Postscript: What is a South African?

Posted by Dan Roodt | Briewe en polemieke | Sondag 8 November 2009 3:58 pm

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Following on my recent post where I defend the notion that Afrikaners exist as a minority group in South Africa, it amuses me that we Afrikaners always have to define ourselves in the face of a general scepticism that there is such a thing as an Afrikaner, despite physical evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, the question is never asked: What is a South African? Is it an ethnic group, a nationality or simply an administrative category? There being no South African language, apart from English which is also spoken in the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, and so on, language cannot define the South African. Having a South African ID book could be a defining characteristic, but what then about those people who have acquired theirs illegally? Are they still “South Africans”?

Many of our compatriots never register their children’s births and so the Dept. of Home Affairs will accept a sworn affidavit by the mother that her child was born in South Africa as proof of South African citizenship.

How many “South Africans”, speaking various languages and belonging to a diversity of cultures, can place their hands on their hearts and swear that they were born here?

What is the difference between a Zimbabwean and a South African, especially since for all practical purposes the border between the two countries has been abolished?

“South Africans” read British and American books, watch American movies and TV programmes, and mostly call themselves “Africans”. On the UNISA building there is a massive poster proclaiming it to be an “African university”.

It seems to me that there is a real lack of any South African nationalism and that the people or peoples who inhabit this land do not have any definable national identity. There are some who claim that the Constitution of 1996 gave South Africa an “identity”. But given that the constitution is flaunted every day – even the right to life, not to mention the right to speak any of eleven “official languages” that are official in name only – does South Africa have a definable identity? Or is it just a relic of “the colonial and apartheid past”, to be claimed by the whole of Africa as its economic and financial hub, just like the SA World Cup is really “the African World Cup”?

To paraphrase ex-president Thabo Mbeki: South Africa, define thyself!

Nestlé en korporatiewe sinisme

Posted by Dan Roodt | Rubrieke | Maandag 28 September 2009 11:05 am

Die nuus dat die Switserse voedselreus, Nestlé, in Zimbabwe melk aankoop van ‘n voorheen blanke plaas wat deur mev. Grace Mugabe afgevat is, laat ‘n mens in jou sjokolade verstik. Ook lyk dit asof Switsers tans hul bes doen om die argwaan van Suider-Afrikaanse blankes te ontketen. Want as St. Gallen in Switserland nie Paul Kruger as ‘n straatnaam in hul dorp afskaf nie, dan maak die Switserse baas van FIFA, Sep Blätter dom uitlatings soos dat geweldsmisdaad in Suid-Afrika op “rassistiese persepsies” berus.

Sekerlik is daar mense wat ná dié nuus met ander oë na Nestlé se produkte op ons winkelrakke kyk. Enige boikotaksie teen Nestlé weens sy medepligtigheid aan die anti-blanke rassisme van die Mugabe-regime behoort ondersteun te word. Indien Switsers, met wie ons sedert Paul Kruger se dae, maar ook tydens die sanksiejare, goeie verhoudings gehad het, hulself nou by Afrikaners ongewild wil maak, is dit seker hul keuse.

Maar die ergste aan die Nestlé-Mugabe-melkskandaal, is die onderliggende korporatiewe sinisme wat uit die maatskappy se houding en verklaring spreek. Hy koop melk “in die ope mark” aan. Indien plase op grond van ras deur die swart rassiste van Zimbabwe gekonfiskeer is, maak dit nie saak nie. Die maatskappy doen nou sake met die nuwe eienares, mev. Grace Mugabe, wat saam met Winnie Mandela seker die beroemdste verbruiker van luuksegoedere in Suider-Afrika moet wees.

In Suid-Afrika neem groot ondernemings presies dieselfde houding in deur die ANC se rassistiese wette teen die blanke bevolking tot op die letter na te volg. Meer nog, vele groot maatskappye diskrimineer meer teen blankes en Afrikaners as wat die ANC se wette en beleid van hulle vereis, stel geen blankes meer aan nie en versprei dikwels negatiewe voorstellings van blankes in hul kommunikasie soos advertensies. Terwyl sulke maatskappye graag met mev. Grace Mugabe en die ANC se korrupte oligarge sake doen, straf hulle klein sake, wat die laaste toevlug van die blanke ondernemer verteenwoordig, deur hulle van tenders en transaksies uit te sluit.

