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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *