SAmizdat

A few months ago, during a bizarre police raid that consisted of a huge number of policemen, given that the target was only one individual, a raid which was clearly aimed at intimidation rather than law enforcement, the owner of the web site ZASucks.com was arrested on charges dating back to a minor case that took place in the 1990’s, coupled with a relatively minor dispute between two individuals which seems to involve computer privacy. ZASucks’s real sin was apparently to highlight the enormous problems that South Africa has with violent crime, corruption, disintegrating infrastructure, black-on-white racism perpetrated by the ANC regime and other huge issues that continue to blight the continent, more than 40 years after the last colonialists departed.

The way ZASucks.com did so was admittedly controversial, with the crudest racial epithets imaginable to be found in almost every article and certainly in the comments section of each posting. The final straw appears to have been the publication of a series of gruesome pictures, purporting to be of crime victims. This seemingly convinced the authorities to intimidate its owner into shutting down the site. Is it a coincidence that this happened only a few months before the 2010 Soccer World Cup, given the South African authorities’ Holocaust-denier like refusal to acknowledge the frightening extent of violent crime in the country? However, ZASucks.com was very popular until its owner pulled the plug due to the police harassment. It provided a way for some whites to vent their anger against a black regime and its consequences, even if this venting was of an impotent nature, being unable to make any real difference.

On most other South African internet forums, including News24.com, Moneyweb and others, one finds the same general type of reactions from white commentators on any article that concerns crime, incompetent government or corruption (which in South Africa means many, if not most, articles), albeit that the censorship on these sites filters out the more crudely racist utterances that were allowed on ZASucks.com. With a few exceptions, the white respondents are almost united in condemning the general situation in South Africa, as well as being extremely critical of the ANC regime. The old adage that South Africans don’t complain about poor service is no longer true. White South Africans have become experts at complaining about the current situation and this abysmal lack of good service caused by the ANC regime’s incompetence and racist policies.

There is clearly a need for white South Africans to give voice to our discontent.

All this complaining is, however, completely futile and, in reality, ineffective. It makes no difference whatsoever whether whites complain or not, even if it is in the way ZASucks.com did so. The ANC does not need to take heed of whites’ gripes, because elections in Africa are usually for show only, especially if there is a dominant ethnic group. They are senseless tribal or racial censuses, often to appease naive foreign donors. Whites constitute less than 1 in 10 people in South Africa. Voting patterns in Africa are determined by ethnicity or tribal allegiance, not policies. To put it bluntly: we do not matter at all, except when we pay taxes. The ANC does not need whites’ approval. As long as you pay your taxes, whitey, complain as much as you like in your impotent way on News24.com, ZASucks.com or other sites. It may make you feel better, but that’s all. You are powerless to do anything more.

If complaining on internet forums or letters to the press don’t help, except as an unsatisfactory type of cheap psychotherapy, what solution do most of the mainstream media, newspapers and liberal commentators offer those of us who object to the ANC regime?

Firstly, there is South Africa’s so-called best constitution on earth and the individual rights contained therein. We are repeatedly told, most recently by FW de Klerk, that we need to put our trust in the “wonderful” constitution that De Klerk and his incompetent NP cronies “negotiated” for us at the scandalous capitulation of the NP at Codesa. I would go as far as to seriously suggest that Afrikaners need to apologize to white English-speakers for this disaster perpetrated by an Afrikaner leader. The NP held all the cards at Codesa, including having six nuclear weapons as aces up their sleeve, but their retarded negotiators frittered away the opportunity and left whites utterly exposed to a racist, hostile black regime. The constitution, FW and the mainstream media however continue to claim, is some kind of magical piece of paper which would somehow protect us against a black government’s abuse of power.

There are two huge problems with this naïve faith in the constitution, problems which are painfully apparent. For example, why are whites subject to blatantly racist discrimination at the hands of the ANC, if the constitution did in fact offer us any protection? The first problem is that the ANC cannot be trusted to observe the constitution. An organization that in the past thought nothing of murdering innocent civilians in cowardly terror attacks will think nothing of completely disregarding a constitution. Incidentally, that demigod of the liberal media, St Mandela, personally approved the murder of 11 civilians and injuries to more than 200 in the Church Street bombing. Hardly the actions of a saint, I would say.

The ANC will merely ignore the constitution where it doesn’t suit it, and if caught out and challenged in court, which has happened often, it will “transform” the courts and pack them with racist buffoons like the drunk and anti-white racist, the so-called “judge”, Nkola Motata, or the equally racist and corrupt “judge” John Hlope, who needs to be behind bars, not on the bench. (Hlope received a monthly retainer from one of the parties in a court case he presided over. In any normal democracy, Hlope would be in jail, but in a black demockracy he is still on the bench, not because he is competent, but merely because he is black.)

If you are wondering why the ANC is so hell-bent on cadre deployment and transforming the judiciary and especially the public service in the most racist fashion imaginable, wonder no more. It is not just about scoring points with its electorate. It is also to ensure that its plunder of the country’s wealth can continue uninterrupted and unchallenged. Yes, transformation is extremely racist and comparable to the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their society by the Nazis, but there is a chilling logic to it if you are intent on plundering the country or ignoring the constitution.

Examples of ANC politicians ignoring the constitution are numerous, and include the disbandment of the Scorpions to protect the corrupt polygamist and sex addict, our dear president, as well as ignoring the requirements for consultation when instituting name changes.

The second problem with placing one’s faith in the constitution is that it is subject to change, as long as you have a two-thirds majority. The ANC has had two-thirds majorities in the past, and may in future again have one. If it doesn’t like something the constitution, if something contained therein prevents its abuse of power, the ANC can easily change it.

My last observation on the constitution: if an incompetent like FW de Klerk tells us to put our faith in him or something he had a hand in, most sane people will realize that that is the very last thing we should do.

If not the constitution, then we are proffered the party political system and the “demockracy” as an alternative. The utterly naïve hope is often expressed that the ANC may, at some indeterminate date in the future, be beaten at the ballot box. A variation on this is that the ANC may split into left-wing and right-wing factions, and be forced to form an alliance with some third party, such as the DA, which would break its hegemony. Usually this fantasy, for a fantasy it is, takes the shape of some kind of black-white coalition defeating the ANC, where whites and blacks both realize the ANC is an unmitigated disaster and send it packing at the ballot box.

To which my answer is: forget it.

This is wishful thinking of the worst kind and completely ignorant of the realities of African or black politics. Of course I’m generalizing here, and some blacks may admittedly be exceptions to the rule, but how many successful African countries can you think of? I am deliberately not offering an opinion as to which reasons (genetics or cultural factors, perhaps) would offer a psychological explanation as to why blacks behave in a certain way when it comes to politics, but merely using demonstrable historical facts to illustrate my point. The post-colonial history of all of Sub-Saharan Africa is my evidence. In 1960, under Belgian rule, the Congo was a treasurehouse of minerals and potentially the richest country in Africa. By 2010, however, it had been reduced to a hell-hole, like almost all of its neighbours. In 1960 Zambia was as poor per capita as South Korea. By 2010 there was no comparison. What made the difference? I am also not saying all or indeed most Western politicians are honourable and all Western countries have good governments, but on the other hand, clearly both the Smith government in Rhodesia and the Belgians’ government in the Congo were far better than either Mugabe’s or Mobuto Sese-Seko’s, especially for the black citizens of those countries.

Some politicians in Western countries, although by no means all, may have a genuine desire to improve their nation’s lot or to make a difference in society, but we need to realize this is not why most Africans seemingly participate in politics at all. Politics in all African countries, Haiti and even black-ruled cities in the USA such as Washington DC under mayor Barry, are a way of getting one’s hands on the treasury, a means of gaining access to opportunities to leverage power with one and one goal only: that of plundering taxpayers’ and the country’s wealth. The ANC is no different, and only differs from the Zanu-PF in that the latter is slightly more extreme in its blatant plundering of state resources. Any other black government, even if the ANC would by some miracle were to be beaten in an election, would do exactly the same as the ANC, according to all the available evidence from the rest of the continent.

The prime example of this plunder is the legalized theft and nationalization by stealth known as so-called Black Economic Empowerment, BEE, which in reality is just a legalized way for the inner circle of the ANC to extort wealth from white businesses. As the former ANC bigwig, BEE beneficiary of hundreds of millions of rands and current Cope member, Smuts Ngonyama puts it so succinctly: “I did not join the Struggle to be poor.” There you have it from the horse’s mouth: the ANC’s Struggle and its entire raison d’etre boils down to getting rich in the shortest possible time. Smuts Ngonyama is one of the worst examples of a blood-sucking parasite who added non one iota of value, but nevertheless obtained obscene wealth. However, he was at the time probably seen as a hero for his chutzpah and his successful participation in plunder with racist undertones.