Multinasionale ondernemings en groot maatskappye is beslis nie bo die politiek verhewe nie en in Suider-Afrika dien hulle die belang van ZANU-PF en die ANC-SAKP met ‘n filosofie van “mag is reg”.

In ‘n wêreld van handelsmerke, sal die verbruiker meer ingelig moet raak oor waarmee maatskappye in werklikheid besig is en watter ons ondersteuning by die kasregister verdien en watter soos die pes vermy behoort te word.

Mugabe is nie mal nie

Posted by Dan Roodt | Rubrieke | Sondag 27 September 2009 11:06 am

Robert Mugabe het so pas sy “grondhervormingsprogram” op CNN verdedig. Dikwels kom ‘n mens egter diegene teë – sowel joernaliste as gewone mense – wat beweer dat “Mugabe sy varkies kwyt is”, “kranksinnig is” en dergelike meer. Ek kan onthou dat ‘n aanbieder van die BBC, saam met wie ek so vier of vyf jaar gelede middagete genuttig het, dieselfde gesê het. “Dis nie omdat hy swart is dat hy so optree nie, dis omdat hy waansinnig is,” het die BBC-man in sy wysheid aan my oorgedra.

Mugabe maak egter nie die indruk van ‘n malman op my nie, inteendeel. Daar bestaan seker ‘n groot verskeidenheid definisies van waansin, maar om konstant teenstrydige uitsprake te maak, soos “Ek is op die maan” terwyl jy tuis in jou kombuis is, is seker een daarvan. Mugabe, aan die ander kant, handhaaf ‘n keiharde logika in alles wat hy sê.

En daardie logika, verstout ek my om te sê, is niks anders as die Suider-Afrikaanse liberalisme (en kommunisme) wat reeds ‘n eeu of twee in dié wêrelddeel met ywer verkondig word nie.

Waar was u toe Mugabe op 4 Maart 1980 tot president van die nuwe Zimbabwe verkies is? Ek herinner my die oomblik nog soos gister. Ek was destyds ‘n Honneurstudent aan die Universiteit van die Witwatersrand. Toe die uitslag oor die radio aangekondig is, was ek besig om koffie te drink by die kafee in die binnehof van die Senaatshuisgebou. By die tafel langs my het ‘n aantal linkse studente gesit wat taamlike diep spore in die Engelse joernalistiek en regswese in dié land sou trap. Een of twee van die stigterslede van die Mail & Gaurdian was daar, so ook die kinders van die fotograaf David Goldblatt, hy van “Some Afrikaners photographed”-faam. Ek verbeel my Gilbert Marcus, die latere advokaat en broer van Gill Marcus, was ook teenwoordig.

Toe die aankondiging kom dat ZANU-PF gewen het, het ‘n gejuig langs my losgebars. Daar was groot blydskap, glimlagte, kwinkslae en vreugde. Die held van die wit liberales en linkses, Mugabe, het gewen. En dit was nie net onder Engelse en Jode wat ‘n mens dié bewondering vir Mugabe destyds teëgekom het nie. In dieselfde tyd het ek by die Afrikaanse skrywer, John Miles – van wie daar onlangs ‘n nuwe roman genaamd “Voetstoots” verskyn het – gekuier. Hy en sy destydse kunstenaresvrou, Elza Miles, het ‘n ewe gunstige mening oor Mugabe, “die slim man”, gehad.

Die liberale Britse pers was natuurlik destyds ewe gaande oor Robert Mugabe en het ‘n blink toekoms vir Zimbabwe onder sy bekwame leiding voorspel. Dieselfde BBC-aanbieder met wie ek gaan eet het en wat hom tans as ‘n malman beskou, het waarskynlik Mugabe se verkiesing en die neerlaag van Ian Smith op 4 Maart 1980 as ‘n heuglike gebeurtenis gesien.

