some author said not so long ago on television in Paris: “I’m white, heterosexual and Catholic. How horrible!” Normality, middle-class values, conservatism, the nuclear family, of all that stuff, it’s nothing less than a disease. And the cure is libtardism or amoral fundamentalism, the constant din of proselytising near-hysteria screamed at us every day. Racist! Sexist! Apartheid nostalgist! And all the other epithets and insults you constantly hurl at us.

This is purely an aside and please do not take it seriously. (On the other hand, I know that you never take seriously anything said by anyone other than a fellow convert, someone of the faith, a coreligionist in libtardism.) But most religions, at least until now, have tried to get converts by being nice to people, giving them a free meal or helping the poor. In our crumbling state hospitals there are Muslim women wearing head scarves and handing out sandwiches to everyone as a sign of their faith and their values, for example. However, libtardism is the only creed I know of where its adherents try to win the heathen masses over by making them feel bad about themselves, by insulting them, slandering them, calling them stupid oafs, fascists, racists, and so on. So even if you are by some miracle making converts, you are making at least as many enemies and I can assure you that most of us normal people are starting to get really irritated with you. If only we were so cruel, reactionary and dangerous as you make us out to be, we would long ago have posted a few snipers outside the offices of your newspapers or hidden in the trees on your sidewalk and at least silenced some of the most strident and hysterical warmongers among you.

But we are tolerant, unlike you. Which is why South Africa is in the mess it is in. Because for too long the libtard in his position of power in the media or the academy or in the more ideological departments of Big Business, has been getting away with murder, sometimes literally. The libtard or the Marxist view of South African history with its simplistic notions of “stolen land”, “white evil” and the “apartheid holocaust” in itself leads to revenge and violence.

While most conservatives have to work for a living, you libtards spend your days in cafés or in luxury hotels where you may be seen typing away on your brand-new Apple Powerbook i7’s obligingly provided by some educational institution or NGO. That is another amazing characteristic of libtards: while they profess an abhorrence of capitalism, they are slaves to brands and look down upon us non-Apple-owning plebs who vulgarly buy PC components, including second-hand ones, to build our own no-name-brand machines, powered by open-source software that require right-wing skills such as a basic knowledge of Unix commands to operate. Libtards know something about the differentiations between Hegelian and structural Marxism, but have no notion whether their motherboards have Intel 1150 or 1155 sockets. Apart from PC slogans which you learn off by heart, ignorance is bliss in your libtard world.

Probably most people in this country would just like to get on with their lives, have a job, raise children, watch or play a bit of sport without racial quotas. But thanks to your zeal and fanaticism, no normal society in South Africa is possible anymore. Like in the former Soviet Union, Mao’s China or Castro’s Cuba, everything is now subject to social engineering, bureaucratic oversight, political correctness and control. The tragicomic demise of Zelda La Grange who had tried for years to speak and act like a libtard, carrying her white guilt on her sleeve, is a case in point. The soupçon of being politically incorrect in a Tweet sealed her fate and led to an outburst of libtard rage, exemplified by the usual shrieks of “racism”, “whiteness” and the two or three other concepts that libtardism deems to be sinful and evil. Sniffing out the impure ones is of course part of every revolution and in South Africa the process is getting more and more intense.

That is why South Africa is bound to end up on the scrapheap as just another African basket case, a Mozambique after Samora Machel’s Marxist-Leninist revolution or the post-Mobutu DRC. As I tweeted the other day to Helen Zille who has herself become a freedom fighter of libtardism, shooting her paint gun with the word “racist” appearing all around her as in some cartoon world, South African now runs on ideology. No matter what happens to Eskom, to the economy, to law and order, the price of food and energy, everything pales into insignificance next to the exigencies of revolution, transformation and egalitarianism.