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely the ANC, even if it does split, will be beaten within the next 50 years. Although the liberal media blames the ANC for malfeasance and bad government, very few in the mainstream media would dare to question why the voters would then continue to vote for the ANC. Surely, if the ANC is so bad, the voters would logically vote for somebody else? The excuse for this illogical behaviour, voting for the ANC in election after election, is often that the voters are uneducated. There are even conspiracy theories that go that the ANC is deliberately sabotaging the country’s education system to keep voters uneducated and ignorant.

This I don’t buy. Educated blacks vote for and defend the ANC too, not just the unwashed masses. The ANC will therefore never stop its anti-white racism known as affirmative action, because it’s extremely popular, especially among educated African voters, who like the unfair advantage AA offers them in the workplace. AA is their way of participating in plunder, and they will defend the ANC to protect this “right.” Go and read articles that criticize Zuma’s behaviour, such as those in the Mail and Guardian, and you will find that apparently educated black readers will defend the indefensible in their responses to these reports.

Not only the ignorant, but also the majority of educated blacks are therefore also voting for the ANC, because they like the ANC’s racist policies. Those educated fans of AA like participating in the plunder at whites’ expense, and will continue voting for the ANC, regardless of how badly the ANC governs. Replacing the ANC with a clean, well-run government may in fact be directly in conflict with AA beneficiaries’ own interests, because under such a government the current system of crony appointments of those who cannot do the job but who are of a fashionable shade of pigmentation, and forcing companies to appoint AA passengers to meet quotas will stop. There is logic in voting for a party that perpetrates anti-white racism in the workplace, because it offers its voters an unfair advantage. Who cares whether the party is not only racist but corrupt and incompetent too, provided it continues offering an unfair advantage? This explains why Jacob Zuma has no shame, and does not resign as president, and why even educated ANC voters still support Zuma. In a normal democracy, he would have resigned and his party would have lost the next election by a landslide due to Zuma’s sexual indiscretions, but once again expecting a normal democracy, accountability and ethical behaviour in Africa is hopelessly naïve and a disease only Westerners suffer from.

You and I as Westerners need to understand that although Sipho in his squatter-camp shack is suffering in dismal poverty, or an AA-appointee may worry about mismanagement in his local authority, politics to him does not mean differentiating between parties in terms of policy and expecting accountability from elected politicians at all. He doesn’t care who rules the country, provided they are black too, and that they hold out at least a possibility for the voter of participating in the plunder too. We as Westerners may get upset by corruption, incompetence and criminality, but Sipho and his brother blacks apparently do not.

Blacks in the old Rhodesia were living in a prosperous country with enough to eat, to the point that their country was known as the breadbasket of Southern Africa. Nevertheless they took up arms against Ian Smith’s government. In the Zimbabwe of 2010 they are starving and millions have had to become refugees because of an economy that has utterly collapsed. Mugabe murdered 20,000 Matabeles. All of this was due to Mugabe’s party’s mismanagement, but still no black seems to be willing to take up arms against the Zimbabwean regime. Why not? Because Mugabe is black and Smith was white. Should we have any sympathy for those Zimbabwean refugees who are apparently unwilling to help themselves? If you’re starving anyway, why not rise up and take up arms against the Mugabe regime, those who are clearly causing your starvation?

Politics in the black psyche rather seems to be a way of becoming rich by plundering others’ wealth, and this is perfectly acceptable as long as those commiting plunder are black as well. Accordingly Sipho does not care that the ANC is robbing him blind, and nor do the Zimbabweans who still vote for Mugabe seem to care that his wife shops in Paris while they have to eat rats to survive. On the contrary; he admires the plunderers. Instead of getting angry at JuJu Malema’s undeserved wealth and vulgar extravagance and bringing out a protest vote for somebody else, Sipho probably rather dreams of the day he too can be elected as an ANC councilor and participate in the plunder himself. Sipho will therefore continue to vote ANC, whether you and I as Westerners find that to be rational voting behaviour or not.

This phenomenon explains extremely well why the same residents of Standerton who rioted due to the poor service delivery of the ANC town council, will predictably vote for the ANC again in 2011’s municipal elections. You and I may think that, if you are so angry enough that you throw stones at the police, or burn down the municipal offices, you are angry enough to vote for somebody else, come the next election. This unrealistic expectation is however due to our Western ignorance. It is only us naive Westerners who find rioting but then voting for those whose mismanagement led to the riots to be a contradiction, and this is only because we don’t understand that politics is about plunder in Africa. The residents of Standerton are not rioting because of poor ANC policies and implementation, but rather because they feel excluded from the plunder their ANC rulers are participating in. The mainstream media politely refers to this mindset as a “culture of entitlement.” When they toyi-toyi, when they demand this and that, they are really saying: “Hand over the loot! We too want to partake of the plunder.”

Another good example of this naivety by Westerners where it comes to African voting behaviour is the mystification and frustration the mainstream media often expresses as to why Cope, a splinter party from the ANC, seems not to have any discernable policies of its own. Of course it doesn’t! It doesn’t care one iota about solving the country’s many problems, any more than the ANC cares. When will we learn? Politics in Africa is not about foreign, Western concepts like principles or policy at all! It is about plunder, and getting access to the levers of power to enrich yourself. The one and only reason Cope split from the ANC was because Cope’s leadership was excluded from the plunder by the anti-Mbeki coup at the Polokwane conference in 2007. It consists of exactly the same villains, criminals and former terrorists. None of Cope’s leaders, many of whom were part of Mbeki’s government, had any problem with Mbeki’s anti-white racism. It is tantamount to insanity for a naive white to vote for Cope and expect that a Cope government would differ in the slightest from the ANC.

The same applies in Zimbabwe. Even if, by some miracle, the MDC wins an election in Zim and Mad Bob Mugabe gracefully steps down, or Cope were to win an election in South Africa and the ANC recognizes the result (which, given its terrorist past, is unlikely), what makes us believe the MDC or Cope is any better than the Zanu-PF or the ANC? There are very few, if any, examples of a successful black government anywhere on earth, and this includes the liberals’ favourite example, Botswana’s, whose government is wont to discriminate against its Bushman inhabitants, and where you can be imprisoned for making a joke about the president. That’s hardly the hallmark of a liberal, modern democracy, not so? It reminds me more of a tinpot dictatorship with a giant chip on its shoulder. The oldest black republic on earth, Haiti, has been ruled by a variety of different governments for 200 years and as a result it is a total shambles. The governments tended to differ only in terms of how many victims their rulers murdered, raped or even cannibalized. Literally eating your political opponents seems to be a feature of some types of black politics.

Let’s face facts, even though some may find the facts or even the universe itself to be racist: from the overwhelming historical evidence, it is clear that government by blacks is the problem, and not only individual parties like the ANC or Zanu-PF. Since 1960 Africa has swallowed up more than 7 Marshall Plans’ worth of foreign aid, only to remain the most backward continent by any measure. Why should South Africa be any different? The fault lies with us, the sadly naive whites who voted yes in the 1992 referendum, and who got excited by the mainstream media’s “rainbow nation” propaganda. We were the suckers, the idiots who in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, convinced ourselves that our country would be a special case. It’s not. The common denominator in Washington DC, Africa and Haiti is clearly a black government.

Whites constitute less than 1 in 10 of the inhabitants of South Africa. We are deluding ourselves by pretending that even the DA has any hope. Even if all whites and coloureds voted for the DA, it can, due to demographical realities, never achieve more than 20% of the vote. Although the DA is trying very hard to polish its black credentials, the vast majority of blacks will not vote for a white party, full stop. As I wrote earlier on, elections in Africa are merely racial and tribal censuses, and have very little to do with policy or fitness to rule, at least as far as we as Westerners can discern. Black government is therefore a given in South Africa, because 8 of of 10 or more inhabitants of the country are black.

The moral of the story: a small white minority’s complaints and whingeing on web sites are futile. Trust in the constitution is similarly hopelessly naïve, because it will get ignored or changed if and when it doesn’t suit the ANC regime. Participation in an African demockracy, a.k.a. a racial census, is also of very limited use. The DA may be in charge of the Western Cape for now, but this is a temporary aberration. Sooner or later enough Xhosas and other will flood the Western Cape, and restore ANC rule. This is only a matter of time.

Read my lips: a good, clean government, as measured by Western standards, will never rule the unitary state called South Africa again. There will forever be a badly-run government, from a Western point of view, in power. This is because blacks are in the majority and a badly-run, inept, corrupt, black government is a tautology, judging by the history of the vast majority of other black governments in Africa and elsewhere. The problem is accordingly not the ANC only, although it is admittedly an egregious example of everything that is wrong with black governments. The real problem seems to be a complete lack of compatibility between Africans’ approach to politics and power, and that of Westerners. Replacing the ANC with another black government, or the Zanu-PF with the MDC, will not make a difference to whites in the long run. Just ask the citizens of Haiti, who’ve had a variety of black governments for more than 200 years, but are still the most backward country in the western hemisphere. If one excludes other third-world countries such as Detroit, of course.

(Author’s footnote: this is the first in a series of articles which I intend to publish as an online e-Book. Although I usually write in Afrikaans and am a member of a Pro-Afrikaner organization, Praag, this is specifically aimed at white, English speaking South Africans and therefore written in English.

