Anders as polities korrektes, skel ek niemand uit

Nee wat, Waldimar Pelser, ek noem niemand name nie. Ek gebruik net die name waarop mense self trots is. Was Bram Fischer en Joe Slovo nie trotse kommuniste nie? Waarom sou ons hulle anders noem? Net so is daar vele mense in ons land wat Anglomane is en Engels op alle gebiede wil sien oorheers of swart nasionaliste soos Malema en sy EFF-party; om hulle te beskryf, is geen naamnoemery nie.

Daarteenoor verloor die hoofstroommedia (HSM) nes in die VSA en elders gedurig geloofwaardigheid omdat hulle juis betrokke is by naamskendingsveldtogte. Dis opvallend watter simpatie daar by die gedrukte koerante vir die vervelige Conrad Koch-mannetjie bestaan terwyl hy ‘n liederlike vloeker en lasteraar is wat juis vir Steve Hofmeyr probeer afkraak en as “rassis” etiketteer. Koch dink hy is bokant die wet verhewe omdat hy polities korrek is.

Die woord “rassis” begin waar denke ophou en dis die vernaamste wapen in die arsenaal van die polities korrekte nie-denkers in ons land. Mense het eenvoudig geen benul wat ras is, hoe die rasse verskil en waar die wetenskap daarmee op pad is nie. Nietemin word dit aanmekaar as uitskelterm gebruik deur al wat dooieboomjoernalis is, ‘n bietjie soos die studente van die Noordwes-universiteit “Nazi’s” genoem word as hulle so bietjie hul hande in die lug waai. Die helfte van die aarde se bevolking is met daardie maatstaf “nazisties”.

Joel Pollak of Breitbart has it all wrong on S. Africa

Joel Pollak’s article on Breitbart is just way off the mark in every respect. What Obama’s executive decree on immigration has got to do with South Africa is a complete mystery. If anything, Obama’s actions are a lot closer to what Pollak’s parents did, trashing a country that had nurtured and educated them in favour of the unknown and siding with radical liberals and communists seeking the overthrow of the legal government of South Africa.

The number of people who “disappeared” during forty years of Afrikaner rule from 1948 to 1994 may be counted on one hand and those who were victims of police brutality like Steve Biko were immortalised by the hysterical liberal media.  Those same media ignored the car bombs on the streets or in restaurants planted by terrorists sponsored by the ex-Soviet Union, East Germany and the equally crazy Sweden.

Terrorism is still an international crime. Terrorism and disinformation brought South Africa to its knees. One of the first things that the new revolutionary government did in 1994 was to abolish all forms of border control, letting our country be swamped by illegal immigrants. Our legal system which used to be far better and more efficient than in most Western countries, scupulously maintained by well-trained and professional jurists, has been perverted by an anti-white constitution and activist liberal judges who abolished the death penalty and introduced same-sex marriage against the will of all the people, white and black.

The same liberal screamers in the media who excoriated police action against terrorists and communist revolutionaries in South Africa are now completely silent about the 700 people who die annually in police custody or the 15% of police who have criminal records. Not to forget the 77 homicides taking place every day. Since the advent of so-called “democracy” in South Africa – which is little more than mob rule – over 500 000 people have been murdered, between 15 and 20 million women have been raped and our major cities have become the equivalent of Detroit.

South Africa used to be a pillar of Western civilization. Betrayed by the likes of Mr. Joel Pollak and his parents, it has now become a kind of science-fiction dystopia where up to 500 people are murdered annually for body parts to be used in black magic potions, while you order your “medicine” from your witchdoctor on a mobile phone. There are Ferguson-style riots and protests almost every day, routinely ignored by the liberal MSM as they consider rioting a normal function of “democracy”.

This very afternoon there were blackouts all over the country as our once proud electrical utility, Eskom, ruined by corruption, mismanagement, theft and race preferences (“affirmative action”), is struggling to keep the grid running.

As Ilana Mercer warns in her prescient book Into The Cannibal’s Pot, the USA is at risk of following in South Africa’s footsteps. A minority of ultraliberals and communists will assemble voting cattle from across your borders, whip them up with racial and ethnic resentment against traditional white Americans, and then rule forever while pillaging your country.

The recipe has already been applied in South Africa and the utter devastation is there for all to see.

Blacks are just cinematographic ‘extras’ in the umpteenth Anglo-Boer war

Although one may differ from Tokelo Nhlapo’s assessment of blacks who are always victims and, of course, his view of Steve Hofmeyr, he is right in that SA blacks are essentially “extras” in the cinematographic sense in the umpteenth Anglo-Boer war, as well as a greater geopolitical conflict.

White liberals like Koch are the worst racists in that their paternalism infantilises blacks: they impute a child-like innocence and lack of agency to blacks.

At another level, anti-racism is just a form of Boerehaat, inciting the black “extras” against Afrikaners like it has been done for decades or even centuries now. White liberals and leftists apply a crude form of game theory to their black extras, expecting them to act like robots or Spanish bulls when they wave the red flag of “racism” to them. “There’s your racist, now go and attack him.” Otherwise, it’s: “Down, boy. And here’s your commission for getting me the tender. Or your free BEE shares. Go and buy a Merc or a Porsche and be happy, you lucky ‘Black Diamond’, while your brothers languish in 40% unemployment and misery.”

Reply to Frère Jacques Rousseau

Let me briefly put you on the right track. This entire papsak diatribe against our noble Afrikaner people who have suffered for so long under foreign (Uitlander) domination is based on the simplistic, biased views of one Dan O’Meara who also happened to be a communist! So I suppose if you wanted to write about the history or the psychology of Americans, you would find a member of the American Communist Party. Or if you wanted to know anything about a thousand years of French history you would consult a card-carrying member of the PCF, now fortunately moribund.

The Broederbond as a secret society did not come about in a vacuum. Opposite it were the Freemasons, as well as a colonial imperialist society called The Sons of England. Despite his surname, which has been changed from Rossouw to Rousseau in a feeble attempt to look French and not Afrikaans, our Frère Jacques (if you know the children’s song) pontificating here, is but a closet “son of England”!

Afrikaner nationalism (note the absence of capitals) was a cultural nationalism modelled upon European nationalisms: discovery and veneration of the vernacular tongue, its standardisation, the promotion of an own literature, history, art, architecture, philosophy and so on. This is all common cause, as they say in the law courts.

Of course, there is a view – call it imperialism, globalism or what you will – that every form of ethnic or national identity is “wrong”. To a Son of England like Jacques Rousseau, who is desperate to be English (see the chapter in my ebook Raiders of the lost Empire, on “The importance of being English”), there is a blind spot in that his own longing and desire for a pristine English identity is in fact very much similar to the Afrikaner’s own love for his language, culture, cuisine, lifestyle, history, literature, folk dances, monuments, music (patriotic, classical, popular) and so on.

If you condemn Afrikaner nationalism, as is the wont of the irrational British imperialist or “Son of England” who has blighted South Africa for so long, you are also condemning Milton and England itself, as well as all European cultures (German, Dutch, Italian, Czech, Hungarian, Russian, Bulgarian, Spanish, etc.). In a sense you are also going against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which promises all peoples self-determination, including cultural self-determination.