Einstein het ‘n ander definisie van waansin gehad: “Om oor en oor dieselfde ding te doen en ‘n ander resultaat te verwag.” En dit is presies waarmee die liberales en linkses in Suider-Afrika nog al die tyd mee besig is. Grondhervorming het in Zimbabwe misluk, maar as dit in Suid-Afrika toegepas word, kan ons van die teenoorgestelde uitkoms verseker wees!

Al wat Mugabe eintlik in Zimbabwe doen, is om die polities korrekte ideologie van grondhervorming, teregstellende aksie, transformasie, asook swart bevoordeling en blanke benadeling, tot sy logiese gevolgtrekking te voer.

Stuur ons af op ‘n blanke volksmoord?

Posted by Dan Roodt | Sonder kategorie | Sondag 13 September 2009 7:33 pm

Vandeesweek het ds. Nico Smith, ‘n soort sikofant van oorle Beyers Naudé, ‘n kat in die hoenderhok gesmyt met sy stuk in Beeld waarin hy blankes tot onderdanigheid aan hul nuwe swart heersers maan. So nie, sê Smith, gaan dieselfde lot ons tref as die sowat miljoen Franse Algeryne wat almal sak en pak met net die klere aan hul lywe hul land moes verlaat toe die moederland, Frankryk, hulle in die steek gelaat het en sy militêre magte verwyder het.

Nico Smith stel dit in ‘n neutedop só: “Ons het geen keuse nie as om lojale Suid-Afrikaners te word en te vergeet van ons minderheidsregte, ons taal en kultuur, ons aansprake op die beëindiging van regstellende aksie en die herinstelling van die doodstraf.”

Met ander woorde, ons moet aanvaar dat ons en ons kinders en waarskynlik ons kleinkinders, vir altyd tweederangse burgers onder ‘n swart regering gaan wees wat ons bloot gaan verdra na gelang van ons onderdanigheid en die “lojaliteit” wat ons jeens hom gaan betoon.

Tereg het Tim du Plessis, die redakteur van Beeld wat deesdae toenemend ontnugter met sy base by Naspers se utopiese voorstelling van “Suid-Afrika se wonderlike demokrasie” raak, ‘n teenargument geopper wat ek reeds jare lank ophaal: wat het hul onderdanigheid die blankes van Zimbabwe en veral die Commercial Farmers Union gebaat? Hulle het agteroor gebuig, hulle was lojaal en inskiklik, maar op die ou end het Mugabe dit as swakheid geïnterpreteer. Hulle grond is summier onteien en van die eertydse groot blanke bevolking van etlike honderde duisende mense in die voormalige Rhodesië het daar net mooi niks oorgebly nie.

Black Man’s Wheels en die Mercedes-Benz SEB-klas

Posted by Dan Roodt | Rubrieke | Dinsdag 8 September 2009 7:33 pm

By al die absurditeite wat hierdie droewe land tans teister, is daar Cosatu se jongste betigtiging van ministers met uitspattige voertuie. Asof “demonokrasie” van die Afrikatipe nie juis rondom ‘n keiserlike lewenstyl vir politici in bankrot lande draai nie.

Sonder Mercedes- en BMW-handelaars, asook hotelgroepe wat vyfsterhotelle regoor die vasteland bedryf, sou demonokrasie nie kon bestaan nie. As ‘n “leier van die mense” nie in sy swart Duitse voertuig, tesame met ‘n gevolg van flitsende blou ligte en loeiende sirenes die ander motoriste van die pad kon afdwing op pad na ‘n konferensie in ‘n vyfsterhotel nie, sou niemand kon glo dat regering in Afrika bestaan nie.

Suid-Afrika is geen uitsondering nie, behalwe dat die staat nog nie so bankrot is soos dié in Zimbabwe of Swaziland wat op buitelandse hulp moet staatmaak om aankope van Duitse weeldemotors te finansier nie. Gegewe die standaard van “maagpolitiek” elders op ons vasteland, is Blade Nzimande se 1,1-miljoenrand-BMW-750i eintlik “beskeie”. Indien dit koeëlvas gemaak was en met ‘n paar missiellanseerders toegerus was om lede van die gepeupel wat dit te naby daaraan waag met die druk van ‘n knoppie weg te blaas, sou mens dalk kon praat van “oorbesteding”.

