Piet Croucamp – praag.org

Britten’s indifference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us be!

by Albert Brenner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beware the Black Borg!

by Albert Brenner

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

The greatest bogeyman ever conjured up in order to keep rebellious white South Africans in line, comes in the form of an amorphous, same-thinking, same-feeling, black entity. This all-dominant Jungian (archetypal) mass of collective agency was reinvigorated by the half-wit CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), Fransie Cronjé, in a Rapport (read Naspers Pravda) column last weekend.

According to Fransie, whites in Mandelatopia must stop rebelling against their de facto enslavement forthwith, lest blacks destroy them utterly in a “second revolution”. In short – in line with the finest Stockholm Syndrome diagnosis – Fransie is screaming; “Keep quiet, otherwise they will kill us!”.

Now the thing is just whether the little bald pseudo-intellectual shyster is actually dim-witted or just plain ignorant. For he neither knows or represents white South Africans, nor does he know or represent black South Africans. Yet he presumes to do both, in public!

The simple fact is that this amorphous collective black entity that he so dreads, simply does not exist. It is simply another bogeyman created by the MSM and Hollywood – an entity akin to the Borg in the science-fiction series Star Trek. The former fictional being – written in the singular because they all share the same consciousness, and conscience – is famous for their (dreaded) command; “This is the Borg. We`ll assimilate you now. Resistance is futile”!

All fiction, all guano… in the real world. Never in recorded history has there been absolute hegemony among Africans – and, especially not in South Africa. The various black groupings – mostly tribal, in nature – were at each others throat before Apartheid, during Apartheid, and even now… after Apartheid.

To even think that all blacks share the exact same thoughts, feelings, moral sentiments, et cetera, – just because they share the same skin colour – is not only incredibly naive, it is also downright patronising and racist. In short; there is no absolute hegemony among the other races; so why should blacks be different in this regard?!

It therefore beggars belief when even (self-appointed) black intellectuals, like the awfully trite Hegel-emulating “Bikoist”, Andile Mngxitama, throw tantrums when blacks – wherever they may find themselves in space and time – do not act as “one” (see picture below).

Be that as it may; the “Black Borg” myth is only topped by its inverse, the myth of the Noble Savage. The latter, a neo-Romantic Rousseauian-regurgitating MSM/Hollywood creation, sees all blacks as inherently cherubic beings who only want the best for humanity, the universe… and the environment, of course. All little Mandela`s in heart, soul and suffering… all “one” in their eternal victimhood at the hands of the White Devil.

It is, frankly, beyond belief that even blacks themselves ascribe to this sickening denigration of their very being. I mean honestly, how can they acquiesce to a perception that only allows them collective agency, and not individual agency? But then, hey; they have been baby-sat for so long by bleeding-heart White Guilt-driven liberals that they, blacks, have left it up to others, like little lentil Fransie, to speak on their behalf.

Whatever the moral weather on that one; it is a fact that blacks have never, and will never, act as “one”. And the threat by the SAIRR vegetable, Fransie, that disillusioned (`”bitter”) whites will cause the Black Borg to suddenly appear from the Delta-quadrant wormhole just because they, the whites, are justifiably recalcitrant, is equally preposterous. Nothing, in the context of Mandelatopia, illustrates this more succinctly than the transition period to black rule in the early 90s.

During this time, the blacks did not rise up as “one” to take revenge on their Tutu-myth Holocaust oppressors, the whites. On the contrary; once the blacks realised that FW (fuck-wit) De Klerk was just going to hand over the whole caboodle, they went straight for each other’s throats…to get at the loot first.

Near-civil war circumstances prevailed as the Zulus of Buthulezi’s IFP fought the (mostly Xhosa) ANC of Mandela. More than 16 000 blacks died during that period. Hardly any whites were harmed, except for the cowardly APLA attacks on the St George’s Pub and the Roseview Church.

In her brilliant bookThe People’s War, Anthea Jeffery painstakingly researched the true facts behind the so-called “liberation struggle”. Her findings illustrate, beyond any doubt, how blacks used fellow blacks as a mere means to an end. It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of blacks in South Africa were coerced, by threat of physical violence, to partake in Joe Slovo’s callous revolution.