Why did I write this article? To make people negative and give up hope? No, that wasn’t the intention. The intention was to point out that we first need to be realistic in terms of what is practical and possible in South Africa. Having established that, I will in future articles propose alternative ways for whites to improve our lot, and to avoid sinking along with the South African Titanic.)

Die gedrukte media dwarsoor die wêreld sukkel met dalende leserstalle. Nes die binnebrandenjin perdry oorbodig gemaak het, is die ontwrigtende tegnologie van die internet besig om die verkope van koerante en tydskrifte erg te benadeel. Selfs die magtige New York Times oorweeg dit om sy gratis webwerf in die toekoms te verander na een waarop mens moet betaal.

Hier in Suid-Afrika is dinge nie anders nie. Die gedrukte media is op ‘n afwaartse trajek. Naspers is in die proses om personeel te verminder, ook onder die senior bestuur van hul Afrikaanse koerante. Sirkulasiesyfers van alle koerante val.

Alhoewel die internet ‘n groot deel van die blaam hiervoor moet dra, wonder ek of daar nie iets anders aan’t gebeur is nie, iets wat die proses nog meer versnel nie. Daardie iets is dat die media, ook in Suid-Afrika maar veral in die VSA, grootliks deur ‘n kliek van linkses beheer word. Dít, terwyl baie van die lesers, en in Suid-Afrika die groot meerderheid lesers van Naspers se Afrikaanse koerante, hulself toenemend vervreem voel van die knaende lofsingery en offerhandes aan die altaar van multikulturalisme en diversiteit waaraan die hoofstroommedia hom skuldig maak. Diversiteit, die sogenaamde wonderwerk van die monochrome reënboognasie en multikulturalisme verloor vinnig hul sjarme as jy nie soos ‘n linkse joernalis in sy ivoortoring sit nie, maar gekonfronteer word met vervallende standaarde, ongekende vlakke van geweldpleging, moord, doodslag, verkragtings, rooftogte en rassistiese, swart-op-wit aanvalle, ‘n misdadige regering en skreiende staatsrassisme soos regstellende aksie. Laasgenoemde is die daaglikse realiteit van Beeld se lesers. Beeld en die ander hoofstroommedia se reaksie is egter om skouerophalend vir ons te predik oor hoe fantasties ons grondwet kwansuis sou wees, en hoe dankbaar ons hoort te wees vir die “wonderwerk” van die Nuwe!, Verbeterde! Suid-Afrika.

Vroeër hierdie week was daar byvoorbeeld ‘n peiling op Beeld se nuuswerf wat die vraag gevra het of Beeld se lesers FW-hulle se skandalige kapitulasie by Kodesa as ‘n goeie ding beskou het. Die groot meerderheid van Beeld se lesers het nie so gedink nie. Nietemin gaan Tim du Plessis en skryf waaragtig ‘n paar dae later ‘n rubriek waarin hy die mening opper dat dit “suur regses” (sic) sou wees wat ondankbaar is dat FW sy eie mense vir ‘n ryk Griek, ‘n Nobelprys en ‘n pot lensiesop aan ‘n bende terroriste uitverkoop het. Dieselfde verskynsel het plaasgevind met Beeld se nou-berugte peiling oor die volkstaat, waarin daar weer eens ‘n meerderheid lesers was wat gedink het dat ‘n volkstaat ‘n oplossing sou kon bied. Beeld se reaksie egter? Hy het drie of vier rubrieke gepubliseer wat die ganse idee afgekraak het as hetsy onhaalbaar, hetsy rassisties. Die meerderheid van sy lesers meen dus ‘n volkstaat is ‘n gawe idee, maar die linkse reënboognasie-fanatici by Beeld weet mos van beter.

Aarde aan Tim du Plessis: dit lyk vir my al te veel of hetsy bykans ál jou lesers “regse suurgatte” is, hetsy jy en jou redaksie gans en al uit voeling is met die realiteit wat jou lesers beleef. Lees jy die reaksies op jou prekerige, linkse rubrieke, Tim? Sien jy dan nie hoe die meerderheid van diegene wat reageer, radikaal met jou verskil nie? Of wil jy hulle insgelyks probeer afmaak as regse suurgatte?

In die VSA was en is die New York Times eweneens histeriese lofsangers aan hul geliefde halfbloedprins, Obama. Ongelukkig vir die Times deel die groot meerderheid van diegene wat koerante koop in die VSA, blankes, glad nie hierdie siening nie. Nietemin, toe blanke kiesers in die uiters-liberale deelstaat Massachusetts hul misnoë met Obama te kenne gee deur teen alle verwagtinge in vir ‘n Republikein te stem, is die New York Times se eerste reaksie om te probeer ontken dat dit ‘n stem teen Obama en sy beleid was. Dít, ten spyte van die feit dat Obama persoonlik ‘n paar dae voor die verkiesing na Boston gegaan het om persoonlik voorspraak te probeer maak vir die Demokratiese kandidaat.

In Westerse lande, en onder Westerse bevolkings soos Afrikaners, is daar ‘n grondverskuiwing weg van die religie van nie-rassigheid en die geliegery oor die gewaande voordele van diversiteit, in die rigting van nasionalisme en volkstrots en ja, ook rassetrots. (Moet egter nooit daardie r-woord in ‘n Naspersjoernalis se teenwoordigheid besig nie, om hemelsnaam!) Die opgang wat Geert Wilders se party in Nederland maak, asook Afrikaners se menings in Beeld se eie peilings, spreek luidkeels hiervan. Tog weier die hoofstroommedia se redaksies om kennis hiervan te neem. Hulle kleef, presies nes die einste godsdienstige fundamentaliste wat hulle so verag, steeds vas aan hulle uitgediende, linkse religie. Naspers volhard daarmee om sy lesers se intelligensie te beledig en hulle te treiter met snert soos Mad Max se onsinnige rubrieke.

Wanneer die onafwendbare gebeur, wanneer Tim du Plessis, Ferdi Greyling en senior lede van die redaksie van die New York Times hul poste verloor agv dalende verkope, wonder ek of hulle dan gaan besef dat hulle regstreeks tot hul eie ondergang bygedra het, deur hulself doof te hou vir die geweldige transformasie wat hulle lesers se menings ondergaan het.

Die onderstaande skrywe is deur ene Thinus Nel aan Sênet gestuur, na aanleiding van ‘n gesprek op die Praagwerf oor Orania. My repliek op sy skrywe volg heel onder. Lees terloops ook een van die Mail & Guardian se bloggers se perspektief oor Orania.

Anton, aangesien PRAAG weier om my onderstaande brief aan jou te publiseer, hoop ek jy lees dit hier.
Ek dink SM Biehl se kommentaar op my vorige Orania-Obamaskrywe getuig van soveel gesonde verstand dat dit nie as gevolg van die oënskynlik vlietende aktualiteit van internetgeskrifte ongesiens verlore mag gaan nie; hy skryf:

“Uitstekend. Jy slaan die spyker op die kop. Uiteindelik is die volkstaat-debat na baie jare se stilte weer aan die gang. Wil ons die foute van die verlede herhaal (1994-1999), toe die geleentheid daar was en die verskillende volkstaters onder mekaar baklei het waar dit moet wees? Die demografie het reeds besluit, en die feite op die grond. Die ANC-regering het ook reeds aangedui dat die Noordwes-Kaap opsie vir hulle legitiem is (minister Valli Moosa). Dink iemand ernstig ‘n regering sal hulle hoofstad afstaan? Ongeag hoeveel Afrikaners in Pretoria bly en hoeveel sentimente daaraan gekoppel is (en ek het dit ook en is ook ‘n oud-Pretorianer), geen regering sal sy magsentrum prysgee nie. As jy van iemand ‘n pont vleis eis, of ‘n stuk van sy liggaam, wat sal hy eerder vir jou gee, sy hart, of sy kleintoon?

Laat ons nie nou weer die kans op selfbeskikking laat verbygaan deur al weer die gevegte van die verlede te veg oor die grondgebied. Dit is duidelik dat dit of in die Noordwes-Kaap of nêrens sal wees nie. Ons is in 2010, nie meer 1980 nie.”

Verder wil ek graag op Anton Barnard se dooddoener-vraag aan my (en johanneksteen) reageer deur hom na laasgenoemde se antwoord daarop te verwys, maar voordat hy in onkunde weer sanik dat ek hom nie antwoord nie, die volgende:

Ek het dit in my oorspronklike brief duidelik gestel dat ek géén opdrag van Orania het nie en ek is dus nié ‘n Orania-fên (sic) nie.