Buy Dan Roodt’s book on this site

I am less worried by an imminent ethnic conflict than by violence breaking out between libtards and normal people. The intolerance of you libtards toward dissent is stoking real tension. This is especially the case among Afrikaners. The last time there was a minor Boer civil war was in 1860 when forty people died in a shoot-out on the outskirts of Potchefstroom. The incident was to haunt Paul Kruger for years as he had to to give the order to return fire after the first shots were fired by the rebels. Afrikaans libtards are even worse than the anglophone variety: people like Adriaan Basson, Max du Preez and Piet Croucamp harbour such an intense hatred towards the conservative majority of Afrikaners that they are intent upon destroying the few remaining Afrikaans institutions, including schools and universities, that still enable Afrikaners to survive in a hostile, charged environment. Being the most dominated ethnic group in South Africa, the libtard-normal division there is at its most intense, exemplified by banning our most popular singer, Steve Hofmeyr, from arts festivals and the general imposition of censorship on dissidents, the suppression of their books and articles, attacks (including cyberattacks) on their websites, witchhunts at work, etc. So the prospect of an identity war among Afrikaners is not as far-fetched as it may sound, which might ultimately drag the rest of South Africa down with it.

At a certain level, you libtards hate South Africa. You have always hated our country and were happiest when you could call for boycotts against us and could plant car bombs in our streets or shrapnel bombs in our restaurants. So this kind of uneasy peace does not sit well with you. Little by little, you are realising that the country will never change, that people are set in their habits and cling to their traditions like you cling to your vacuous belief system.

Your ideal for South Africa is a kind of New York on the Vaal where everybody is a gay or transgender communist living off Scandinavian aid or World Bank loans and most of the economic activity consists of diversity workshops for which you libtards will claim fees big enough to drive Range Rover Sports. In this libtard utopia Marx and Engels will meet Goldman Sachs and everybody will live off zero-interest perpetual bonds and members of the nomenklatura will lord it over the equalised, non-racial, non-sexist masses who will be largely illiterate and believe everything you say.

It must be clear to you that this utopia is never going to happen. Public debts, like the body count due to the breakdown of law and order, are mounting. The middle class that you wanted to destroy is resisting by inventing their own virtual society on social media and the internet. Dare I remind you that large numbers of people are talking back to you, the sacerdotal class of the revolution, our lords whose wisdom we are not supposed to question?

A divided house cannot stand, as they say. If South Africa is to escape the current quagmire, something needs to happen. Either you should go the tried and trusted route of the left-wing revolutionary and commit genocide against us by rounding us all up, working us to death in gulags or simply shooting everyone suspected of questioning your precepts, or you should give up on the idea of “transforming” South Africa altogether. Given your libtard capacity for organisation and the current state of your military, if I were you, I would not opt for civil war against the millions of remaining conservatives, Afrikaners, traditional Africans and others who are still ideologically very impure, to the point of being racists, sexists or at least irredeemably politically incorrect.

However, a solution is at hand, I believe. There is one country in Southern Africa where the struggle for equality, non-racialism and non-sexism has been largely achieved: Zimbabwe. Comrade Robert Mugabe has indeed eradicated whiteness in most of its forms, literally by removing all white farmers and imposing a strict “indigenisation” policy. On the debit side, Zimbabwe is not exactly a model of enlightenment when it comes to “gender” and I doubt whether American-style “queer theory” is yet a compulsory subject at the University of Harare. But no society is perfect. The challenge for you libtards is to “move” the Zimbabwean transformation project “forward”, as you are wont to put it and “challenge the last vestiges of patriarchy” which may or may not remain in that otherwise “progressive” country.

“Thy hinterland lies there” as the inscription reads on the Rhodes statue in Rondebosch, next to the University of Cape Town where large numbers of fanatical libtards labour in the politically correct monasteries for a better world without race, sex or social hierarchy.

Soon Mr. Mugabe may pass the baton to his wife, Grace, which will in itself cheer the feminists of the world, including the South African ones who would be delighted to go and serve a female president. Why commit to an unlikely quest for utopia in the land of apartheid, gated communities, rugby, koeksisters, boerewors and Die Stem when you could experience the instant bliss of liberation in an already “postcolonial” society?

Ja, man, you must have noticed that one. As Saul Bellow says somewhere in his novel Herzog, “the word sensibility later made it big”. That was in the USA. Among South African libtards, “postcolonial” has made it big. I would say it is even compulsory to use it all the time, just like you have to be quick on the draw in crushing any dissent out there by shouting “racist” with a megaphone or preferably on the eight o’clock TV news.