`”the ANC had little compunction about attacking black civilians, including its own supporters, for the formula for people’s war draws no distinction between combatants and others and regards all civilians (irrespective of their political affiliation) as expendable in conflict;
the ANC had a motive to unleash violence, for it wanted to create enough mayhem and unrest either to spark an insurrection or to weaken its opponents to the point where it could triumph in negotiations;
the ANC had the means to unleash violence, for the peace process allowed it to bring back into South Africa some 13 000 armed and trained combatants whom it then refused to disarm or disband; and
the ANC was the only organisation to draw benefit from the 15 000 political killings that took place in the early 1990s (after all major apartheid laws had been repealed), for it used these to;

stigmatise De Klerk and the IFP,
stampede negotiators into giving it what Joe Slovo called ‘a famous victory’ in negotiations, and
put great pressure on the first all-race election, while making it unthinkable for anyone to demand a re-run of the deeply flawed April 1994 poll in which it was accorded (no accurate count being possible) some 63% of the vote.” (source)

The above-quoted just illustrates, once more, that Fransie is as dumb as mud… especially given the fact that Dr Jeffery is his chief researcher at the SAIRR!

Hell, one does not even need to read a single book to understand that blacks are not “one”. Just look at the dismal moral state of all post-colonial sub-Saharan countries. The chief “liberator” and his inner circle have always enriched themselves shamelessly, at the expense of their own people.

In Mandelatopia, Mandela, like his cronies Sexwale, Zuma, Ramaphosa, et cetera, are drowning in money, while the vast majority of their fellow blacks are suffering under extreme poverty. It suffices to say that they, the former, couldn’t`t give a continental damn. There is no “oneness”, no ubuntu, no Noble Savage and no Black Borg. Period!

That a “second revolution” will take place in Mandelatopia is a fact. But it will not be because whites are standing up for their rights. It will be because blacks will revolt against their own leaders because of the broken promises of the past 20 years of typically-African mis-governing. That whites will bear the brunt of the coming (inevitable) revolution is obvious, because they (still) have those things that the black leaders promised their black sheeple, but failed to deliver… as always.

It is thus abundantly clear that the motive behind Fransie`s reinvigoration of the Black Borg myth is everything but noble, in the sense of heroically”saving” the enslaved backsides of whites in Mandelatopia.

For you see, for Fransie – as one of the main Afrikaner H-G men in Mandelatopia – it is all about keeping his ill-earned privileges and prestige. Had the playing-field with his white peers been level, half-wits like Fransie, Piet Croucamp, JP Landman, Tim du Plessis, Pierre de Vos, etc. would never have reached the level they have attained now.

But then; Fransie`s DNA is coward-based. His survival instincts and skills were honed in his dad’s nutsack… where he used to cower in the most remote corner because he was the lesser of 60 million. Now he is still cowering, in front of 60 million blacks. But that is his saving grace, his claim to fame. For unlike the one million whites who were forced to emigrate in order to seek employment, Fransie is in league with the new Master of South Africa. He is a made-man!

So the next time Fransie screams at you, as a white South African, to shut the fcuk up and continue paying unquestioningly for the `”sins of your forefathers”, just think of the picture below.

Master and slave

by Albert Brenner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-racists are the new racists

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

Complaint against Piet Croucamp lodged with University of Johannesburg

Following upon the recent controversial campaign conducted by Dr. Piet Croucamp against Dr. Louise Mabille of Tuks, Mr. Johann Botha of Johannesburg has lodged a complaint against Croucamp with the University of Johannesbur for unprofessional and unethical conduct. The text of his letter is reproduced here.

Dear Dr Croucamp, Prof Sadie and members of UJ Executive Management,

The recent public debacle surrounding a complaint of alleged hate speech by Dr Piet Croucamp from the Department of Politics at UJ against Dr Louise Mabille, former academic from TUKS, refers. Given the serious nature of the allegation, in conjunction with Dr Croucamp’s position as academic, public figure as political analyst and commentator, and representative of the University of Johannesburg, it was important that his actions in this regard should be beyond reproach. However, it would appear that this has not been the case, and, as such, has the potential to reflect negatively on the respected reputation and integrity of your university unless constructively dealt with.

It would appear that Dr Croucamp based his complaint on a sentence from a recent opinion piece on feminism written by Dr Mabille and published on the Praag website, in which she says: “Naturally, it is much easier [for Western feminists] to endlessly complain about ‘Calvinism’ than to ask the question why the rape of babies is a cultural phenomenon among black ethnic groups”. Dr Croucamp construed this statement as racist and hate speech in nature.

While Dr Mabille’s statement is of course provocative and debatable, it is not my intention to defend her or to justify such a statement, nor to judge whether it is indeed racist and/or an example of hate speech. That is for Dr Mabille to do, although I understand that she has retracted her remark with apology.

Rather, while Dr Croucamp’s complaint and subsequent actions appear to have the honourable motive of standing up against and counteracting racism and hate speech, his handling of the debacle unfortunately raises serious doubts about the true nature of his motives and practical actions in this regard, which already had negative implications in general for the state of debate on race in South Africa and attempts to deal with racism and hate speech effectively.