Either we should return to the Middle Ages and rule by the Pope or autocratic “royals” – the House of Windsor? – appointed by the Pope, or we should accept the post-World War I order more or less defined by Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points. I suspect that there is a new form of imperialism in the offing: a global, multicultural police state ruled from Washington and London, which might abolish the nation state altogether. It will impose English on us like the British Empire (and the ANC government) have been doing for most of the last 200 years and incarcerate anyone who says the word “nigga” (currently uttered by 500 000 people per day on Twitter).

There is also a strong left-wing argument in favour of Empire, made by Hardt and Negri, and on which I commented about a decade ago in Afrikaans in an article entitled, “Is the global Empire desirable?”. (You can still read it here: Is die globale Ryk wenslik?) This left-wing support for imperialism stems from the proletarian internationalism of Marx and Engels and the First International. Of course, Lenin had nice things to say about the Boers and identified the Anglo-Boer war as indeed a struggle against imperialism, which continues to this day!

The Soviet position on nationalities had a lot in common with apartheid, but the South African Communist Party rejected it in favour of a kind of left-wing British imperialism for South Africa: “One nation, one beer” (again see my Raiders of the lost Empire). Both the Russian Federation and the old Soviet Union were multinational states like South Africa, so the Russians at least had some understanding of our problems, unlike the South African communists and liberals who imagine South Africa to be a “Little United Kingdom”.

We were conquered twice: the first time by Britain with its scorched-earth policy, concentration camps and so on, and the second time by means of propaganda, calumny, boycotts, sanctions, urban terrorism and the betrayal of our own so-called leaders. But so was Germany, and yet there is still a Bundesrepublik, united against the wishes of many world leaders, including François Mitterand.

Former French president Mitterand, who was actually part of the pro-German “Vichy government” during the Occupation, but turned Socialist, said: “Le nationalisme, c’est la guerre”, which is very similar to what Monsieur Rousseau is arguing when he says:

In other words, there is no reason to assume that there is a logical inevitability of  liberalism leading to distrust, anger or violence, particularly of the physical rather than verbal sort. By contrast, nationalism – and particularly racial nationalism – is rooted in and reinforces conflict. This is because it sets up a necessary opposition between them, and us, however those groups are defined.

However, the post-war EU has shown how various nationalities may live side by side and cooperate economically, culturally and politically. Even Russia became a partner in this “Europe of nations”. Only when imperially-minded American “liberals” recently started taking over the EU foreign policy did conflict break out, in Ukraine and elsewhere.

In South Africa, it is ironic that liberalism or the watered-down “market communism” of the South African Communist Party can only exist as long as there is black racial nationalism. So when Rousseau is arguing against white nationalism, in the same breath he is affirming “African” or black nationalism which is meant to mobilise blacks against whites as voting cattle, and so keep the various liberal parasites in their positions of power throughout the “black” system. This is simply the former British-colonial system of “indirect rule” in another guise.

Kempton Park was our Versailles, and by now everyone knows it. As I said to Eyewitness News the other day: “For most of our history we have been powerless and marginalised, so we are used to it.” The Dutch East India Company exploited us and forced us to sell our produce to its ships at below-market prices.  After the French Revolution, the first Patriot movement started in the 1790s and our burghers distributed underground pamphlets calling for freedom and the vote during the night, for fear of being caught by the colonial Dutch authorities.

Then came British rule during the 19th century, or our “Century of Wrong” as Jan Smuts called it in his famous book. Where Frère Jacques is completely wrong, is that apartheid flowed from Afrikaner nationalism. In fact, as I pointed out in an article in Rapport a year or three ago (republished here), Smuts and the anglophile Sappe or liberals actually invented apartheid! The Afrikaners simply took over that policy and refined it. Smuts wanted apartheid or tribal self-rule for the whole of Africa, as he argued during his 1928 Oxford lecture.

As I also state in Raiders of the lost Empire, there are only about one million “real Englishmen” in South Africa. Despite their institutional power and control of the economy, the media, the universities, etc., we are seeing another example of colonial overreach, based on the hubris of Anglo-Saxon superiority. Milner, Rhodes and others considered themselves to be the “chosen race” during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In fact, in those days the word “race” in South Africa was employed to refer to the “Boer” and “British races”.

Helen Zille may be the leader of the “official opposition” but a minority of a minority will not continue to control South Africa, even if it pretends to be fanatically politically correct. Its only rhetorical weapon has not changed in 200 years, ever since the British missionaries started falsely accusing indigenous whites of “atrocities” against natives in the 1820s: it is moral hysteria, slander, lies, cries of “racism”, vilification, ad nauseam.

Given the chaos in the South African parliament, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of two brief decades of PC colonial oppression in South Africa and after that it will be: back to the drawing board! And this time we won’t have fools like FW de Klerk and Roelf Meyer at the negotiating table.

The sooner it happens, the better.

Piet Croucamp teem weer oor apartheid

Piet Croucamp het ‘n weerlose vroue-akademikus uit haar werk en uit die land geboelie; nou teem hy oor Afrikaners wat kastig mense “boelie”. Dít alles terwyl ons vermoor, verkrag en teen gediskrimineer word!

Croucamp skryf:

Die 4 700 sterftes wat direk toegeskryf word aan die geweld van apartheid, klink nietig in die konteks van die honderdduisende vermoordes in Argentinië en Mexiko of die massagrafte van Bosnië.

Die dood van mense en die geweld van die verlede kan nie as onbelangrik afgemaak word nie, maar die werklike skade van apartheid lê dalk nie in begraafplase nie. Die vernietiging van gesinstrukture, die verwoesting van die mees natuurlike vorm van orde tussen mense is die kern van die misdadige gedrog wat ons teister.

In sy jeremiade oor ons “bose verlede” waartydens ons miljarde van ons destydse rande (wat sterker as die dollar was) op swart gesondheid, ontwikkeling en onderwys bestee het, vermeld hy nêrens dat Slovo, Kasrils, Bernstein, Goldberg en natuurlik hul buiksprekerpop, Mandela, vrylik terreur teen onskuldige mense in ons land gepleeg het nie. Gaan google die Kerkstraatbom, Amanzimtoti-bom, ens. Terreur is ‘n internasionale misdaad.

Daar was ook nie 4700 sterftes weens apartheid nie, maar iets nader aan 500 wat deur die destydse polisie en veiligheidsmagte oor 40 jaar gedood is, dikwels uit selfverdediging of om verdere doodslag en geweldpleging te voorkom. Dis die syfer wat in die bevooroordeelde verslag van die Waarheids- en versoeningskommissie (WVK) staan. Vandag sterf daar elke dag 77 mense weens moord of strafbare manslag in ons land; daar word dus elke week soveel mense vermoor as wat die polisie oor 40 jaar van apartheid gedood het!