Hy is egter nie die enigste een wat gebruikmaak van sulke niksseggende, dooddoener-vrae en stellings waarmee hulle alle verdere bespreking en debat probeer fnuik nie. ‘n Baie bekende een is: “Apartheid het nie gewerk nie en sou nooit gewerk het nie – daarom móés ons verander … ”

Vandag is dit méér as duidelik dat apartheid nie net die oplossing vir SA was nie, maar vir die hele Westelike halfrond en as mense dit nog nie besef nie, sal hulle oë binne afsienbare tyd oopgaan – altans in die sekulêre Frankryk en die res van Europa – wanneer dit, helaas, ook te laat sal wees.

Hoe dit ook al sy, aangesien niemand so blind is soos dié wat nie wíl sien nie, so doof soos dié wat nie wíl hoor nie en so dom soos dié wat nie wíl verstaan nie, sal ek aan hom verduidelik:

Ek woon nie in Orania nie, omdat daar nog nie genoeg werksgeleenthede is dat Afrikaners in hulle duisendtalle op die plek kan toesak nie. As hy bekend is met die begrip “werkskepping” (“job creation, stupid” – selfs Obama het al daarvan gehoor … ), dan sal hy besef dat dít prioriteit nommer een is; vandaar dan ook die poging om Europese nywerheidsproduksiemasjiene na Orania oor te plaas – waaroor hy natuurlik nog steeds so stil is soos ‘n muis in ‘n kalbas.

Ek het wél via my kontakpersoon (wat tans verkies om anoniem te bly) verneem dat sy Vlaamse kennis hom intussen meegedeel het dat daar ook hout- en metaalbewerkingsmasjinerie beskikbaar is teen baie billike pryse en dat die inligting opgevolg word.

Wat die oorspronklike metaalpersmasjiene betref, kan ek op hierdie stadium rapporteer dat my kontakpersoon, ‘n Vlaamse medewerker en die Uitvoerende Hoof van die Orania Beweging op 18 Maart 2010 om 10h00 in Brussel ‘n afspraak het met die hoof uitvoerende beampte van die betrokke metaalpersfabriek.

Sedert ek Gustav Venter, Anton Barnard en Dan Roodt ‘n ruk terug “genomineer” het as driemanskapleiers”, moet ek nou toegee dat ek spyt is daaroor.

Van eersgenoemde hóór ‘n mens nie meer nie en laasgenoemde twee openbaar deesdae iets wat grens aan haat vir doodgewone Afrikanereienskappe. Anton Barnard verfoei die behoudende ooms en ouderlinge wat (tereg) bang was TV sou morele waardes ondermyn.

Ek weet nie hoe goed hy die uitnemende Frankryk ken nie, maar ék kan hom die versekering gee dat ek dit al die pad sal verkies om onder die morele waardes van die ooms en ouderlinge van Orania te krepeer, soos in die Ou SA.

Ek verneem graag van hom hoe oud hy was met die invoering van TV in SA in die jare 1975/76 en, weer eens, op welke manier sý vryheid van meningsuiting in die Ou SA deur die regering aan bande gelê is.

Net soos hy nie kan onderskei tussen die begrippe “geloof” en “godsdiens” nie, kan hy ook nie onderskei tussen werklikheid en verbeelding nie – vandaar sy heftige bestorming van onbestaande windmeule, byvoorbeeld wanneer hy johanneksteen beskuldig van ‘n persoonlike aanval (nota van Anton: Tinus lieg soos ‘n tandetrekker en hou hom lekker hoogheilig hier. Gaan lees gerus die draad op die Praagwerf waar Johann my met Tim du Plessis vergelyk, of selfs die aanmatigende trant wat Johann besig op kommentare op hierdie blog. Wat ook baie snaaks is, is dat hy ontken dat dit persoonlik raak, maar kyk net wat skryf hy in hierdie brief.) Dit is inderwaarheid hý wat mý en johanneksteen persoonlik aangeval het – nie dat ek my daaroor bekla nie.

… en aan diegene wat so snedig, vyandig en hatig is teenoor mense wat SA verlaat het:: in die trekgeskiedenis van die Afrikaner, eers van die Wes-Kaap na die Oos-Kaap en daarna, met die Groot Trek, het die oorgrote meerderheid nie die moed van hulle oortuiging gehad om pad te gee onder ‘n Afrikanervernietigende regime uit nie – die trekkers wél.

Daar lê so-by-so te veel van my bloed en ‘n beduidende deel van my linkerbeen in die bosse van Suid-Angola om my verder aan kabouters en kansvatters te steur.

Thinus Nel

My repliek op sy brief:

Jy is omtrent kwaad vir my, ou Thinus! Ek gaan egter probeer om op die feite te fokus, eerder om jou as persoon aan te vat soos jy in jou skrywe met my gemaak het. Ek kan jou nie juis op daardie vlak aanvat nie, al wou ek, meestal omdat ek jou van g’n kant af ken nie, nes jy my ook nie ken nie. Ek sal my dus weerhou daarvan om jou ook as ‘n kabouter of wat ook al te beskryf soos jy in jou brief gemaak het.

Eerstens: ek het geen beheer oor wat op die hoofblad van die Praagwerf geplaas word en nie geplaas word nie, net so min as wat ek kan beheer wat op Sênet geplaas word. Dus is ek onskuldig op die klag dat jou brief geweier is. Wassie ekkie! Tweedens: jy teer nou vir Gustav en Dan met dieselfde kwas as my, maar Gustav het onlangs by die Orania-groep op Facebook gaan aansluit, en nie een van hulle het betrokke geraak by die debat waarby ek en jy betrokke was nie.

Die eerste stelling wat in jou brief verskyn wat skrei van die onakkuraatheid, is hierdie een: “Die demografie het reeds besluit, en die feite op die grond.” Nee wat, dis nie net onakkuraat nie, dis sommer pleinweg ‘n lieg. Die demografie het wel hard gepraat, en sê luidkeels die noorde van Johannesburg, die Oosrand en Pretoria bevat die grootste konsentrasie Afrikaners in die land. Enkele voorstede van Centurion bevat meer Afrikaners as wat daar in die ganse Noordkaap is. Word gerus weer kwaad, maar wees minstens vir die regte persone kwaad: diegene wat kies om in daardie gebiede te gaan woon agv die ekonomiese geleenthede daar. Daar is geen manier dat sowat 2.5 miljoen Afrikaners na ‘n woestyn sal verhuis nie.

Ek het nooit voorgegee jy is ‘n amptelike segsman wat deur Orania afgevaardig is nie. Jy woon dan nie eens daar nie. Beide jy en die Johann waarna jy in jou brief verwys, is wel groot Orania-fêns, sou ek sê. Waarom anders sal julle so warm onder die kraag raak vir my wat uitwys dat die keiser kaal is? My dooddoener vraag waarna jy ook verwys, vir die ander lesers, is: Waarom woon julle nie reeds daar nie? Soos jy bevestig het, woon jy nie daar agv die feit dat jy elders ‘n werk het en daar nie tans geleenthede op Orania is nie. So ook het Johann wel geëmigreer, maar Europa toe en nie na Orania toe nie. Weer eens, waarom as julle so sterk voel oor die saak, voeg julle nie daad by die woord en gaan vestig julle daar nie? (Retoriese vraag!) Die antwoord is natuurlik dat julle presies dieselfde sommetjie maak as almal behalwe die 1500 of so wat wel op Orania woon. Dis blote ekonomiese eiebelang en niemand kan julle blameer nie. Jy was egter nie bereid om my ‘n paar weke gelede ‘n reguit antwoord te gee op die gespreklyn van die ander werf nie. Dus is dit steeds ‘n geval van: “Moenie maak soos ons maak nie, maak soos ons sê.” Jy voel baie sterk oor die saak, maar slegs waar dit ander mense aanbetref.

Dis andersyds goed dat Orania wel nywerhede wil vestig. Hopelik gee dit vir ‘n paar werklose Afrikaners werksgeleenthede. Dis nou as die mense wil werk, moet ek helaas byvoeg. Ek het gerugte gehoor, en ek weet nie of dit waar is nie, dat ‘n gedeelte van Orania se oes van neute aan die bome vrot geword het, omdat daar nie mense was wat bereid was om dit te oes nie. Kom ons veronderstel egter jou Vlaamse kennis is suksesvol en Orania stig ‘n paar fabrieke. Ek is steeds nie seker dis die regte benadering nie. Gaan Afrikaners bereid wees om sulke werk te doen teen lone wat met die Chinese en Indiërs kan meeding? Hande-arbeid is volop in Suid-Afrika en op die Afrika-kontinent. Afrikaners se mededingende voordeel is ons kundigheid in die dienstesektor, byvoorbeeld mediese dienste. Sou dit nie eerder sin maak om ‘n kliniek op Orania te stig wat gespesialiseerde operasies bied nie? En as jy dit wil doen, waarom dan nie eerder visvang waar die visse is nie, en een in Pretoria-Oos bou nie, wat nie sal vereis dat Afrikaner-dokters na ‘n woestyn verhuis nie?