Firstly, in a TV interview with eNuus on Kyknet earlier this week and available on Youtube (where I first had the opportunity to watch it this weekend), Dr Croucamp did not put Dr Mabille’s remark in proper context. He did not clearly state that she asked why Western feminists find it easier to endlessly complain about ‘Calvinism’ rather than asking ‘why the rape of babies is a cultural phenomenon among black ethnic groups’. Instead, he contracted her remark to a statement that the rape of babies as a cultural phenomenon among black people, thus facilitating and amplifying his allegation of racism and hate speech. Yet he went even further: He alleged and in fact emphasised that she purportedly stated black people have a ‘genetic propensity‘ toward the rape of babies.

In actuality, and as should be clear from sentence I quoted, she made no such statement, nor does the broader context of her article suggest such an interpretation. In contrast, and bearing in mind the fact of her article’s obvious intent to expose the intellectual hypocrisy of many Western feminists, it appears far more likely that she intended part of her remark as a reference to the prevalence of the myth that HIV/Aids can be cured by having sex with a virgin or baby, which is a ‘cultural phenomenon’ presumably in the sense that people often commit these acts under influence from (arguably aberrant ) traditional healers (an interpretation since commonly expressed by many people on social media and online news commentary platforms). In this context then, Dr Mabille would appear more guilty of imprecision and/or provocation in her remark than necessarily racism and/or hate speech.

As a regular commentator in the media, Dr Croucamp naturally would be aware that his comments necessarily could influence the perceptions and opinions of eNuus viewers. However, by adding a far more inflammatory slant to a Dr Mabille’s remark by failing to place it in its full and proper context and instead baselessly portraying it as an argument of black people’s racial genetic propensity, Dr Croucamp thus not only acted unethically, unprofessionally and with intellectual dishonesty, but also with grave social irresponsibility given our broader South African community’s sensitivity towards race. Ironically, Dr Croucamp’s misrepresentation during the TV interview was much more likely to fuel the flames of polarisation (as hate speech does), rather than counteracting it, as has since been clear from the reaction of members of the public on social media and online news commentary platforms. In short, he clearly contradicted and undermined his own alleged cause.

Secondly, my impression from reports in the media and Dr Croucamp’s Twitter account (though he has deleted several relevant tweets in recent days), is that Dr Croucamp had shown great haste in contacting the media (Kyknet’s eNuus in particular – he has a rather high media profile on Kyknet actuality programmes). He did not merely approach the University of Pretoria with a request that Dr Mabille’s remarks be investigated (even though she expressly made it clear that she made her remarks in a personal capacity), then contacting the media in the event the reaction was unsatisfactory. This shows an apparent desire by Dr Croucamp to publicise the matter as much as possible and (by simultaneously threatening to lay a complaint of hate speech at the Human Rights Commission) indeed in a provocative manner. In this context, however, presumed agent provocateur or not, it should have been even more crucial that Dr Croucamp’s motives, behaviour and comments would be beyond reproach.

Thirdly and finally, Dr Croucamp has evidently been involved in an ongoing war of words with Praag and Dan Roodt in particular, sparked by Dr Croucamp’s recent controversial comments about the ‘Afrikaner’. From what I can tell after reading up on the matter, his engagement with them has been highly crude and undignified. Whatever his personal views towards and perceptions of their provocations, he certainly has no basis of a moral high ground. Furthermore, it is my understanding from several sources that he fared poorly in a public debate against Dr Mabille in April, as well as during the occasion of another public debate (of which Dr Mabille was one of the organisers) at UP between Dr William Lane Craig and others in May.

Viewed in context with the above then, it throws further doubts on his true motives in sparking the debacle re Dr Mabille. Everything considered, it would appear that Dr Croucamp more than likely targeted Dr Mabille as an easy target for his own personal considerations rather than the pursuit of any presumed lofty ideals, and subsequently played the woman, not the ball.

To be sure, his actions during this debacle do not reflect favourably on his own integrity as a private individual, public political analyst and commentator, academic or representative of the University of Johannesburg at all.

Dr Mabille took responsibility for her actions, and I think it only right that Dr Croucamp does the same regarding his own. A public apology to Dr Mabille may be a good start.

Given the serious sensitivities of cases regarding race and racism, the need that such issues be debated and dealt with in a responsible manner in line with the advancement of the objectives of our Constitution, and in conjunction with the way that Dr Croucamp’s regrettable behaviour during this particular incident reflects on your university, I trust that you will seriously consider this matter and follow it up constructively with Dr Croucamp and other affected parties.

Regards,

Johann Botha

PS: For the record, I am not involved with Praag and do not identify myself with their activities in any way. As a private citizen, however, I am concerned with the fundamental principle of personal and social responsibility guiding one’s actions.