Ons is allermins verantwoordelik vir die gebrek aan swart kerngesinne. Daar was nog altyd poligamie en uitgebreide gesinne onder swartes, wat nie ‘n goeie stelsel is om jou kinders vir deelname aan ‘n moderne ekonomie voor te berei nie. Die wonderlike koloniale mynhuise wat ons land se minerale rykdom ten behoewe van meesal Britse aandeelhouers ontgin het, het eerste begin om die trekarbeidstelsel te vestig. Pietman deel sy links-liberale ideologie met hulle. Hulle is ewe skynheilig in die sin dat die mynhuise eers die Progs en toe die ANC se oorname geborg het.

FW de Klerk en Roelf Meyer het ons liederlik verraai en die “ja”-stem misbruik om eenvoudig boedel oor te gee, pleks daarvan dat hulle onderhandel het. Toe eindig ons as vreemdelinge in ons eie land op. Wat tans gebeur, is dat Afrikaners besig is om hulle te suiwer van verraaiers in eie geledere. Ons by PRAAG voer die stryd, nie met terreur soos Slovo en Mandela nie, maar binne die grondwet en aanvaarbare internasionale norme, al stem ons nie met die gebrekkige grondwet saam nie. Ons politieke leiers en koerantredakteurs het ons verraai, maar ons het sangers soos Steve Hofmeyr en Bok van Blerk, asook skrywers, denkers en internetaktiviste wat die volk uit hierdie Egipteland sal lei.

Raak deel van die beweging en verwerp dié soort propaganda met die minagting wat dit verdien.

Pietman bid by oorle Joe Slovo se Rooi Altaar, terwyl hy Christene en Afrikaners op die grofste manier denkbaar vloek en beledig. Hy en Malema is van dieselfde stoffasie, behalwe dat Malema beter maniere het. As u my nie glo nie, luister gerus na Piet Croucamp vloek sy weg deur ‘n debat oor die bestaan van God.


Ek herpubliseer hier ‘n brief wat op 19 Januarie 2004 aan Rapport gerig is, maar waarskynlik nooit deur dié koerant geplaas is nie.

Kirby van der Merwe trek die sluise van die nou bekende anti-Afrikaner-ressentiment oop in sy repliek (Rapport 18 Januarie 2004) op my en Joan Hambidge se kommentaar oor die Afrikaanse letterkunde wat oor die afgelope tien jaar gekwyn het. Laasgenoemde was geen politieke stelling nie, maar ‘n ekonomiese en literêre feit.

Van der Merwe gaan baie grof om met die Afrikaanse letterkunde wanneer hy dit beskryf as “die draer van ‘n ideologie, ‘n politieke bestel, ‘n kultuur van bevoorregting en erge diskriminasie op grond van velkleur.” Met ander woorde, almal van Leipoldt en Eugene Marais tot by Van Wyk Louw, Peter Blum, Jan Rabie, André Brink, Breyten Breytenbach, Ingrid Jonker, John Miles, Elsa Joubert, Adam Small of P.J. Philander het een of ander Ku-Klux-Klan-ideologie in hul werke verkondig.

Ek weet nie hoeveel Afrikaanse boeke Kirby van der Merwe al gelees het nie, maar ek stel voor hy stel vir hom ‘n leeslys op. Dit mag hom tot ander insigte bring.

Ek het allermins Afrikaans “terminaal” verklaar. In weerwil daarvan dat die taal bedreig word deur diskriminasie en onderdrukking deur die staat, asook die sakewêreld, meen ek het ons die draaipunt bereik en is Afrikaans tans in ‘n opwaartse fase, veral wat populêre musiek betref, maar ook die belangstelling in Afrikaanse letterkunde.

Ons mag egter nie nou laat slaplê nie, want niks sal die owerheid groter plesier gee as om ‘n grafsteen vir Afrikaans op te rig nie. Elke keer as ‘n Afrikaanse ouer sy kind na ‘n Engelse skool toe stuur, uiter Kader Asmal plesierkrete in Sol Plaatjehuis. Totdat ons die droom van taalgelykheid behaal soos dit in ons grondwet omskryf maar nie toegepas word nie, móét die huidige taalstryd voortgaan op alle terreine.

Kennelik verkies Van der Merwe om die magdom middelmatige Engelse boeke wat Britse uitgewers en boekverspreiders  in ons mark stort, in Afrikaanse koerante geresenseer te sien, eerder as die vele Afrikaanse publikasies waarvan die publiek nooit eens hoor nie. Naas sy artikel in verlede Sondag se Rapport verskyn toevallig twee resensies oor boeke uit voormalige Britse kolonies, te wete Kanada en Australië, sonder dat enige Afrikaanse boek hoegenaamd ter sprake kom.

Hierteenoor weier ‘n koerant soos die Business Day, wat ‘n groot aantal Afrikanerlesers het, om Afrikaanse boeke te resenseer. Verlede jaar het die boekeredaktrise my reguit meegedeel dat haar koerant “‘n Engelse koerant is en slegs Engelse boeke resenseer.” My  vraag is waarom Afrikaanse koerante en tydskrifte nie ook dieselfde houding kan inneem nie? Waarom moet Engelse boeke in ons eie koerante bevorder word ten koste van Afrikaanse boeke, terwyl die Engelse ons nie dieselfde guns bewys nie?

Dit is raar vir enige koerant waar ter wêreld ook al, hetsy in die VSA of Brittanje, hetsy op die Vasteland van Europa, om boeke in ‘n ander taal te resenseer. Toe André Brink ‘n dekade of twee gelede boekeredakteur van Rapport was, het hy in weerwil van sy liberale politiek wat hom trouens vyandig gestel het teenoor enige vorm van Afrikaner-nasionalisme, nooit sover my wete strek Engelse boeke aan sy Afrikaanse lesers opgedring nie.

Deesdae sit ons met die absurditeit van Afrikaners wat Engels maar redelik sleg praat en skryf soos Max du Preez en Antjie Krog wat boeke in Engels publiseer en dan hul politiek korrekte publikasies met groot fanfare in die Afrikaanse pers aankondig! Waarom gaan fliklooi hulle nie liewers by die Engelse nie, Engelse soos die dame van Business Day wat maak asof Afrikaans en die Afrikaanse boek in hierdie land nie bestaan nie?

My eie optimisme, of dan liewer naïwiteit van ‘n ruk gelede toe ek gedink het die bruin en wit sprekers van Afrikaans gaan mekaar nog vind in een of ander gedeelde taalidentiteit, is vir my doeltreffend gekelder deur Kirby van der Merwe se felle anti-Afrikaner-ressentiment. Hy belaster Afrikaners kollektief deur sy verwysing na “die ou Nazistiese, rassistiese loot” asof ons, anders as die Engelse of swartes in dié land tydens die negentiende eeu, al ooit ‘n volksmoord op ander gepleeg het.

Van der Merwe vra neerhalend – en retories – wat die jongste definisie van “die Afrikaner” sou wees, waarmee hy impliseer dat ons nie bestaan nie. Soos Koos Malan eens aan Harald Pakendorf gesê het ná ‘n soortgelyke stelling, “Harald, jy kwets my,” vind ek hierdie ontkenning van Afrikanerskap kwetsend, xenofobies en selfs rassisties. Enige Engelse, Franse, Duitse of Nederlandse woordeboek sal vir Kirby van der Merwe ‘n definisie gee oor wat presies ‘n Afrikaner is, en toevallig het Hermann Giliomee enkele maande gelede ‘n lywige “biografie” van die Afrikanervolk gepubliseer, nogal in Engels indien daar enige twyfel bestaan oor wie en wat Afrikaners verteenwoordig.