Eintlik stel die ANC-regering ‘n goeie voorbeeld, veral vir daardie kleiner munisipaliteite waar burgemeesters gereeld ‘n aansienlike deel van die jaarlikse begroting op ‘n luuksemotor uitgee. Indien so ‘n munisipaliteit agterna nie ‘n broodnodige rioolpomp kan bekostig of die vullis nie verwyder word nie, wel, wat maak dit alles uiteindelik saak? Solank hierdie noodsaaklike simbole van demonokrasie wat uit Beiere of Stuttgart stam, vertoon kan word, loop alles mos klopdisselboom.

Die setel van demonokrasie is uiteindelik nie die parlement, waar 400 ander etende, besturende, reisende en konsumerende parasiete saamgetrek is nie, maar die Mercedes- of BMW-handelaar, tesame met die vyfsterhotel. Dis hier waar die wese van regering hom voltrek. “Regering”, waarsonder ons in hierdie land baie goed sou kon klaarkom, bestaan uit die besteding van die belastingbetaler se fondse op onnodige goedere wat die inherente minderwaardigheidsgevoel van Afro-politici moet besweer. Geen katedraal in die oerwoud en geen blink, swart, Duitse motor kan ooit te duur wees om Afrika se gekrenkte waardigheid tot aan die uitspansel te verhef nie.

Waarskynlik is Cosatu ook nie ernstig met sy uitlatings oor ministeriële ampsmotors nie. Dit getuig van een of ander Protestantse of Calvinistiese skuldgevoel oor staatsbesteding. Verwoerd was blykbaar bekommerd oor “wat die volk sou sê” toe daar by Libertas ‘n swembad geïnstalleer is.

Hiermee het Verwoerd sy verknogtheid aan die “apartheidsreëlboek” getoon.

Hoe ver het Suid-Afrika sedertdien nie gevorder in sy “bevryding” van alle blanke kleinsieligheid in dié verband en die regeerstyl ten noorde van die Limpopo omhels nie?

Anders as wat Cosatu dink, het die ANC lankal reeds die “apartheidsreëlboek” saam met Afrikaanse skole, skoon water en werkende staatshospitale tot “die asblik van die geskiedenis” verdoem en is ons bevoorreg om aan die skitterende leierskap van BMW- en Mercedes-entoesiaste blootgestel te word.

Dis hoog tyd dat ons wonderlike media ons gemotoriseerde regering ‘n bietjie meer ophemel. Sommige motormaatskappye sal seker nie omgee om bykomende advertensies by sulke berigte op te neem nie.

Lank lewe die Black Man’s Wheels! Lank lewe die Mercedes-Benz SEB-klas! In hul Hitleriaanse en nasionaal-sosialistiese praal.

Jan-Jan Joubert verbly hom oor Sasco se Kovsie-oorwinning

Posted by Dan Roodt | Briewe en polemieke | Maandag 31 Augustus 2009 9:21 am

Jan-Jan Joubert het het hom al weer in gister se Rapport oor Sasco se oorwinning in die studenteraadsverkiesing verbly. Ek het die volgende kommentaar gelewer,

As Afrikaners verloor, is dit altyd goed, 30/08/2009, Dan Roodt
‘n Mens kan sien Jan-Jan voel sommer goed oor Sasco gewen het. As Afrikaners verloor, is dit mos altyd goed, nie waar nie, Jan-Jan? “Soos dit mos in ons land hoort.”

wat ‘n ander leser laat mymer het dat Rapport se redaksie my weer behoort toe te laat om in rubriek in die koerant te skryf:

Voorstel aan Redaksie, 30/08/2009, Hennie
Gegewe pers vryheid in SA en die voordele van gebalanseerde rubrieke, versoek ek dat julle weer vir Dan Roodt ‘n rubriek gee. Met Kombuis, Maarman en JJ hierbo aan die een kant van die spektrum en Roodt aan die ander kant, dink ek nogal dit sou ‘n goeie balans vorm. Indien sekere mense wel van tyd tot tyd aanstoot neem oor Roodt se sienings, is dit in elke geval goeie publisiteit vir die koerant. Ek glo die meerderheid oud-Natte lede is te besig om te “survive” in die nuwe SA om om te gee. Verder is die AB besig om hulself moreel te probeer “revive”, so ek glo hulle sal te besig wees om notisie te neem. In kort, die era van staats gesteunde media en PW wat voorskryf is mos nou amper 15 jaar iets van die verlede. Asseblief oorweeg my voorstel, want JJ is ‘n betaalde DA agent. So waar as vet. Ek kry sulke paniekerige onwillekeurige terugflitse na die verlede.