Just imagine. If Bob had to go and meet his maker at last and Grace had to succumb to the charms of her own sex and perhaps become Zimbabwe’s first openly gay president, it could be libtard heaven. Sexism, racism and whiteness would all have been vanquished and the entire Zimbabwean economy could consist of transgender or postcolonial advocacy groups spreading the good news on a planetary scale. Sweden and Norway would provide most of the state budget and Oxfam would dish out free food, paid for by private British and other donors. Not to forget the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Everyone would drive around in black Range Rovers running on a Chinese energy subsidy as Harare would now be the intellectual capital of Africa, nay the world, with so many self-proclaimed libtard genii assembled in one city. In fact, many foreign governments would compete to donate money to Zimbabwe which would consist of one gigantic network of ultraliberal and Marxist NGOs, media and universities where all departments except Whiteness, Gender and Postcolonialism would be abolished.

No self-respecting libtard would want to share a country with Steve Hofmeyr anyway. This place is only worth boycotting or fleeing from, blighted as it is by 360 years of apartheid and colonialism. As Allister Sparks put it, he is “ashamed of his nationality”. Aren’t you?

Not only shall we at last enjoy some kind of social peace and no-one on crack cocaine would hoot at you in the morning traffic screaming “you racist, sexist bastard” anymore, but north of the Limpopo a truly new, exciting society will be flourishing. The UN will consecrate Harare as the permanent home of the World Conference Against Racism that last took place – ironically – in Durban, a city divided along race and class lines. Property prices will go through the roof as libtards from South Africa and all over the world will scramble to stake a claim in Harare like the hippies once descended on San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district.

South Africa would avoid the fate of Syria with a potential libtard-normal civil war breaking out and Zimbabwe would gain thousands of postcolonial, postracial, postgender, post-anything people with high self-esteem and global media connections.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me, don’t you think?


Dan Roodt interview on South African genocide

In this interview broadcast on Sunday 11 January 2015 with Dr. Dave Janda of WAAM, a radio station in Michigan, USA, Dr. Dan Roodt talks about the South African genocide and its relation to radical Marxism in the twentieth century. He also explains how rape in South Africa, as in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is use as a “weapon of war” to humiliate a whole group of people.

Forget the maths, South Africa needs more Marxism at school

The road to success is paved with comic-book Marxism.

Over the last few days, South Africa’s “minister of basic education” – yes, we have such a thing – announced a few statistics that people found alternately shocking or “hilarious”. Everything in South Africa is “hilarious”: even the vicious murders and rapes we read about every day. As a society, South Africa has lost its way and all it can say is: “It’s hilarious,” meaning you should laugh about it. Every true “New South African” as the species self-identifies, is a sadist.

roodt_fbfotoNow, I can imagine that if the minister of “basic education” – or any other type of education – in another country announced that the average grade or mark in Grade 9 mathematics was 10%, there would be some kind of concern, if not an outcry. Even though we published the “hilarious” news on our website yesterday already, the national Business Day newspaper saw fit to carry it on its front page today. It gets worse: only 3% of Grade 9 pupils actually receive 50% or more for mathematics as we reported on Afrikaans praag. This is real progress, we are confidently assured.

As I commented previously, the provincial MEC for education in Kwazulu-Natal province actually ascribed poor academic prowess in maths to – you guessed it! – apartheid and poor old Dr. Verwoerd who was stabbed to death by Tsafendas:

Senzo Mchunu, MEC for Education in Kwazulu-Natal, declared in late July: “One of the points we found was a problem in Maths and Science. It was Verwoerd who made the subjects difficult because he thought blacks would be a threat to him.”

So there you have it: Dr. Verwoerd “made maths difficult”. That is why I think maths should be completely scrapped in most schools in South Africa and be replaced by courses in Marxism. As it is, knowledge of Karl Marx and the class struggle is what gets you into South African universities these days where the revolution has seen to it that all humanities faculties have been taken over by cultural and other Marxists, with the sciences not lagging far behind.