Van der Merwe se absurde hoop dat Afrikaans maar vernietig mag word in een of ander revolusionêre katarsis om “van nuuts af te ontkiem” vind ek Pol Pot-agtig. Dit is nog ‘n blyk dat hy onbewus is van een van ons mooiste romans, Die jaar nul deur Piet Haasbroek, waarin die vernietigende waansin van sulke teleologiese denke in meesleurende Afrikaans gestalte kry.

Daar sal geen natuurlike dood of “jaar nul” in Afrikaans wees nie. Dalk onder die bruin sprekers van Afrikaans, want aan die Witwatersrand het mnr. Ignatius Jacobs al die voormalige bruin skole verengels, en sodoende die HNP ‘n guns bewys deur van Afrikaans noord van die Oranjerivier ‘n meer blanke en eurosentriese taal te maak as Vlaams of Duits. Miskien moet mnr. Van der Merwe eerder sy klagtes aan die Gautengse LUR vir Onderwys rig?

Verder spyt dit my om te verneem dat hy blykbaar onder apartheid gely het. Ek dink hy behoort die lyding wat hy ervaar het in groter besonderhede openbaar te maak. Was hy in die gevangenis soos Breyten Breytenbach of in aanhouding soos Steve Biko? Gelukkig lyk dit asof hy dié beproewing oorleef het. Bestaan daar enige liggaamlike letsels wat hy oorgehou het?

Will Conrad Koch and his zealots lynch Professor Giliomee too?

This Conrad Koch is just a parasite trying to generate attention for himself on Steve’s back. Would thousands of people come to concerts where he and his puppet enjoy each other’s caricatures? Obviously not.

The metaphor of the puppet is of course an apt one for what is going on in South Africa. So many puppets being waved in front of us on TV, but who are the real puppet masters?

Otherwise we are just seeing a repeat of colonial British history where the Brits and their local representatives try to incite blacks against Afrikaners and indigenous whites, while they refuse to sell them powder (or introduce a Firearms Control Act).

I am just amazed at the enduring strength of Boerehaat in South Africa, now focussed on Steve for very innocuous comments that wouldn’t even elicit a raised eyebrow if some English genius (or puppet) had uttered it.

How singing Die Stem can be “racist” is of course a mystery, unless you have a made-in-China plastic brain that you share with your Siamese twin like Conrad Koch.

For God’s sake, Hermann Giliomee has even stoutly defended Verwoerd! Are you rooinek zealots who have been re-educated in your dismal schools and universities to kowtow to Joseph Stalin’s shadow going to burn down Giliomee’s professorial library or maybe even torture him to death like the farm murderers are doing?

Oor twyfelliteratuur

Twee romans het onlangs in Suid-Afrika ’n nuwe toon begin aangee sover dit ons sosiopolitieke werklikheid betref. As ons daardie term onthou wat ons almal op skool moes leer aangaande die werklikheid of die agtergrond waarteen ’n literêre werk hom afspeel, die milieu, dan kan ons praat van ’n verandering in milieu. Die twee geskrifte waarna ek verwys is natuurlikDisgrace deur J.M. Coetzee, en Donkermaan van André Brink.

Waarskynlik is hierdie verskynsel nie tot hierdie twee romans beperk nie, dog die paradigmaverskuiwing kom in beide die duidelikste na vore, juis omdat albei skrywers voorheen eksplisiet téén die sogenaamde “ou orde” ingeskryf het. In Disgrace sowel as Donkermaan vind ons ’n ontnugtering met die “nuwe orde” — insgelyks ’n onbeholpe term wat ek daarom tussen aanhalingstekens plaas. Dit sou filistyns wees om hierde tekste as “post-apartheid-letterkunde” te beskryf, juis vanweë die geneigdheid om die literêre kritiek te besmet met dié tipe joernalistieke cliché. In my vorige opstel, “Die sloping van ’n hegemonie: ’n kritiek op literêre anglosentrisme”, het ek reeds die spot gedryf met hierdie onvermoë om literêre of estetiese geledinge raak te sien wat ontkom aan die obsessionele inkantasie van “apartheid”.

Die problematiek van Disgrace en Donkermaan dring iets nuuts aan ons op, ’n soort vraagstelling met betrekking tot vertroude sekerhede. Eers was daar die sekerheid van ’n enigsins outoritêre, Christelike bewind met sy waardes van etniese skeiding. Daarna was daar die sekerheid van demokrasie en liberale, Westerse waardes wat veronderstel was om die verbete en outydse konserwatisme van die sogenaamde “ou Suid-Afrika” te vervang. (Die mate waarin Westersheid en demokrasie ook deel was van die vorige bewind, word uiteraard gerieflikheidshalwe vergeet.) Midde-in die “oorgang” blyk daar ’n gevoel van twyfel, van skepsis, van vertwyfeling hom tuis te maak by twee van die vernaamste verteenwoordigers van kritiek op die ou orde. Wie sal Brink se Kennis van die aand met sy tema van seks oor die kleurgrens heen vergeet, of J.M. Coetzee se Dusklands waar hy met die kliniese insig van kulturele relatiwisme Jacobus Coetzee se onvermoë om sy begrip van private eiendom te handhaaf teenoor inboorlinge wat sy ossewa bestyg en hom in blye onskuld beroof, uitbeeld?

Die mees gepaste benaming vir die nuwe neiging is — sonder twyfel — twyfelliteratuur. Dit benoem ’n onsekere skepsis teenoor die gemeenplasige optimisme waarmee demokrasie, gelykheid, nierassigheid, ens. deesdae in Suid-Afrika aangehang word. Uit die werklikheid kom daar voortdurend teenstrydighede na ons toe aan: daar is misdaad, korrupsie, beskawings- of paradigmaverskille tussen etniese groepe wat al hoe dieper lyk hulself te manifesteer, asook ’n soort nihilisme wat ontkom aan alle waardes en te siene is in beide die ongebreidelde materialisme van sekere blankes of Westerlinge en die “bevryde” misdadige anargisme van sekere swartmense en lede van ander groepe.

“Apartheid”, in die mate waarin hierdie verslete term nog enige sin het nadat dit al soveel kere deur die meul is, het ’n gerieflike sekerheid aan ons besorg. Daar was die sekerheid van binnelandse afbakenings en ordenings, elke etnos in sy eie sfeer waar hy homself kon handhaaf. Dog vir die skrywer was daar ook die groter sekerheid van buitelandse verdoeming — wat op sigself op reduksies en sinies gemanipuleerde wanvoorstellinge berus het — en van die onaantasbaarheid van Westerse, liberale en demokratiese waardes wat as’t ware sy betoog teen apartheid, kolonialisme en al daardie ander booshede gerugsteun het. In die Suid-Afrika van nou is ons almal bewus van die “skipbreuk van sekerhede” waarna Van Wyk Louw verwys het, en slegs die dom of oneerlike skrywer kan nog steeds die gemeenplase van die verlede denkloos voortbring. Nie dat daar nie dom en oneerlike skrywers in Suid-Afrika is nie, maar vir die oomblik interesseer hulle ons nie, want hulle staan bo alle verdenking, bo alle twyfel. Dit is juis die twyfelaars wat, lyk dit my, die huidige tydvak begin definieer en wat vorentoe dalk ’n hele beweging kan word.