As jy skryf dat ek die ou ooms verfoei, moet ek bieg dat ek op my leeftyd self een van die ou ooms is Mense van dertig noem my al oom. As ek ou ooms verfoei, verfoei ek myself dus ook. Ek sal wel toegee dat ek eerder in Australië sou gaan woon as om in ‘n Afrikaner-teokrasie te moet bly. Ek hou nie van gedagtebeheer nie, al is dit Afrikaners wat dit op my wil toepas.

Ek ken volgens jou nie die verskil tussen geloof en godsdiens nie, maar ek ken wel die verskil tussen stront en modder, en die volgende stelling van jou is nie laasgenoemde nie: “Ek verneem graag van hom hoe oud hy was met die invoering van TV in SA in die jare 1975/76 en, weer eens, op welke manier sý vryheid van meningsuiting in die Ou SA deur die regering aan bande gelê is.” Kom nou, Thinus! Jy weet baie goed jy praat die grootste snert denkbaar. Gaan vra gerus vir Donald Woods of hy vry was om destyds sy mening te lug. Daar was Engelse troepe saam met my in die weermag wat nie gekeur is vir offisierskursus nie, bloot omdat hulle tydens hul studentedae ‘n artikel of iets dergeliks in die kampus se koerant gepubliseer het, wat die regering gekritiseer het. Benewens die gebrek aan ekonomiese geleenthede is dit nog een van Orania se probleme. Daar is ‘n wydverspreide persepsie (regverdig al dan nie) dat Orania juis deur ‘n soort Afrikaner-teokrasie beheer word, en eng godsdienstig is.

Laastens: ek gun Orania sy bestaansreg en het vrede daarmee as iemand hulle daar wil vestig. Ek het geen vendetta teen Orania of sy inwoners nie. Ek het wel ‘n probleem met diegene wat om Orania en die Noordkaap probeer voorhou as die laaste kans op selfbeskikking. Ongelukkig is daardie koppeling, tussen Orania en selfbeskikking, agv die waninformasie wat mense soos jy versprei alreeds tot so ‘n mate gevestig dat bykans elke rubriek in die pers, o.a. Tim du Plessis s’n, Orania en die volkstaat of selfbeskikking amper as sinonieme gebruik. Dit is dikwels moedswillig. Omdat Orania nie na verwagting gegroei het nie, word dit dikwels as getuienis aangevoer waarom selfbeskikking doodgebore sou wees. Om hierdie rede is Orania helaas ‘n las eerder as ‘n bate vir die gedagte van selfbeskikking.

In die vroeë jare van SAUK se TV-uitsendings was daar ‘n reeks met Rolf Harris, die Australiese sanger en komediant as die ster daarvan. Een van sy liedjies was “Jake the Peg.” Hierin is die spot gedryf met ‘n ou wat drie bene het.

Vanoggend luister ek toevallig Jacaranda FM se sesuur-nuus. Tydens die berig oor Jacob se 20ste kind (waarvan ons weet) speel Darren Scott-hulle Rolf Harris se “Jake the Peg.” Dis skreeusnaaks en baie toepaslik. Onse Jake het inderdaad omtrent ‘n derde been wat hom erg pla, en dít op ‘n gevorderde leeftyd.

Ek slaan egter die ontstokenheid oor Jake se manewales uit alle oorde, buiten die ANC, met ‘n bietjie onbegrip gade. Die Engelse, liberale pers en die voormalige Weeping Winnie, Helen Zille, wil slange vang oor die verkeerde boodskap wat Jake glo uitstuur oor vigs. Feministiese professore in die teologie wil verstik in hul tee oor Jake se veelwywery.

Ekskuus, mense, maar hoeveel multi’s is daar in julle begrip van multikulturalisme? Soos Zuma tereg uitwys, is veelwywery wel deel van Zoeloes se kultuur. Ek stel voor daai feministiese professore gaan vra vir die tuiniers of teedames op hul kampusse hoeveel kinders hulle of hul mans het, dikwels by ‘n verskeidenheid vrouens. Jake het weliswaar die hoogste profiel in die land, buiten vir JuJu Malema, maar miljoene van sy onderdane deel sy lewensuitkyk en seksuele praktyke. Mans met veelvuldige seksuele maats en veelwywery is aan die orde van die dag en word algemeen aanvaar in die meerderheid van die land se kultuurgroepe. Waarom anders is Suid-Afrika, tot Thabo se groot ontsteltenis, die vigshoofstad van die wêreld?

Weer eens lyk dit vir my of diegene wat so hoog opgee oor diversiteit, juis nié ware diversiteit verlang nie. Dit klink vir my of hulle juis nie verdraagsaam is teenoor ander kulture nie, en veral nie dié se seksuele praktyke nie. Dis terloops tog snaaks hoe baie van diegene wat Jake se seksuele gewoontes so erg kritiseer, juis aandring op aanvaarding van hul eie homoseksualiteit, nie waar nie?

Jake sou seker meer aanvaarbaar gewees het vir hulle as hy ‘n swart Engelsman soos Mbeki of Mugabe was, met een amptelike vrou op ‘n slag, terwyl hy sy skelmpies telefonies “Squidgy” noem, soos wat prinses Diana se minnaar gemaak het.

Ware multikulturalisme? Nee wat. Nes die monochrome reënboognasie slegs swart in sy reënboog het, is daar eintlik slegs monokulturalisme, veral juis onder diegene wat voorgee hulle is ten gunste van diversiteit. Jake en miljoene van sy onderdane se blatante en skaamtelose uitlewing van hul kultuur ontbloot diversiteit en multikulturalisme vir die liegspul wat dit is, en maak ‘n totale bespotting van die diversiteit-profete se skynheiligheid.

(Blog owner’s note: The post below was originally one of the comments on my previous piece on Orania. I thought the points made in the comment were so good that I post it here as a separate entry.)

Another thought. Simplistically, I imagine [Ms Fitzpatrick's accusation in her article on Orania in Beeld] of ‘racism’ is that the whites in Orania consider themselves ’superior’ to ‘black africans’. It is their refusal to consider themselves ‘equal’; but then she goes and considers herself ’superior’ to the people of Orania? So, if my simplistic defintion is correct, she is herself a racist.

I don’t think I have ever met anyone who is not a racist, in terms of that definition of considering themselves superior to others, whether culturally or otherwise. Personally I find honest racists far easier to talk to, because they acknowledge thier racism, and hence you can discuss whether their racism is justified (i.e. they are indeed superior in the areas of expertise they consider themselves superior, and if so, then surely their racism is justified? Or is Serena Williams, or Michael Schumacher not allowed to consider themselves superior at their particular sport than you and me??? Of course they are superior, and by the definition then they are ‘racists’. Who cares? I don’t, their racism against those who are inferior (you, me, etc) is justified. It is THE TRUTH. It is reality.

Now to Orania… Are the people in Orania justified in being racists? Well it depends on what they are being racist about? When it comes to creating a town absent of violence and crime. Yes, they are jusitified in their racism! Its true… Are they justified in being racists, about being better ping pong players than Chinese? No, but they are not claiming to be better ping pong players than Chinese.

So, my general focus is, I don’t care how racist someone is, black white, pink or green. I attempt to discern what exactly they consider themselves superior at, and based upon what justifications, and if those justifications are evidently true, then their racism is justified, becuase it is THE TRUTH…

It is quite obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense, that nobody is equal to another, not even twins.

Just some people are obsessed about not acknowledging their inferiority, and accordingly want to force us all to pretend that we are all equal.

They misunderstand the principle of being treated equally under the rule of law, but tehrea gain, the law demands to hear the particular circumstnaces on the particular fact.

A man driving 300 miles in a 60 mile zone, cause he felt like seeing how fast his Lamborgini could go. Another man drove 300 miles in a 60 mile zone, cause he had a pregnant wife ready to give birth and he is rushing to hospital.

The law demands that the circumstances are considered, for true equal justice to occur. They will not receive the same conviction or sentence, even though they did the exact same crime.

Anyway, i digress…

Ms Fitzpatrick should go and spend a couple of months living in Pollsmoor Prison… and then come back and tell us all her story; about how we are all equal!

Ek is self geen voorstaander van Orania nie. Na my mening skep Orania probleme vir die gedagte van selfbeskikking, omdat sommiges probeer voorgee Orania is reeds die volkstaat, en dit al te maklik is om vingers te wys na Orania se oënskynlike gebrek aan sukses. Die tipiese, snedige opmerking en retoriese vraag wat mens hoor is: “Maar julle hét mos julle volkstaat op Orania. Hoekom trek julle wat selfbeskikking voorstaan nie soontoe nie?”

Diegene wat dié vraag vra, ken natuurlik die antwoord en dis juis waarom hulle hul retoriese vraag vra. Daar is bykans geen ekonomiese geleenthede op Orania nie. As iemand dan wel wil vlug vir die misdaad en wanbestuur in Suid-Afrika, gaan dit hom nie veel in die sak bring om alles te verkoop en te gaan sit en krepeer op Orania sonder ‘n werk nie. Gevolglik het Orania slegs sowat 1500 inwoners, omdat die meeste mense, ook diegene wat ten gunste is van selfbeskikking, in rasionele eiebelang sal optree. Die wat kan, vlug eerder Perth toe, want daar is jy beide veiliger én jy het ‘n werk.