If you think I am making this stuff up, well, I hate to disillusion you. The worst of all is: if you dare question this kind of “logic”, you immediately get vilified as a “racist” or “white supremacist”, usually by other white people who have seen the light and also disdain anything male, European or mathematical.

Other school subjects preparing pupils for both undergraduate and graduate courses would be: whiteness and gender studies. Not only could you blame Verwoerd for “making maths difficult”, you could blame all dead white males for the calamity of inventing it in the first place: Leibniz, Fermat, Pascal, Von Neumann, Turing and others come to mind. Even Pythagoras and Euclid could be blamed for putting New-South African pupils through the stress of maths when they could be learning about Nelson Mandela and why being a man or a woman is just a “social construct”.

Get rid of calculus and replace it with class. And, of course, race: the ultimate obsession of the rabid cultural Marxists who are turning South Africa into a kind of B-movie version of Stalin’s Soviet Union in the 1930s. Except the Russians did not quite give up mathematics, and eventually developed a space programme.

South Africa also has a space programme of sorts: it consists of hurling projectiles into space, usually while standing on a freeway bridge with motorists passing underneath. Recently an Afrikaner woman, Irene Myburg, was killed by a rock hitting her full in the face in the passenger seat while being driven to Pretoria. In another incident just a few days ago, a rock was also thrown at ex-rugby player Hannes Strydom while driving down a deserted street in Pretoria. Unlike Irene Myburg, he survived the attack from our version of NASA “scientists”, equipped with large stones.

marx_for_beginnersHowever, South Africa has lots of “talented” cartoonists, such as Zapiro, who could convey the basic tenets of cultural Marxism to school children in comic books, a bit like those “Marx for beginners” or “Lenin for beginners” books that used to be popular a few decades ago. Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer could be immortalized in ink drawings and a few anti-white and anti-male slogans, supplanting “Verwoerdian” difficult mathematics.

As it is, the most successful people in South Africa are the so-called “tenderpreneurs” who do business with the state and get contracts via their cronies in government. Being a staunch advocate of affirmative action counts for a lot more in those circles than any actual engineering or technical expertise, so it makes sense for any would-be rand billionaire to study Marxism instead of algebra.

The road to success is paved with comic-book Marxism. I am sure our esteemed minister of “higher education”, Dr. Blade Nzimande, already understands it better than I, “damaged” as I was by an “apartheid education” which included Afrikaans, French, Latin and mathematics, could remotely attempt to do.


On the prejudices of ‘progressives’

roodt_dan_wiki

by Dan Roodt

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

Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page

My first question upon reading this sorry little ego trip from a Daily Maverick columnist who obviously thinks she deserves the Nobel prize for literature in a few days, is: Why don’t you go back to the UK where you spent 14 halcyon years? Why return to this backward country where English is mostly a second language to everyone – even to people like you who are hardly on the English peerage list – and therefore in various states of creolisation, pidginisation, etc.?

Many sub-editors and journalists at English-language newspapers in this country are actually Afrikaners. Maybe you should go on a campaign and get them fired and replaced by born-and-bred Englishmen?

Recently the Coloured champion of English and anglicisation in South Africa, Jonathan Jansen, claimed that “English will unite us”, where Afrikaans divided us, or some such lunatic fallacy. The truth is that English, like any language, unites as well as divides. In the UK, the British class system has created almost two worlds, an upper class gossiped about in the tabloid press and an anomic, drug-ridden white underclass whose children pass out in public places as reported here.

In the USA, which until recently used to be an English-speaking country, there is the Mason-Dixon line which no longer exists politically, but which still defines two cultures. The New York Times regards Southern identity with the same suspicion as a Soviet commissar would look upon stirrings of nationalism in any satellite state. We Afrikaners have a lot in common with Southern Americans, having lost an important war in the nineteenth century but also being puritans and Calvinists. The other day I read a comment by the Austrian intellectual Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn describing American folk music, especially country, as Calvinist and I must admit, he is right! The contemptuous American-liberal view of “red-state fascism” corresponds very much to the Johannesburg leftist’s supercilious “interest in the oddities of post-Apartheid whiteness”, as Nicky Falkof puts it.