“Twyfel” is ’n besonder vrugbare term, omdat dit tegelyk die onsekerheid binne, maar ook die begin van ’n ondersoek na die bestaande — twyfelagtige — milieu benoem. Onderliggend aan elke skepsis is die twyfel, wat ook tweespalt of tweeledigheid behels. Descartes was die filosoof wat ’n besondere rol aan die twyfel toegeken het, wat veronderstel was om die noodsaak van ’n a priori-beginsel aan ons uit te wys. Veral in sy Eerste Bepeinsing wat in ’n knap Afrikaanse vertaling deur D.M. Kriel (1) beskikbaar is, word die Cartesiaanse twyfel geformuleer. Hy het, in sy woorde,

      … agtergekom hoe baie valse dinge ek sedert my vroegste jeug vir waar aanvaar het, en hoe twyfelagtig alles is wat ek verder daarop gebou het, en dat alles in my lewe dus een keer grondig omvergewerp moet word, en dat daar opnuut van die eerste fondamente begin moet word as ek ooit enigiets stewigs en blywends in die wetenskappe vas wou neerlê(2).

Die twyfel het vir Descartes laat glo dat sy sinne hom soms bedrieg, en daarom onsekerheid rondom sy ervaring geskep. Hierdie gedagte is verder gevoer deur David Hume, eweneens iemand wat sterk onder die invloed van die twyfel of skeptisisme gestaan het, sodat hy gepraat het van sy “skeptiese ingesteldheid”:

      I may, nay I must yield to the current of nature, in submitting to my senses and understanding; and in this blind submission I shew most perfectly my sceptical disposition and priciples(3).

Waarop Hume hier sinspeel is sy “natuurlike” neiging om eerder die geselskap van sy vriende op te soek en ’n pot backgammon te speel, as om homself af te sonder in twyfel of skepsis. Laasgenoemde noem hy “chimeras” of hersenskimme. Die paradoks van sy twyfel is egter die volgende: dit is juis die twyfel wat hom verlos van sy twyfel. Met ander woorde, omdat hy skepties staan teenoor sy skeptiese redenasies, kry hy dit reg om hom daarvan te verlos en sodoende die “commerce and society of men, which is so agreeable” (4) op te soek. In Hume se ondersoek na die skepsis vorder hy dus van ’n hoogs teoretiese besinning oor die wêreld, wat gekenmerk word deur intense twyfel, na die normale, na geselskap en sosiale verkeer.

By twyfelliteratuur soos dit deur Coetzee en Brink beoefen word, geskied die omgekeerde egter. Hier is die beginpunt nie ’n skepsis nie, maar juis die “normale”, die mite van ’n demokratiese orde en vreedsame naasbestaan wat nie net deur die Suid-Afrikaanse media nie, maar ook deur die internasionale media, aan ons voorgehou word. Vanweë dieselfde faktor wat Hume noem, die natuurlike geneigdheid om jou te onderwerp aan die getuienis van jou eie sinne, is die skrywers besig om die “normale” of gangbare beskrywing van ons werklikheid in twyfel te trek.

Interessant is dat beide vertellers, David Lurie en Ruben Olivier, nie net hoor van misdaad en geweld, asook sosiale verval nie, maar dit ook self, as’t ware aan eie bas, ervaar. David Lurie en sy dogter word deur drie jong swartes aangeval; Ruben Olivier en Tessa word deur vyf aangerand. Beide ervaar eerstehands pyn en lyding; hulle bloei letterlik. Al is die kontra-ideologie van die “demokratiese, nuwe Suid-Afrika” hoe sterk, dit kan nie een van die vertellers oortuig om sy eie sinne, die pyn wat sy eie lyf voel, te bevraagteken nie. Anders as by Hume, waar sintuiglike ervaring hom weglei van die twyfel, werk dit hier twyfel in die hand.

Dit is sekerlik ironies dat ’n ouer geslag skrywers hier byna ’n rewolusionêre breuk bewerkstellig met die gangbare interpretasie van Suid-Afrika en van ons eietydse geskiedenis. ’n Mens sou wou vra: waar is die jonger skrywers? Slaap hulle? Of het hulle nog nie geweld en misdaad, die veranderde milieu, met hul eie sintuie ervaar nie? Brink was die vernaamste segsman van die Sestigerbeweging — van sy vroeë werke soos Lobola vir die lewe en Orgiewas in hul tyd eksperimentalistiese mylpale. In ’n sekere sin kan ’n mens sê dat die avant-gardisme onderliggend aan modernisme dit miskien makliker maak om met ’n “nuwe blik” op dinge vorendag te kom as die postmodernisme wat reeds kulturele relatiwisme as ’n gegewe aanvaar het, en eintlik oor geen etiese of kulturele basis beskik vir sosiale kritiek nie.

In beide tekste is daar sterk sprake van ’n generasieverskil. David Lurie se dogter in Disgrace, Lucy, bedryf die metafisika van skuld en wil glad nie haar verkragters laat vervolg nie. Sy aanvaar haar eie onderwerping. Lurie, daarenteen, glo aan klassieke beginsels, beide in die letterkunde en in die lewe. Teenoor Ruben, ’n ouer karakter, staan sy jong loseerder, Tessa, wat ’n soort hedonisme bedryf, die morele teenpool van Lucy se skuld-metafisika. Dog in ’n sekere sin glo beide Lucy en Tessa in die huidige orde; die een ly daaronder, en die ander gedy daarop, maar sonder om dit vir ’n oomblik te bevraagteken of daaraan te twyfel. Die ouer figure is die twyfelaars.

Omdat geeneen van hulle oor enige sekerheid beskik nie — twyfel is per definisie ón-seker, weifelend, sonder vaste oortuiging — kan beide Coetzee en Brink, asook hul ouer vertellers, geen werklike begrip of analise van die situasie verskaf nie. Op sy beste oortuig hulle ons van hul goeie trou. In die geval van Ruben Olivier word dit oor en oor aan ons herhaal dat hy gekant was teen die sloping van Distrik Ses, dat hy en sy toentertydse vrou hul bes gedoen het om dit te keer en as “wit kaffers” uitgeskel is. In David Lurie se beskrywings lei ons ook sterk af dat hy liewer nie wil oordeel nie. Op bl. 79 vra hy, “His own terms: what are they?” Die bekende uitspraak oor die ontoereikendheid van die Engelse taal bied iets van ’n eerste prikkel om te besin oor die probleem, oor die oorsaak van die twyfel:

      Doubtless Petrus has been through a lot, doubtless he has a story to tell. He would not mind hearing Petrus’s story one day. But preferably not reduced to English. More and more he is convinced that English is an unfit medium for the truth of South Africa(5).