‘n Joernalis van Beeld, Marida Fitzpatrick, ignoreer egter die voordiehandliggende rede vir Orania se gebrek aan groei. Sy’t daar gaan besoek aflê (en ek moet eerlikwaar sê ek weet nie hoekom nie – sy het duidelik vooraf haar gevolgtrekking gemaak) en totaal-voorspelbaar by die ou-ou, geykte storie gearriveer: Orania is vol rassiste. Kennelik vind me Fitzpatrick die feite en moontlik ook die heelal rassisties, want sommer met die intrapslag skryf sy van ‘n tannie wat haar vra of dit lekker was om veilig te slaap. Dit vind me Fitzpatrick skynbaar onhoudbaar rassisties.

Dat Orania veiliger is as Suid-Afrika, kan me Fitzpatrick egter nie betwis nie, en sy probeer inderdaad ook nie om so te maak nie. Dat my woonbuurt in die Ou Suid-Afrika eweneens veiliger was as die Nuwe!, Verbeterde! Suid-Afrika, kan sy ook betwis nie. Wat was afwesig in my woongebied kleintyd, en ook in Orania, wat tans wel in my woonbuurt is, me Fitzpatrick? Die feit dat die realiteit nie met ‘n Naspers-propagandis se blindelingse geloof in die religie van nie-rassigheid akkordeer nie, maak steeds nie ‘n aantoonbare feit onwaar nie.

Me Fitzpatrick se ganse rubriek kom neer op: Orania het nie ‘n bestaansreg nie, omdat die inwoners rassiste sou wees. Dis egter ‘n besonder swakdeurdagte standpunt. Suid-Afrika is immers die mees rassistiese land waar dit minderhede aanbetref sedert die Nazi’s die Jode uit hul samelewing gereinig het. As ‘n land se bestaansreg dus staat gemaak het op sy inwoners en veral sy heersers se gebrek aan rassisme, verwag ek dat me Fitzpatrick konsekwent genoeg sal wees om haar onmiddelik vir die ontbinding van die rassistiese Nuwe Suid-Afrika te beywer. Sou sy nie so maak nie, is dit duidelik dat sy dit goedkeur as ‘n swart regime rassisties is, maar dieselfde voorreg nie aan blankes gun nie, wat haar op haar beurt insgelyks ‘n anti-blanke rassis sou maak, of ten minste iemand wat aan erge dubbele standaarde skuldig is.

Kom ons neem egter aan dat Orania en ook diegene wat so om die braaivleisvure in Waterkloof mompel, inderdaad onkorrigeerbaar rassisties is, en vra ‘n vraag wat me Fitzpatrick ook duidelik nie vir haarself deurdink het nie: sou dit saak gemaak het as al die inwoners van Denemarke 500 jaar gelede opperste rassiste was? Teen wie sou hulle rassisme kon pleeg, siende dat daar destyds geen immigrante uit Afrika in Denemarke was nie? Rassisme maak dus slegs saak as daar slagoffers van rassisme is, diegene waarteen daar gediskrimineer kan word. Rassisme maak gevolglik nie saak op Orania nie, want daar is niemand om teen te diskrimineer nie. Geen swartmens ly onder rassisme op Orania nie, want daar is geen swartes wat daar woon nie.

Bostaande is presies die rede hoekom me Fitzpatrick se aanhoudende vuvuzela-blasery oor rassisme haar eie argument (indien mens dit kan komplimenteer met daardie term) erg in die voet skiet. Orania doen die res van haar Nuwe Suid-Afrika inteendeel ‘n geweldige guns, juis deur die “rassiste” uit daardie deurmekaarspul te verwyder, en sodoende te verhoed dat ander mense onder hulle sogenaamde rassisme ly. Selfbeskikking vir Afrikaners, of dit nou in ‘n wolkstaat of ‘n volkstaat is, sou presies dieselfde vermag.

Deur daardie “rassistiese” Afrikaners uit die Nuwe Suid-Afrikaanse samelewing te verwyder, al is dit op ‘n virtuele wyse, sou dit mos per definisie die land se “groot probleem”, naamlik rassisme, oplos, nie waar nie?

Ek wonder egter of dit nie juis presies is waarvoor die linkses en liberales (asook Naspers se sikofantiese joernaliste) bang is nie. Omdat die linkse weier om te erken dat daar tog verskille tussen groepe is, moet hy noodwendig alle tekortkominge van Afrikane aan wittes se rassisme toeskryf. Waarop gaan die gewelddadige misdaad en vervallende infrastruktuur tog nou blameer word as al die rassiste aan die Nuwe Suid-Afrikaanse samelewing onttrek is?

Apple is ‘n maatskappy wat groot bewondering afdwing. Bill Gates-hulle se eerste pogings met Microsoft Windows was ‘n flou na-apery van ‘n veel beter bedryfstelsel wat op Apple rekenaars geloop het, indien dit nie blatante diefstal van Apple se idees was nie.

Só suksesvol was hul draagbare musiekspeler, die iPod, waarvan ek een het, dat die naam iPod soos Coke geword het – ‘n handelsnaam het die generiese naam vir musiekspelers geword. Selfs al het jy nie ‘n Apple iPod nie, noem jy jou Microsoft Zune steeds ‘n iPod.

Die iPhone se skerm en rewolusionêre aanrakings-tegnologie het die spelreëls met selfone en veral koppelvlakke heeltemal verander, al is die iPhone ‘n bra middelmatige telefoon en PDA, met onder andere ‘n lomperige epos-stelsel.

En toe stel Steve Jobs eergister die iPad bekend. Nee, dis nie ‘n innovasie vir vroulike higiëne nie. Dis ‘n iPhone wat te naby Chernobyl verby is en agv genetiese skade oormatig gegroei het.

Wat is dié ding se doel in die lewe presies, veral inaggenome sy duur prys? Hy is weliswaar mooi, geen twyfel daaroor nie. Hy kan insgelyks glo al die iPhone en iPod Touch se programmatuur hardloop. Die probleem is hy kos dubbel die prys van ‘n iPod Touch (sowat 900 euro’s) en, hier is die groot geneuk, hy is omtrent die grootte van ‘n skootrekenaar of ‘n A4-bladsy. Gróót, met ander woorde. Jy dra daai ding nie sommer in jou sak rond soos ‘n iPhone nie. Omdat hy groot is, is hy struktureel nie so rigied soos ‘n iPhone nie, en jy wil alreeds nie jou iPhone sommer laat val nie. As dit gaan daaroor om elektroniese boeke te lees, is Amazon se Kindle goedkoper, en is jou A4-grootte skootrekenaar net so draagbaar. Waarom dubbel so duur betaal as jy ‘n veel meer draagbare instrument kan kry, wat ook dieselfde koppelvlak en programmatuur beskikbaar het, by name die iPhone of iPod Touch?

As jy dan wel te veel geld het, so ‘n groot ding móét ronddra, en jy dink die Apple-handelsmerk is “cool”, koop vir jou een van daai wonderlike dun Apple skootrekenaars wat net-net dikker is as ‘n vel papier. Nie net het hy ‘n ordentlike sleutelbord vir jou eposse nie, maar daar is ook veel, veel meer wat jy met hom kan doen. Daar is baie meer programmatuur beskikbaar. Ander vervaardigers maak eweneens dun, ultra-draagbare skootrekenaars, wat beduidend goedkoper is as Apple s’n, vir diegene wat nie nodig het om die regte klere- en rekenaar-etikette te moet ronddra nie.

Ek is bevrees Apple se iPad, anders as die vroulike sanitêre produkte waarna sy naam klink, is weliswaar ‘n goeie stuk tegnologie, maar dit los ‘n probleem op wat nie bestaan nie. Daar is nie ‘n nis vir die ding nie. As Apple dan regtig ‘n ding van A4-grootte wou maak met ‘n iPhone se skerm en koppelvlak, waarom dit nie bloot in ‘n skootrekenaar ingebou het nie?

Die Mail & Guardian berig dat nog ‘n hooggeplaaste ANC-lid, “generaal” (ja, hoor, dan is ek ‘n veldmaarskalk) Siphiwe Nyanda, op ‘n korrupte wyse betrokke is by tenders wat aan sy maatskappye toegeslaan is. Bostaande is nie verbasend nie, gegewe hoe dit al oor en oor bewys is dat die ANC niks anders is as ‘n spul plunderaars nie, wat die staat en sy bronne as hul persoonlike spaarvarkie beskou. Al wat mens steeds verbaas, is dat die ganse ANC-topleierskap nie alreeds in die gevangenis is waar hulle hoort nie.