To me English is also a foreign language, like French. But I really love reading books in French and even sometimes, more rarely, in English. When a black taxi knocked me over on my bicycle in DF Malan Drive a few years ago, I lost a lot of what Falkof would call my white skin, and spent a week immobile on my side. To ease the pain and discomfort, I read three Jean Echenoz novels and I think his quirky, ironic prose anaesthetised me a little and took my mind away from my immediate inability to even get up and go to the toilet without help.

I have never come across a Frenchman or -woman who held me in contempt because I was not a mother-tongue writer of French. Yet, Nicky Falkof, this is what you seem to be doing: you despise people who do not happen to be “to the manner born”, to quote J.P. Donleavy. I gather you were raised in some deep corner of Houghton where anglophilia was part of your noble upbringing.

By implication you are also saying that Afrikaners like Sunette Bridges and others are foreigners because they do not speak or write British English properly. The theme of alienation, becoming-foreign in the land of one’s birth – my forebears only came here in 1701 so I have not been properly naturalised as a “South African” – is one that really interests me. We named most of the country’s towns and cities, yet we are now seen as strangers. Farm murders are also an expression of xenophobia because, at least since the revolution, Afrikaners are considered foreigners or settlers, as Thabo Mbeki, Ruth First and many others have assured us.

That said, and being a foreigner/stranger, an “étranger” – if you know the famous novella by Albert Camus bearing that title, you will understand the existential alienation concomitant with being “not of this place”, the RSA, which is now oh so English – I cannot say that I know too much about your exalted language.

Yet the one thing I do know about South African English is that it is really horrible, lacking in aesthetic sense and coherence. Even mother-tongue speakers – although that might be a contradiction in terms – make lots of mistakes all the time and of course spelling and grammar have fallen by the wayside since the revolution and Kader Asmal importing something called “outcomes-based education”. Have you heard how blacks speak English? Have you seen how some of them write it, even ones with university degrees? Because it is not their own language, but also because since 1994 they have had sub-Bantu education. Maybe you should apply some of your heart-felt linguistic snobbery there?

Or is it not politically correct to put blacks down on account of their English style, but in relation to those local whites who object to being killed, tortured and raped, it is almost de rigueur?

Your other concern, that these hapless non-English are not amenable to being manhandled and executed by Foucauldian freedom fighters, and are actually usurping the register of genteel leftist diction, might be more problematic than you think. You describe it as “a ham-fisted attempt at adopting progressive discourse”.

First of all, I regard as ham-fisted the attempts by English people such as yourself to adopt some kind of local identity. Why does Woolworths sell boerewors and koeksisters? Why are you not proud to say that you are English, hoist the Union Jack or preferably the St. George’s Cross, and leave us in our benighted enjoyment of sosaties and pap, dubious Afrikaans poetry and popular songs, including Steve Hofmeyr, much like British peers on a visit to Africa would gaze from a distance at the dancing natives in colonial times?

At its simplest level: why do you want to correct our grammar? Lately, you or your underlings have even taken to correcting Afrikaans grammar, something about which you know absolutely nothing.

At a more theoretical level – and this might be another primitive display of non-English mores, as we are straying from “common sense” now – what you call “progressive discourse” probably means some variation of Marxism. To the extent that Karl Marx used Hegel and German indealism to construct his little dogma of the class struggle, we “naive people of the veld” could level exactly the same accusation at you “progressives”: Why did you pollute Hegel with your quasi-religious social eschatology? Progressivism in itself stands revealed as a perverted – more precisely perverse, even in a sexual sense – form of idealism.

By the way, the expression “naive people of the veld” is derived from a statement made by Gillian Slovo, the daughter of South African Communist Party leader Joe Slovo who characterised all of Afrikaans culture, everything from Eugène Marais to Mimi Coertse or Arnold van Wyk, I suppose, as “the naive culture of the veld”. Gillian Slovo is English enough to remain in London and I sometimes wonder when all you “progressives” will follow her example.

Being “naive people of the veld”, we find some things difficult to understand. The cognitive limitations of the proverbial “dumb Dutchman”… One is the depths of sadism that the freedom fighters stoop to in their orgies of killing in rural areas, but sometimes in the cities too. The mutilation of the victim’s body is supposed to be a sign of clinical sadism, so we are not being semantically naive in referring to it as sadism.