Die verteller se gevoel dat Engels onadekwaat sou wees om die waarheid oor Suid-Afrika te kan dra, kan op verskeie maniere geïnterpreteer word. Aan die een kant, ook uit die gesprekke elders met Petrus, is dit duidelik dat daar “paradigma-onmeetbaarheid” tussen hom en David Lurie bestaan. Noem dit ’n “beskawingsfoutlyn”. Aan die ander kant, is Engels, synde die wêreldtaal, die medium van die Weste en die liberaal-demokratiese model, ook ontoereikend, nie net vir Petrus se verhaal nie, maar ook om die “Suid-Afrikaanse situasie” te kan omskryf. “Demokrasie” in die liberaal-demokratiese sin het nie die voorspelbare gevolge gehad nie. In teoretiese terme: dit is besig om te faal as ’n “verklarende taal”. In plaas van ’n verklaring, sit ons nou met twyfel.

’n Ander aspek van die twyfel is die sinloosheid van “Suid-Afrika” as ’n begrip. Dit sou waar wees om te sê dat die amptelike ideologie, die nasionale metafisika van “nasiebou” en alles wat daarmee saamhang, “Suid-Afrika” as ’n gegewe beskou. Almal van ons is veronderstel om daarin te glo, soos koerantredakteurs of politici. David Lurie, daarenteen, twyfel of die Westerse invloed in Afrika enigsins iets agtergelaat het:

      He speaks Italian, he speaks French, but Italian and French will not save him here in darkest Africa. He is helpless, an Aunt Sally, a figure from a cartoon, a missionary in cassock and topi waiting with clasped hands and upcast eyes while the savages jaw away in their own lingo preparatory to plunging him into their boiling cauldron. Mission work: what has it left behind, that huge enterprise of upliftment? Nothing that he can see(6).

Was die hele Suid-Afrikaanse projek — soos sending en opheffing — dan sinloos? Dit is ’n vraag wat insgelyks spook by Ruben Olivier, maar hy rig hom tot die geskiedenis en hoop dat dit nie alles verniet was nie. Sy een seun wat nog nie geëmigreer het nie, en dié se vrou, probeer hom oorreed om hom saam met hulle in Kanada te gaan vestig. Hy voel hy kan dit nie doen nie, maar twyfel tog, en uiteindelik verkies hy om hom terug te trek in sy private wêreld van boeke en musiek. Sy kinders

      kan … nie woorde kry om uit te vaar teen alles wat verkeerd geloop het nie (al besef ek dat die ondervinding van Janet se vriendin — gekaap, verkrag — nie sommer in hulle koue klere kon gaan sit nie); terwyl my eie reaksie wissel van oomblikke van wrokkige woede, soos toe ek so uit die bloute afgedank is, tot ergernis of vae irritasie. Die buitewêreld het gewoon nog nooit vir my soveel saak gemaak nie(7).

Ruben se twyfel laat hom uiteindelik alleen in sy huis met slegs Antje van Bengale se spook om hom geselskap te hou — ’n soort metafoor vir die geskiedenis. Dit is ’n redelik patetiese bestaan, sy dit dan steeds gekussing teen die dreigemente van buite.

Cartesiaanse twyfel, soos alle twyfel, ontketen egter ’n proses wat nie maklik gestuit kan word nie, want as mens eers aan enkele waarhede of veronderstellings begin torring het, stort die res vanself in duie:

      … as die fondamente eenmaal ondergrawe is, stort alles wat bo-op hulle gebou is vanself ineen, en daarom sal ek my aanval direk rig op daardie beginsels waarop alles wat ek eenmaal geglo het, gesteun het(8).

Beide Brink en Coetzee het ’n definitiewe breuk bewerkstellig met betrekking tot die voorafgaande selfversekerde moralisme van ’n sekere soort “betrokke literatuur” in Suid-Afrika. Die “donker” Suid-Afrika — met sy skynbaar onoplosbare probleme en toenemende nihilistiese geweld — kom aan bod op ’n manier wat die twyfel vestig as die oorheersende diskoers van ons tyd. Totdat ons in staat is om soos Hume die twyfel teen sigself aan te wend, ly dit geen twyfel dat twyfelliteratuur nog die begin van die nuwe millennium vir ons gaan definieer soos min literêre begrippe voorheen nie.

Weereens: dit is verbasend dat twee skrywers van hul leeftyd — juis in Donkermaan is daar aanmekaar sprake van die oudwordproses — die jongeres moet lei in die opmars van literêr-historiese vernuwings. In Afrikaans het ons al gewoond geraak aan die Oedipale struktuur van letterkunde waar die geslag tussen twintig en dertig poog om oor te gaan tot “vadermoord” en hulself te vestig as verteenwoordigers van ’n nuwe dekade of tydvak. As ek kyk na die werke wat jonger skrywers produseer, wat tegelyk veel meer “realisties” is as enigiets wat die Sestigers voortgebring het en in sosiopolitieke terme omtrent konformisties voorkom, is dit miskien tyd dat ons daarvan kennis neem dat die Afrikaanse letterkunde sy Oedipus-kompleks verloor het. As daar ooit weer opstand in Afrikaans moet kom, dan sal dit wees téén die jonger geslag, met hul selfversekerde domheid, hul onbelesenheid, hul clichés, hul sonderlinge gebrek aan twyfel, asook hul verskriklike Engels-deurspekte Afrikaans.


1. Descartes, René. Se bepeinsinge oor die eerste filosofie, vert. D.M. Kriel. Kaapstad: H&R Academica, 1975.
2. ibid., bl. 21.
3. Hume, David. A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, bl. 269.
4. ibid., bl. 270.
5. Coetzee, J.M. Disgrace. Londen: Secker & Warburg, 1999, bl. 117.
6. ibid., bl. 95.
7. Brink, André P. Donkermaan. Kaapstad: Human & Rousseau, 2000, bl. 295.
8. Descartes, op.cit., bl. 21.

Reply to Marianne Thamm on the Afrikaans language

In a recent article on the Daily Maverick, Mariann Thamm states that Afrikaners like me are on the “unhappy train”:

The station at Evita se Perron serves as a metaphor for Afrikaans speakers right now. Two opposing camps – those who are fiercely possessive and who feel threatened, sit on the one platform while those who would like to see it flourish, are seated at the other. What follows then would be the equivalent of the opening scene of Woody Allen’s film Stardust Memories, where two trains are standing idle side by side before starting off in opposite directions. Allen’s protagonist, Sandy, finds himself in a carriage with hostile and unsmiling passengers with the doors and windows locked. The other train is filled with really happy people drinking champagne and having a party.

Sandy, in the unhappy train, tries to get out and begins to argue with the conductor before he and his fellow passengers are deposited on a seaside garbage dump where they wander aimlessly around the debris. Dan Roodt and his ilk are on the unhappy train while the rest of us are on the other.

No, you English are on the unhappy train, that is why you are all either on drugs or on therapy.

Pieter-Dirk Uys is irrelevant to Afrikaans. His perspective on Afrikaans and Afrikaners is so English, I am sometimes surprised that he is actually not British-born and bred.