Hierop het ek die volgende repliek gelewer:

Rubriek in Rapport, 31/08/2009, Dan Roodt
Ek sien Hennie wil hê ek moet weer ‘n rubriek in Rapport kry, maar ek moet hom ontnugter. Hierdie Liza Albrecht wat aan Stellenbosch se linkse joernalistiekdept. geprogrammeer is, asook Jan-Jan, glo nóg aan vryheid van spraak, nóg aan oop gesprek of debat.


Hulle is nie eens naastenby liberaal nie, want die ware liberalis glo dat daar ten minste twee kante aan enige waarheid is.


Hulle is evangeliste van transformasie en die anti-wit, anti-Afrikaner-ideologie. Al gebeur Zimbabwe op hul voorstoep en al stroom Sannieshof en Kroonstad en elke dorp se riool by hul voordeur in, sal hulle nog aan ons probeer wysmaak dat Afro-demokrasie werk en dat ons net gehoorsaam aan die ANC moet bly, dan sal alles goed gaan.


Die Afrikaner se enigste hoop is om alternatiewe media op die internet te vestig, waarmee ons by Praag natuurlik al ver gevorder is. Ons moet ‘n nuwe kultuur van vrye denke en rasionele debat vestig wat uiteindelik op rasionele politieke optrede moet uitloop, nie hierdie skaapagtige navolging van die neo-koloniale resep wat oor en oor ten noorde van ons landsgrens misluk het nie.


Rapport en Afrikaans se joernalistieke krisis

Posted by Dan Roodt | Rubrieke | Woensdag 12 Augustus 2009 1:53 pm

Die afgelope naweek het Rapport bekendgemaak dat hy sy internetuitgawe later beskikbaar stel in ‘n poging om vas te stel of die sirkulasie van die koerant se papieruitgawe deur die aanlynweergawe beïnvloed word.

Ook is die koerant se internetlesers in ‘n opname gevra of hulle bereid sou wees “om vir Rapport se aanlyn-inhoud te betaal”. Agt-en-tagtig persent van die aanlynlesers het egter geantwoord dat hulle nie bereid is om te betaal nie.

As ek eerlik moet wees, sal ek ook nie vir Rapport betaal nie, hetsy op papier, hetsy op my rekenaarskerm. Benewens sensasionele berigte oor Steve Hofmeyr se owerspel en foto’s van Saterdag se rugby, bevat Rapport geen nuus wat my as opgevoede Afrikanerleser interesseer nie.

Dan praat ek nie eens van die koerant se redaksionele kommentaar in die vorm van hoofartikels en rubriekskrywers nie. Daar is die Snotkop Jan-Jan Joubert wat eers ‘n Mbeki-bewonderaar was en deesdae ‘n soort adolessente aanbidding vir Helen Zille koester. Die goue draad van Snotkop Joubert se oppervlakkige, onintelligente menings is egter sy afkeer van alles wat van die Afrikaner is: ons geskiedenis, Standaardafrikaans, die gedagte dat ons oor taal-, kultuur- of minderheidsregte mag beskik.

‘n Ander weeklikse rubriekskrywer in Rapport is Daggakop Kombuis. Onlangs het ek al menige artikel gelees waarin daar beweer word dat blootstelling aan dagga en ander dwelms permanente breinskade tot gevolg het. Daar is ‘n soort ligsinnigheid omtrent hom wat spreek van ‘n verwronge werklikheidsbesef. Hoe meer geweldsmisdaad daar in Suid-Afrika gepleeg word en hoe meer ons infrastruktuur in duie stort, hoe meer juig Koos Kombuis oor “demokrasie” en “vryheid”. Vir hom is daar geen verskil tussen ‘n rockkonsert en ‘n verkiesing nie; albei is vorme van massavermaak wat met ‘n bottel Tassenberg geniet kan word. Dat Rapport hoegenaamd kans sien om Koos Kombuis as ‘n politieke kommentator aan te bied, toon dat die koerant insgelyks sy kontak met die werklikheid kwyt is.