The second conundrum is the depths of “progressive” contempt for our “naive culture of the veld”, our language, music, architecture, cuisine, art, literature, place names, and so on. How do we explain that contempt, even apart from the “progressive” penchant for everything British and colonial?

Is there some innate or structural connection between the sadism of the “natural born killers” stalking the countryside and the “progressive” need for humiliating, putting down and ultimately affirming a cultural and perhaps even racial superiority on the part of the cultural-Marxist nobility that rules the roost in South Africa, particularly in the media and the universities?

A phenomenon of which, needless to say, Nicky Falkof has just given us an exemplary demonstration.

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

Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page

Joe Slovo and the roots of Afrikaner genocide


More and more, the term “genocide” is entering our everyday vocabulary. Many people, including columnists, have already explained that it is not the absolute number of people killed that defines a genocide, but the motives and the manner in which they are slaughtered.

The atrocities committed on South African whites during farm murders, house robberies, car hijackings and the shooting of children, even toddlers such as Willemien Potgieter, point to a disturbing form of ethnic cleansing going on in the country.

In a current survey on our Afrikaans website and with more than 700 people participating, 93,9% of those polled declared: “I believe there is a white genocide taking place in South Africa.”

roodt_fbfotoHow did this Afrikaner genocide arise? Where did it come from? When did it start? Many people believe it is caused by racial tension. Although race does play a role in that the perpetrators are normally black and the victims white, race in itself does not account for the nature of this genocide which is as pervasive as it is officially denied and passed over in silence by the so-called mainstream media.

I believe the genocidal movement against Afrikaners started already in the 1940s. Early in the fifties there were the first incidents when whites were randomly attacked and butchered by black rioters, so there was already an inchoate form of ethnic violence even back then. In East London a nun doing charity work in the local black township was murdered and then set upon by the rioters who ate parts of her body. Such acts of cannibalism endure to this day, as was reported in Witchdoctor who cooked farmer’s testicles a few days ago. More importantly, however, the ideology of Afrikaner genocide was being formed at the time with mostly communists dreaming of a day when South Africa would be cleansed of its indigenous whites altogether.

Recently a biography by Alan Wieder, Ruth First and Joe Slovo in the war against apartheid was published. I have not read it, but it is certainly significant that an unreconstructed communist such as Slovo should be widely honoured today. [Postscript: I did read it after writing this and wrote a review in Afrikaans.] Although Slovo spent most of his adult life in London, he was by far the most influential revolutionary in South Africa during the twentieth century. Through his skillful use of both terrorist violence and propaganda, he was able to conquer the once seemingly invincible Afrikaner government with its strong military backed by a powerful industrial state.

It would be fair to say that a coterie of communist intellectuals from the 1940s introduced the notion that South Africa should either “return to the origin” of a putative, Edenic, unspoilt Africa before the coming of the evil white man or it should undergo a violent revolution that would create a completely new and strictly egalitarian society. Either way, a radically “new country” had to be constructed.

Commentators as diverse as Dr. Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch and the French “new philosophers” (nouveaux philosophes) of the 1970s have argued that there is an intrinsic link between communism and genocide. Most genocides of the twentieth century, be they in Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam and elsewhere, have been committed by communists. At least sixty million people were murdered in what has become known as a “Red Holocaust” perpetrated under the leadership of figures such as Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot.

Communism is an absolutist ideology that brooks no dissent, therefore a causal link seems to exist between communism and genocide. Since the quasi-communist takeover of South Africa in 1994 and with the country since moving further and further to the Left, genocide has also started to appear as a fundamental characteristic of the so-called “new South Africa”.

Intolerance towards the Afrikaner ethnic group, the Afrikaans language, literature and culture have grown rapidly. Many communists regard the Afrikaans language in itself as “offensive” and therefore want it banned from the public domain. Afrikaans place names too have been systematically removed from towns, streets, buildings and other places.

A foreign African set alight by local South African blacks
A foreign African set alight by local South African blacks

At the same time the country is often shaken by xenophobic riots and killings, directed against foreign Africans. During 2009, 80 people were slain during a spate of xenophobic attacks, with hardly anyone charged with the murders.