It is wrong that Afrikaans “was created” by slaves. There is no linguistic evidence for that, only a (little) book by a Wits linguist who did not understand how languages change and also had little knowledge of other languages besides Dutch and English. If you look at Swedish, it must also “have been created by slaves” as it is equally simple as far as verb conjugation goes. Just go to Stockholm and count the number of slaves there among all those blue-eyed folk driving Volvos. (80% of cars on Swedish roads are Volvos, if you have never been there.)

Many of the other elements of Afrikaans pointed to by idiots to claim that it is a “creole language”, such as reduplication (repetition of words for emphasis, etc.) exist in all European languages, including English, but particularly in the northern European languages. Swedish is absolutely rife with it, but also the Low German dialects in the north of Germany which have sadly almost died out.

I strongly suspect that Afrikaans was a shipping and trading language from 1300 to 1600 in northern Europe, partly Dutch dialect and partly Low German (Low German was never standardised), which came to the Cape via the ships. It has not changed much in 700 years, except that we standardised it from 1875 onwards. As Raidt says in her book, “Afrikaans en sy Europese verlede”, referring to Afrikaans phonology:

“Ons kan tereg sê, die hedendaagse Afrikaans het ‘n eie, kenmerkende fonologiese struktuur wat oor ‘n baie lang tyd ontwikkel het…” (p. 171)

She thinks that the phonological changes from Dutch took place over 200 years in the Cape, but many Dutch speakers say Afrikaans sounds a lot like Swedish, pointing to that northern European evolution between 1300 and 1600 when the 400 Hansa cities traded with one another, until the Thirty Years War.

One German woman whose mother tongue was a Low German dialect learned Afrikaans during the Second World War and wrote a PhD thesis comparing Afrikaans to Low German and there are a vast number of very similar or the same words as in Afrikaans. We use so many even High German idioms in Afrikaans that we do not even notice it, only when you hear German do you realise that we have those expressions too.

There are about 10 to 20 well-known Khoi words in Afrikaans and about the same number of Malay words that came not necessarily from slaves at the Cape but because of the extensive trade network of the Dutch East India Company with Indonesia and Malaysia. One Malay word that has replaced the Dutch word “zeer” in Afrikaans is “baie” which we use all the time, as well as “baadjie” or jacket.

The theory that there was sudden language change or pidginisation or creolisation at the Cape is completely without foundation and is being pursued for simply stupid political and politically correct reasons.

Although I am not a professional linguist, I could demolish that theory in one or two articles in a peer-reviewed journal. (Don’t worry, this is on my to-do list and I have already corresponded with the global expert on reduplication who is very excited by the prospect of seeing my list of Afrikaans expressions containing terms like plek-plek, gou-gou, etc.) You will see Professor Wannie Carstens reaching for his jumbo-sized bottle of Valium or Prozac.

Standard Afrikaans will endure not because anyone is making movies in it or singing it, but because the standardisation process has been so meticulously done – by Afrikaners. Even if Afrikaans dies out, the next generation will be able to learn it from grammars and dictionaries, just like Hebrew was revived after 2000 years in Israel.

One person can change a language and literature, like Pushkin did for Russian or Cervantes for Spanish. Perhaps the most prolific modern author of Afrikaans is Karel Schoeman who writes an Afrikaans that is not only standard and pure, eschewing any English influence completely, but also contains traces of classical Dutch which most of us won’t use but he does. I haven’t counted the number of his books but forty or more would not be far off the mark. As opposed to the negligible writings of creole authors in their ugly mixture of Afrikaans and English, which is not suited to literary or scientific expression.

Together with Dutch and German, we speak one of three unique Germanic languages that have been highly standardised, representing 130 million of the most highly educated, literate people in the world whose contribution to science and technology is unrivalled in history. If one adds the Scandinavian languages (I am amazed at how close Swedish is to Afrikaans after one recovers from the initial impression of foreignness), there are 150 million people in this language family, now all connected via the internet. Afrikaans is in fact closer to standard Dutch than about 10 of the 40 Dutch dialects spoken in the Low Countries (the Netherlands and Belgium).

But Afrikaans is unique in that it has had to contend with linguistic repression for 200 years from English, from children being made to stand in the corner with a Dunce cap with a sign saying “I must not speak Dutch” to the sustained attack upon the Afrikaans universities launched since 1994. Even the National Party never really tried to undo the damage and unequal treatment that we have always received from the pro-British administrations.

I have recently started to think that the Anglo-Dutch wars of the early seventeeth century have never ceased. Holland just needs to wake up a bit and realise the danger of being so close to England.

That Afrikaans survived is not only a miracle, but points to a kind of Darwinian linguistic resilience, forged in a linguistic duel to the death with the world’s most powerful imperial language. Not so long ago I saw a Russian lamenting that films in his language “cannot compete with Hollywood”, leading me to understand that Russians also watch Hollywood movies dubbed into Russian.

However, in South Africa, there is a market for Afrikaans movies, books, music, computer programmes, etc. The best homeschooling programme for maths is in Afrikaans, written by a maths professor from Pretoria; it only costs R300 per year. If this government destroys the Afrikaans schools like they are threatening to do, we will just continue at home.

So go ahead, bomb our schools like you English and your Israeli friends do all the time, in Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and everywhere else! The English child-killer, that is the historical figure we encounter again and again.

Linguists have coined the term, “killer language” which applies mainly to English as it annihilates all other languages. But Afrikaans is not dead yet, not as long as we resist and our children speak and write it, even if they are discriminated against at all levels by this very English government.

You will never assimilate us; get that into your thick English skulls. Milner could not do it, Asmal could not do it and your pet communist Blade will as sure as hell fail too.

Once we free ourselves from English colonialism (white or black, it is all the same), Afrikaans will explode and might even reach those northern European shores where the loss of their Low German dialects have left people with the numbness of an amputated limb. Technical Dutch is a bit of a joke and therefore they need some Afrikaans computer terms too!

We just need to get our act together and forget about being “liked” by the English who will never like us. In fact, English people hate all other cultures and especially other European cultures. Call it the “island mentality” or what you will, but an Englishman will never acknowledge beauty or achievement by anyone else. When they set foot in France they complain all the way to the Louvre and back and think that the pound should be used instead of the euro.

Perhaps the Third Anglo-Boer war will start before the race war. I think in 1994 the English Marxists in this country thought they had finally subjugated us and could now just make one law after the other or just take over all our institutions, anglicise them, intimidate us and control us with their relentless “apartheid” propaganda.

The kind of comparison made above, between us and Germans, is completely off the mark:

“How do you wrestle your language from the cold and ruthless grip of
history and politicians who used it as a weapon against fellow South
Africans? Post-war Germans grappled with this question and many still

No, how do you grapple with the fact that your language was first imposed on us in your odious concentration camps and that currently your murderers and rapists have been let loose to terrorise us everywhere in our own country?

Unlike the goddamn English genocidaires, terrorists and fanatics, we have never used Afrikaans as a weapon against anyone or imposed it on anyone else. Most people learn or study Afrikaans out of their own free will and because we have such excellent Afrikaans teachers who really love what they do.