Hierdie korrupsie gebeur terloops nie eensydig nie. Daar is twee partye; ‘n deler en ‘n steler. Maatskappye en sakemanne in die privaatsektor koop politici om, of gee vir diegene soos Nyanda aandele in hul maatskappye om gunsies en gawes by die regime te wen. Hierdie soort korrupsie is dus geensins beperk tot swart politici nie. Heelwat siniese blanke sakelui skep tog te lekker saam by die trog van selfverryking. Die ergste voorbeeld waarvan ek bewus is, is oorlede Brett Kebble, wat miljoene aan onder andere die ANCYL betaal het. Hoeveel ander blanke direkteure en entrepreneurs is skuldig hieraan? Die meerderheid, miskien?

Toe die ANC ge-Struggle het, was daar diegene wat geredeneer het buitengewone omstandighede noodsaak buitengewone optrede. Hulle het laasgenoemde gebruik as regverdiging om die wet te oortree en om terreur te pleeg. Hul argument was dat die destydse regering nie gehoor wou gee aan hulle eise nie, en dat dit hulle enigste manier was om hul punt oor te dra.

Kan mens nie dieselfde soort morele argument vandag aanvoer nie? Nes die vorige regering nie gedink het sy rassebeleid was verkeerd nie, sien diegene soos Nyanda, Zuma, Shaik, die Travelgate-LP’s en seker die meerderheid van die ander ANC-kaders op dees aarde niks verkeerd met hulle gierige snuffelary by die trog van selfverryking nie. Die feit dat sulke gedrag ongetwyfeld misdadig is, en neerkom op steel by die belastingbetaler, skeel hulle klaarblyklik min. Die regime het dus geen morele gesag nie.

Nes die swart bevolking destyds niks aan hulle lot by die stembus kon doen nie, is diegene wat die meerderheid van diegene wat die belasting betaal wat die ANC so verkwis, die blankes, magteloos agv demografiese verswelging. Ons stemme beteken niks in die sinnelose rassesensus wat die Suid-Afrikaanse demockracy in wese is nie. Dit laat ons in ‘n baie soortgelyke situasie as die swartes van destyds. Omdat ons belasting verkwis en gesteel word, word ons gedwing om addisionele belasting te betaal, byvoorbeeld vir privaat-beveiliging, omdat die regime eerder die geld sou steel as om ‘n effektiewe polisiemag daar te stel. Ons kan dit egter nie verhoed nie.

As die ANC en baie van die res van die wêreld destyds saamgestem het dat andersins-immorele optrede (bomme in winkelsentrums ens) geregverdig was omdat dit deel was van ‘n stryd teen wat hulle as ‘n onwettige bewind gesien het, kan mens baie maklik ook ‘n saak daarvoor maak dat dit geregverdig sou wees vir blankes om hetsy ons belasting terug te hou, hetsy dit selfs moedswillig te ontduik. As jy voor jou heilige siel besef dat ten minste ‘n deel van jou belasting gesteel gaan word deur ‘n korrupte regime, waarom dit in die eerste plek oorbetaal?

Dit sou immers dubbele standaarde wees om swartes destyds die reg te gun om onwettig asook gewelddadig op te tree, maar dan andersyds blankes wat op vreedsame manier protes wil aanteken, daardie reg te ontsê.

I am sure that the large majority of whites, Afrikaans or English-speaking, would agree that South Africa under ANC rule has become a nightmarish, third-world hell-hole, replete with uneducated tin-pot megalomaniacs screaming down the roads in blue-light convoys, often mowing down innocent pedestrians, corruption, anarchy, decaying infrastructure, rubbish in the streets, heretofore unknown levels of violent crime, as well as the quasi-religion of state racism, known as transformation (a.k.a. ethnic cleansing) aimed against whites in the form of affirmative action and BEE. This black-on-white racism has reached such endemic proportions that Eskom, the state electricity supplier, is importing black Americans to fill posts at Eskom to sit and twiddle their thumbs, rather than deigning to appoint a white South African citizen.

The mistake many whites made with the coming of South Africa’s so-called democracy in 1994, was to delude ourselves into believing that we were somehow different to all other African hell-holes. We were sadly mistaken, however. The ANC regime is not different at all. It rather has everything in common with Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF. The deterioration of a formerly orderly and prosperous country loudly attests to this.

Given the above African reality, self-determination or emigration is the only way of whites to avoid either a Zimabwe situation, or even a Rwanda-type genocide. More than a million whites have left, but what about those who cannot emigrate? Self-determination can also include an independent country, but doesn’t have to do so. The Basques and Catalans in Spain are an example of peoples with a large degree of self-determination, but without an independent country. Section 235 of South Africa’s constitution does make provision for self-determination by ethnic groups. Up to now, the quest for self-determination amongst whites has been almost exclusively driven by Afrikaners. Praag, the Pro-Afrikaans Action Group, is one of the Afrikaner-organizations working towards self-determination.

Although Praag is by definition an Afrikaans organization, it is also a fact that there are significant numbers of English speakers that support us, or perhaps are united in their opposition to the racist and criminal ANC regime. This piece was prompted by one of the regular contributors to the comments section of the Praag site, who asked questions like:

• Who are the Afrikaners?

• What is the role of English-speaking whites in any effort towards self-determination? (I’m going to abbreviate English-speaking whites as ESWs in the rest of this piece.)

The first question is the easier one to answer, although it is admittedly not quite that easy in all cases. I will use Wikipedia’s definition:

Afrikaners or Boers are an Afrikaans speaking ethnic group in Southern Africa. They are mainly of northwestern European descent (mostly Dutch, German and French ancestry), but their native tongue is Afrikaans, a language closely related to Dutch.

Note that there is a clear mention of ethnicity in the above definition (once again: it isn’t my own definition.) Ethnicity is PC-speak for “white.” In other words: Afrikaners are white, Afrikaans-speaking descendants of European settlers. Politically correct people and liberals may not like a national definition in terms of race, but it is a fact, just like it goes without saying that a true Irishman is a white inhabitant of an island country in the Atlantic Ocean. For those who wonder how to define a white person, I refer them to the ANC regime. Please ask the Afro-fascists of the ANC how they decide against whom to discriminate when it comes to affirmative action. You could even ask a four-year-old, before the adults teach him or her to start lying about the obvious.

Whilst we’re on the topic, I may as well grasp the nettle of the coloured question too. In certain circles, for example the liberal Afrikaans-speaking media, it is considered politically correct to group Afrikaans-speaking coloureds with Afrikaners and to pretend we somehow form one ethnic group. One particular media group, Naspers, with has gone as far as to even invent an absurd name for this combination: the so-called “Afrikaanses” (sic). This is the equivalent of pretending white Americans and Mexicans are one nation, and calling them: “Amerexicans” or something similar. However, the interesting thing is that this is very much an extremely tiny minority’s opinion, and only the most whisky-soaked Naspers journalist would even consider taking this seriously. Most coloured intellectuals would not see themselves as Afrikaners at all.

For example: the coloured academic (to any American readers: “coloured” in South Africa refers to mixed-race people, mostly of Malay, Khoisan and white ancestry), professor Jonathan Jansen, goes as far as to deny that there is even an Afrikaner nation at all, by which he bizarrely seems to suggest approximately 3 million Afrikaners all suffer from the same delusion, as opposed to Jansen’s own paranoid delusions. When the formerly Afrikaans-speaking and formerly coloured University of the Western Cape was “democratized” in 1994, they wasted no time in getting rid of Afrikaans. With few exceptions, Afrikaans music, culture, academia and commerce are driven by Afrikaners, not coloureds. Coloured intellectuals are almost united in their preference for English. Whilst I don’t pretend to speak for the coloured community, American-style gangsta culture and hip-hop music seems to hold a bigger appeal to many of them, than does the Afrikaner culture.

Things aren’t all that simple as saying Afrikaners speak Afrikaans, adhere to an Afrikaner culture and are white, however. Many Afrikaners have intermarried with English-speaking whites. A good example of this is the popular Afrikaner singer Steve Hofmeyr, who, in spite of being passionate about the language, nevertheless married an English wife and is raising his children in English. In addition, some Afrikaners have deliberately chosen to abandon Afrikaans and have voluntarily become English-speaking. A good example of this is the Afrikaner actress, Charlize Theron, who these days sports a pretty passable Californian twang.

Is Charlize still an Afrikaner?

The above logically leads to the second question: what, if any, role is there for ESWs if and when Afrikaners achieve self-determination?

I am not going to dwell on the Anglo-Boer War and the remaining bitterness still being felt in some circles towards the English-speakers. As far as I am concerned, both the Afrikaners and ESWs are currently in the same boat, and should be united against a common enemy, rather than dwelling on the past: the racist ANC regime and its criminal accomplices (if not the ANC’s criminal officials and office bearers.)

One reality in terms of most ESWs is that there is not such a clear sense of a national identity among ESWs. I’ve yet to hear an ESW describe himself as anything but a South African. However, most sane realists realize by now that there is in fact no such a thing as a South African nation, especially not if you’re white. To call yourself a South African is therefore pretty vague and to my mind an unsatisfactory description. The ANC regime constantly makes it abundantly clear that whites are, in Thabo Mbeki’s immortal words, “settlers who have yet to depart” or “colonialists of a special kind.” If there is a South African nation, as opposed to a geographical area, it is definitely uniformly black, with very little room for whites.