In a sense, Afrikaners are also considered to be foreigners, being non-black and non-English. Having been excluded from political power, they are now caught between two chauvinisms, two forms of intolerance: racial and linguistic. Even though they have been in the country for 360 years, they are deemed “not to fit in” with the new, revolutionary culture which is Afro-Saxon, black and English.

However, neither all blacks nor all English-speakers display intolerance towards Afrikaners and Afrikaans. Millions of black people also speak Afrikaans as a second language and as a lingua franca in large parts of South Africa. Where does Afrikaner hatred come from then?

It comes from the revolutionary minority, of whom Joe Slovo is the progenitor. In a sense, Marxism is the ultimate uitlander ideology. After the discovery of gold in the Transvaal in 1886, about 50 000 foreign speculators descended upon Johannesburg. Despite being very tolerant and accomodating to them, the then Afrikaner or Boer government was not to their liking and a process of fomenting war and ethnic hatred towards Afrikaners was launched.

Many of the stereotypes and caricatures created by the uitlander press of Johannesburg are still with us today and have never been challenged. These have simply been adapted and amended to suit the ends of the Marxist revolutionaries. Whereas in the nineteenth century the Afrikaner was depicted as being “backward and uneducated” (even though many uitlanders crawled out of the slums of European cities), he is now seen as “conservative and racist”.

To Slovo and his followers, the Afrikaner’s love of his language and culture, his patriotic attachment to South Africa, his pride in his intellectual and economic achievements, are all signs of his incorrigible “fascism”. The continued existence of some Afrikaans schools, churches, cultural associations and so on, is seen as a reactionary refusal to bend to the will of the revolutionary Left that conquered the country in 1994. The Afrikaner must therefore be punished for his dissidence and his children preferably brainwashed into accepting the dissolution of their culture and identity, as well  as their integration into a kind of mulatto multitude.

Slovo was not alone in his abhorrence of Afrikaners. In the writings of his close friend, the Nobel-prize winning author Nadine Gordimer, as well as the photographs of the acclaimed photographer, David Goldblatt, we find a similar treatment of Afrikaners as uncouth and even mentally retarded “white trash”. In emulation of Gordimer, the renegade Afrikaner author André Brink has created some even more extreme caricatures from Afrikaner history. Many of these left-wing cultural Marxists drew on American “Appalachian” stereotypes to portray Afrikaners to foreign audiences. Afrikaners are seen as “white trash”, despite the fact that as a group in South Africa they have produced more postgraduates, more accountants, more lawyers, more classical musicians, more scientists and mathematicians than any other. Until recently, more books had been published in Afrikaans in South Africa than in English.

But to the communist revolutionaries, we are “backward” and “mentally retarded”.

In fact, even the finest examples of modern Afrikaner architecture have been derided as expressions of the apartheid ideology and a kind of “degenerate art”. Ironically, those who object to the Nazi concept of Entartete Kunst or “degenerate art”, apply it themselves when looking at Afrikaans architecture, paintings, music, literature and so on.

The Rand Afrikaans University (now University of Johannesburg) as photographed by David Goldblatt (Museum of Modern Art, New York)
The Rand Afrikaans University (now University of Johannesburg) as photographed by David Goldblatt (Museum of Modern Art, New York)

Like the French new philosophers such as André Glucksmann and Jean-François Revel have claimed, Marxism is a totalitarian ideology. It demands total revolution: a radical change in the whole world and all culture. But it may also stigmatise a culture as useless and even pernicious. If one cannot destroy the culture itself, its bearers may always be physically eliminated. Within the totalitarian mind, all of this is perfectly logical.

Volumes may be written about the betrayal of Afrikaners by their own ruling elite, especially by Mr. FW de Klerk. But one of the most tragic consequences of that betrayal has been the passing of the formerly nationalist media group, Naspers, over to the camp of the Slovoists. The politics of Naspers, as opposed to its more neutral foreign investment decisions, is determined by one or two political commissars serving on its board of directors.