The source of conflict in this country is precisely the screwed-up English colonial identity and the sadistic domination fantasy of a scant million people who want to dominate 55 million others.

Isn’t it high time to start talking about that?

Waarom bly Engelse dan hier as Engeland soveel beter is?

Ene Gerry skryf op Daily Maverick se kommentaarblad die volgende:

I have little time for right-wing Afrikaner reactionaries who think more with their emotions than their reason – Remember Steve infamously “drowning” his U2 tickets in the jukskei because Bono said something? Steve is ‘n poephol.

But by the same token, as an Afrikaner, I do get the feeling we are a bit marginalised. The mere fact that I’m a White Afrikaans Male makes me de-facto unemployable. I’m the most hated demographic in SA, and it seems okay to be hated. I have to put up with a lot of vitriol, both overt and covert, because of my Afirkaner status. We’re always the butt end of a joke. when there is a TV or radio ad where some guy needs to be shown to be “dof” its always the Afrikaner – even FNB’s “beep” bank ads now has a fall guy named Fanie. but that’s okay, I can handle it, because I do have a sense of humour.

Maybe the Afrikaans novels and music festivals take place not as a highlight of “hey, were doing okay”, but more a panicked situation of “we need to get together here because we’re under threat”. I feel that way sometimes. Is it perception or fact? I do not know. but it IS perception, it is certainly my reality. but just because I share a sentiment with Steve that Afrikaans is under threat, I do not share his actions and thoughts on the matter.

At the end of the day, I’m a pragmatist, and when a species comes to its evolutionary end, it needs to be allowed to go extinct. No use keeping things artificially alive that Darwin would have killed off years ago if not for left-wig-feel-good best intentions – if its time for something to die, then its time, and I feel that way about Afrikaans as well. I’m an Afrikaner, but I don’t hold any emotional bond to my language and god forbid, the cringe-worthy (white) Afrikaner culture. In fact, the sooner we forget about volkspele and die Vlaglied, the better. Trompie books can stay though!

Ou Gerry, ek kan sien dit krap-krap so daar in jou frontale lobbe waar jare se propaganda jou neokorteks beset, maar iewers praat jou breinstam (die reptielbrein) met jou want jy besef jy is as blanke Afrikaanse man dalk ‘n teiken.

Wat het jy teen volkspele? Ek het op skool volkspele gedoen en dit was groot pret. Vele Europese volkere hou van hul volksdanse en volksdrag. Die Skotse mans dra aanmekaar hul rokkies en daar is selfs Skotse (“Keltiese”) rock-groepe wat dit op die verhoog dra!

Die koningin van Swede, ‘n baie linkse land wat hoofsaaklik deur feministiese vroue geregeer word, dra ook gereeld haar kappie en volksdrag. Dis net ons wat jare lank deur ‘n spul sadistiese, haatdraende Engelse in dié land gebreinspoel is, wat dit as ‘n “probleem” sien. Die Engelse het niks: geen kultuur, geen identiteit, geen geskiedenis om op trots te wees nie, behalwe miskien die slag van Agincourt maar dit het op 25 Oktober 1415 plaasgevind, dus amper 600 jaar gelede.

Wat jou onsinnige “Darwiniaanse” opmerking betref. Indien daar vrye mededinging was, het ons beheer oor al ons belastings gehad, die Engelse oor hulle s’n en die swartes oor hulle s’n. Ons Afrikaanse skole en universiteite sou nog baie beter gewees het as wat hulle reeds is en ons sou waarskynlik bo aan die hiërargie in Suid-Afrika geëindig het, nes die verloorders van die tweede wêreldoorlog, die Duitsers, tans in die Europese Unie.

Pleks daarvan gebruik die Rooinekgespuis – alle Engelse is nie sleg nie, maar die liberale, Boerehaattipe verdien daardie benaming – moralisme, propaganda en ‘n sielkundige oorlog om ons te probeer beheer sodat ons kan ondergaan en hulle kan seëvier. Reeds werk ons mense kliphard om Engels en die verdomde Britse Ryk in dié land te bestendig!

As jy “nie ‘n emosionele band met jou taal het nie”, het jy reeds gesneuwel. Afrikaans is die mooiste taal wat daar is en as ek die tyd kry, sal ek taalkundig bewys waarom dit eens op ‘n tyd, tussen 1300 en 1600, ‘n wêreldtaal was. As Afrikaans sou moes verdwyn, sal dit ‘n baie groot slag vir ons beskawing wees en sal die laaste weerstand teen imperiale Engels ook in ander lande begin verkrummel. Die kulturele uitwissing wat sou volg, sou die hele aardbol in ‘n krisis dompel en mag tot ‘n nuwe primitiwisme lei soos wat sommige wetenskapfiksieskrywers al beskryf het. Dis lewensbelangrik dat Afrikaans moet oorleef. Ruk jou reg, luister ‘n paar Afrikaanse liedjies of lees weer die Groot Verseboek of ‘n mooi Afrikaanse roman. Kyk op YouTube, daar is baie Afrikaanse musiek sommer gratis beskikbaar.

Ons moet ons eie bank begin en al ons geld van die FNB’s, ABSA’s, ens., wegvat wat met anti-Afrikaanse propaganda is. Dit gáán gebeur, hou maar dop!

Dus steur jou nie aan ‘n klomp dom Engelse nie; hulle weet niks, ken net een taal en leef in hul eie klein “eggokamer” waarin almal verhewe en “beter as” alle Afrikaners, Duitsers, Franse, Russe, Italianers en wie ook al voel. Vra jouself egter die volgende vrae af:

1. Ry Engelse dalk Engelse karre?
2. As dit soveel beter in Engeland as in ons veel verguisde “apartheidsland” is, waarom woon hulle nie dáár nie, maar hier tussen ons?

By implikasie ag hulle ‘n wonderlike Engelse lewe in Engeland laer as ‘n bestaan hier te lande waar hulle blootgestel word aan alles wat hulle harstogtelik haat, soos:

  • Steve Hofmeyr en ander Afrikaanse sangers
  • boerewors
  • koeksisters
  • melktert
  • plekname soos Braamfontein of Hoedspruit
  • Die Stem
  • gemmerbier
  • biltong
  • die poësie van Opperman of Van Wyk Louw
  • die Voortrekkermonument
  • die Taalmonument
  • die drie Afrikaanse susterskerke wat oor die hele land vervuil is
  • konsentrasiekampkerkhowe dwarsoor die land waarin hulle herinner word watse massamoordenaars hulle is
  • skilderye van Pierneef, Bettie Cilliers-Barnard, ens.
  • moderne argitektuur deur ‘n swetterjoel Afrikanerargitekte wat hul prins Charles as “fascisties” beskou
  • die Krugerwildtuin waarvan hulle die naam nog nie kon verander nie
  • Pretoria waar jy Afrikaans op straat en in kafees en winkels kan hoor

Dink nou bietjie mooi: as dit soveel beter in Engeland was, sou hulle nie al lankal “home” toe gegaan het nie?

skrywer en meningspreker | author and commentator