Perhaps because most ESWs lack a separate national identity, it will of necessity have to be Afrikaners who will lead our own struggle, similar to the ANC’s, to achieve self-determination. Except for a few ESWs who think an independent Western Cape is a good idea, I detect very little separatist thinking amongst ESWs. As for the question as to whether Afrikaners will welcome only Afrikaners into the fold, should we achieve self-determination: there’s no simple answer. I once again refer to the example of Steve Hofmeyr’s children. Are they Afrikaners? Do we do a language test and grant citizenship in an Afrikaner republic to Steve on the basis of that, but not his kids?

Another question is whether ESWs would like to associate themselves with Afrikaners, even if offered the opportunity.

It is a fact that ESWs have historically been of a much more liberal persuasion than most Afrikaners. Helen Suzman, with her almost exclusively ESW and Jewish constituency in Johannesburg’s leafy suburbs, was for years the sole liberal member of parliament. Would liberal, northern-suburbs ESWs want to have anything to do with the Afrikaners at all, or are they happy to rearrange the deck chairs on the South African Titanic and flee back to London when the chips are down?

On the other hand, it is a fact that ESWs are for reasons of ethnicity and intermarriage the closest relations Afrikaners have in Southern Africa. A lot of ESWs no longer have any British roots or relatives. Afrikaners have much more in common with ESWs than with Zulus (or Mongolians), for that matter. A large proportion of the ESWs are equally as disillusioned with the so-called Rainbow Nation as Afrikaners are. They also suffer the same racist discrimination at the hands of the ANC regime as Afrikaners do. Do Afrikaners abandon the ESWs if Rwanda’s genocide becomes South Africa’s reality too?

If I am really pressed to provide a straight answer as to whether I think Afrikaners should allow ESWs to participate in Afrikaners’ self-determination, and knowing full well many ESWs would have political, cultural and linguistic objections, I would have to say a qualified yes.

One thing that I think most Afrikaners striving for self-determination agree upon, is that our language and culture are completely non-negotiable. If there is an independent Afrikaner Authority, similar to the Palestinian Authority, or an independent Afrikaner state, Afrikaans will be its sole official language. Nobody wants to control what languages people speak behind closed doors, but all government functions and all state broadcasting will for example be in Afrikaans, finish & klaar. There is in this sense no difference between Afrikaners, the Germans and the French, who also wouldn’t dream of having other languages as their official language. This in and of itself may discourage many ESWs from joining the Afrikaners’ cause. Many of them may rather consider English-speaking countries such as Australia or the UK.

Does that leave ESWs as mere potential immigrants? I agree with Dr Dan Roodt, the leader of Praag, when he says that any independent Afrikaner Authority or Afrikaner state should apply the same immigration criteria as European countries. Afrikaners, as defined by the definition elsewhere in this document, should in my opinion automatically qualify for citizenship. Anybody else would be free to apply for citizenship, subject to an oath of loyalty and to other criteria like skills, lack of a criminal record, health, education, a waiting period and a language test. All of these are nothing sinister and are in fact exactly the kind of criteria countries like the UK and Germany would apply to prospective immigrants.

I would personally also say there is a case to be made for extending a once-off offer of asylum or refugee status to ESWs who suffer from racist persecution and crime at the hands of the ANC regime. Afrikaners could certainly not stand idly by if, God forbid, South Africa threatens to become another Rwanda and our ESW brothers are about to suffer a genocide. This should, however, be subject to the understanding that any Afrikaner self-determination or independent state would be of an Afrikaner nature in terms of language and culture, and that refugees would be expected to assimilate and adopt the Afrikaner culture.

The above will admittedly not appeal to all ESWs, but then they are free to savour the many delights Africa and the so-called Rainbow Nation have in store for those of an unfashionable shade of pigmentation.

U eie gedagtes hieroor? Gesels gerus met my op Facebook

Met die hernude belangstelling in die konsep van selfbeskikking wat uiteindelik op 'n volkstaat sal uitloop, het ek kaarte gaan haal by Statistiek Suid-Afrika se webwerf. Hierdie kaarte toon aan welke bevolkingsgroep die meerderheid in 'n bepaalde provinsie of metrogebied is. Die data is aangepas vir die 2009 huishoudelike opnames. Vir die doeleindes hiervan het ek die blanke bevolking as 'n surrogaat vir Afrikaners gebruik, siende dat Afrikaners myns insiens per definisie blankes is.

Ek is 'n voorstander van selfbeskikking met 'n Afrikanerowerheid, die AO, in plaas daarvan om onmiddelik 'n volkstaat in die lewe te wil roep. Ek publiseer nietemin hierdie kaarte met die gedagte om vas te stel waar die meerderheid Afrikaners sou wees. Dit sal eweneens vir 'n AO belangrik wees om te weet waar hy byvoorbeeld sy beveiligingspogings moet fokus, met ander woorde waar sy eie mense, sy teikenmark, hulself bevind. Die kaarte sal egter uiteraard ook betrekking hê op welke gebied 'n volkstaat moet vorm, en ek sal ook toegee dat 'n volkstaat die uiteinde van die AO-proses behoort te wees.

Alhoewel Suid-Afrika nege provinsies het, publiseer ek slegs dié provinsies wat uit 'n demografiese oogpunt van die heel grootste belang sou wees, dws die Weskaap, Gauteng en die Noordkaap. Daar is kennelik dorpe in ander provinsies met beduidende konsentrasies blankes, byvoorbeeld Potchefstroom, Bloemfontein en ander, maar ek het slegs die kaarte met die grootste aantal blankes hier weergegee. Ek het die Noordkaap spesifiek gekies omdat beide Orania en die VF+ se voorgestelde volkstaat daar geleë is. Die ander provinsies, veral dié aan die ooskus en Limpopo, is helaas bykans pikswart, met slegs bykans onsigbare kolletjies (op 'n provinsiale skaal) waar blankes en Indiërs die meerderheid vorm.

Gauteng is die enigste provinsie wat beduidende konsentrasies blankes bevat, as mens op provinsiale skaal daarna kyk. Vir die ander provinsies is dit moeilik om eens die blanke konsentrasies raak te sien.

Die Noordkaap bevat geen gebied waar blankes in die meerderheid is nie. Dit het wel 'n groot aantal gebiede waarin kleurlinge 'n meerderheid is. Indien die bruines skielik en wonderbaarlik 'n nasionale identiteit sou ontwikkel, sou die Noordkaap stellig 'n uitstekende onafhanklike kleurlingstaat kon wees.

Die volgende stel kaarte is op 'n metrovlak. Dit dui aan waar blankes 'n meerderheid is in die Weskaap en Gauteng se metrogebiede. Uit die onderstaande kan gesien word dat Pretoria, die Oosrand en Johannesburg uit 'n demografiese oogpunt die beste kandidate sou wees. Tussen hulle bevat hulle die grootste konsentrasie blankes in Suid-Afrika.

Die enigste beduidende gebied waar blankes in die meerderheid is in Kaapstad, is aan die Atlantiese kusstrook van Kaapstad, asook 'n gedeelte van die Noordelike Voorstede soos Bellville en Durbanville. Soos die DA kan getuig is die Weskaap egter in wese besig om te verander in die heimat van die bruines en Xhosas.

As jy dan wel 'n volkstaat wil uitroep, wil visvang waar die visse is, en nie miljoene Afrikaners wil probeer oortuig om te trek na 'n streek sonder ekonomiese geleenthede nie, lyk dit vir my asof Gauteng en die Weskaap, en spesifiek noordelike Johannesburg, Pretoria en die Oosrand, die enigste lewensvatbare kandidate vir 'n volkstaat gaan wees. Selfs daar sal daar weliswaar gelap moet word om die gebiede aaneenlopend te kry.

In hierdie verband - lapwerk - plaas ek hieronder 'n baie interessante kaart. Donkergroen dui gebiede aan op die Wesoewer van die Jordaanrivier wat onder die Palestynse Owerheid se beheer is. Let op hoe dit, nes die gebiede met 'n blanke meerderheid in Gauteng, ook na 'n laslappie-kaart lyk. Let veral op hoe die Wesoewer ook geen seetoegang het nie, nes Lesotho en Switserland. 'n Gebrek aan seetoegang is uiteraard 'n gunstelingverskoning van diegene wat weier om demografiese realiteite in die gesig te staar. Let voorts op hoe die Palestyne se gebied uit twee geografies-afsonderlike streke bestaan: die Wesoewer en die Gasa-strook. Die Kaap is weliswaar veel verder van Gauteng af as die Gasa-strook van die Wesoewer af, maar weer eens: wat verhoed ons om ook 'n volkstaat te hê wat uit twee gebiede bestaan?

As die Palestyne dit kan bestuur, verstout ek my om te raai Afrikaners kan ook so maak. Al wat ontbreek, is die politieke wil om onsself te bevry.