Until recently, Prof. Jakes Gerwel, a self-confessed Marxist who had wept when the Berlin wall came down, had served on the Naspers board. Another radical cultural Marxist who is strongly hostile towards Afrikaners and their tradition, is Prof. Hein Willemse who still serves on the board.

Trotsky described Czarism “as belonging in the dustbin of history”. To the uitlander communist in South Africa, Afrikaners represent “white trash” that also belong in the “trash can of history”. Since 1994, both the mass media and government have conspired to produce a series of very negative images of Afrikaners.

They purveyors of hate produce the hate crimes, creating a climate in which killing Afrikaners is seen to be permissible, even desirable. But Afrikaner or white genocide can also be a joke, presumably because:

  • no-one cares;
  • whites should just accept whatever happens to them.

Writing on a blog for the left-wing Mail & Guardian newspaper, Sarah Britten explains why joking about so-called “corrective rape” for lesbians is horrific, but making fun of white genocide on Twitter is not. Even just recognising the phenomenon of white genocide, makes one a “right-wing extremist”:

“But joking about corrective rape is very different from joking about #whitegenocide. One is real, an act of violence against a very vulnerable section of society. The other is the perception of a politically motivated programme of murder, one that is deeply entwined with right-wing extremist narratives. One kind of joke reinforces existing power structures; the other subverts them.”

To the Left, whites need never fear, even when they are killed or told that they are going to be murdered.

 A novel portraying Afrikaners as mentally retarded, racist, incestuous “white trash”, such as Triomf by Marlene van Niekerk, was acclaimed as the greatest work of literature ever to come out of South Africa, apart from Gordimer’s body of writing. On the state television and in the pages of the Naspers newspapers, such caricatures of Afrikaners were eagerly embraced.

Van Niekerk spent some time at the University of the Witwatersrand where she had imbibed the Slovoist view of Afrikaners as “degenerate whites”. The theme of incest in the novel and a subsequent film was a metaphor for the Afrikaner nation itself. By dating or marrying someone of your own kind, you are committing a form of incest, which can only produce degenerates. Of course, at a certain level, the cultural Marxists of South Africa want to claim that being white or of European ancestry is in itself a form of “genetic degeneracy”. History is on the side of the creole or the mulatto, as the Marxist intellectual and Naspers director, Prof. Hein Willemse, has often explained.

“Opting out” of creolization, be it  linguistic, racial or otherwise, is therefore deemed to be an affront to the system. Afrikaners who wish to continue with their tradition, as well as the standard, Germanic form of their language that may be traced back to the seventeenth century and even to the European Middle Ages and Middle Dutch, are regarded as dissidents, even heretics. In 2005 I was invited to talk about my fairly innocuous novel Moltrein in a bookshop in Stellenbosch and was almost prevented from doing so by a group of Marxist academics. I was even threatened with violence.

This was my first direct experience of the anti-Afrikaner intolerance that manifests itself in censorship, ostracism and, of course, farm murders and other kinds of ethnic killings in South Africa. Many Naspers journalists are in favour of such censorship. The full extent of the horrors and atrocities currently being visited upon Afrikaners is carefully sanitised as “just crime which one finds everywhere”, when it is not completely ignored. Among journalists and academics, there is much tacit support for the ethnic cleansing of Afrikaners. Prof. Jonathan Jansen, the affirmative-action rector of the University of the Free State, has stated on more than one occasion that there was something wrong with people who dated or married members of their own race.

Uitlander communists and other South African revolutionaries are contemptuous of Afrikaans and Afrikaners because they are seen as “Eurocentric”, “too white”, “exclusive” (even though Afrikaners are routinely excluded from government and most institutions on racial grounds) and, of course, “racist”. In South Africa, we have really come full circle and the racism of the anti-racists is far worse than any traditional ethnic chauvinism of the “nationalist” type.

“Mixing the races” is seen as imperative in South Africa, because Afrikaners need to be assimilated and coerced into “being part of one, big multicultural nation”. In the words of Leopold Scholtz, one of the Naspers ideologues, “the Afrikaner must be fused with the brown (mulatto or Coloured) people”.

But for some assimilation is too slow. Killing is so much quicker and more effective. Hence the “final solution to the Afrikaner problem” that is taking shape in South Africa.


Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page