Asof ‘n Snotkop en ‘n Daggakop nie genoeg is nie, vergas Rapport ons ook op die halfgebakte skrywes van die Warkop Andries (alias Roof) Bezuidenhout. Benewens rocksanger, is Roof ook dosent of navorser aan Wits in ‘n geesteswetenskaplike dissipline. As iemand wat self aan Wits gestudeer het in die dae toe daar nog toelatingsvereistes was, kan ek getuig van die mate waartoe die geesteswetenskappe in daardie tyd reeds gerysmier is deur ‘n bonte versameling malles wat onder die vaandels van Marxisme, Feminisme en Afrikanisme die res van die samelewing as boos beskou het. Wits het nooit die ineenstorting van die Berlynse muur oorkom nie en sedertdien gryp die toenemend gehawende groepie sosioloë, politieke wetenskaplikes en literatore aan daardie universiteit na al hoe meer vergesogte teorieë en linkse clichés wat Robert Mugage na ‘n groot wysgeer laat voorkom. Roof voel hom vir seker tuis by Wits en tussen die blaaie van Rapport waar hy, die Warkop, geredelik saam met Snotkop en Daggakop deelneem aan allerlei klagtes en beledigings teen die normale, heteroseksuele en boonop blanke Afrikaner wat die meerderheid van Rapport se lesers verteenwoordig.

Dan is daar nog, les bes, Jakes Gerwel, wat al odes aan die Kommunistiese Party in Rapport geskryf het en blykbaar letterlik in trane uitgebars het toe die skare vanuit Oos-Berlyn in 1989 oor die Glienickebrug gestroom het sonder dat die destydse Oos-Duitse muurskieters op hulle geskiet het om hulle in hul werkersparadys gevange te hou. Ek sou Jakes Gerwel seker Kroeskop kon noem, maar netnou word ek van rassisme beskuldig. Noem hom dan maar eerder Rooikop, wat nie die kleur van sy hare uitdruk nie, maar wel sy matelose bewondering vir alles wat met die SAKP en ANC te make het. Trouens, elkeen van sy stukke kommentaar in Rapport gaan gewoonlik oor een of ander figuur in die SAKP of ANC wat ons eer en agting verdien. Waarskynlik is hy die enigste kaartdraende lid van die ANC wat sowel ‘n aanhanger van Thabo Mbeki as Jacob Zuma is, want hy koester ‘n kinderlike bewondering vir albei. Hy is ook alewig besig met “nasiebou” en om alles in dié droewe land goed te praat. Elke donker wolk het sy silwer randjie en as jy gister in jou huis aangeval is of daar is ontlasting in Sannieshof se drinkwater, onthou net: dis ‘n voorreg om deur die groot leiers van die ANC en SAKP regeer te word.

Voeg hierby nog Christi van der Westhuizen, Mad Max du Preez en ander Afrikanerhaters wat meer of minder gereeld in Rapport hul ekstremistiese menings lug en dis duidelik dat die koerant oor ‘n doodswens beskik, ten minste wat sy sirkulasie betref. Sedert die heengaan van die ewe ultralinkse Insig, swerf ‘n bepaalde groepie Kaapse joernaliste egter van een Afrikaanse publikasie na die ander rond op soek na nog ‘n platform van waar hulle die Afrikanerpubliek kan beledig en slegsê.

Volgens Chris Louw beskik Harald Pakendorf oor die onderskeiding dat hy nie minder as vier Afrikaanse koerante “toegemaak het” nie. Liza Albrecht, die redaktrise van Rapport, is duidelik van plan om Pakendorf se rekord te oortref en vermoedelik daal die sirkulasie van die grootste en enigste Afrikaanse Sondagkoerant reeds. Albrecht het haar tande geslyp by die bylaag “By” waar Max du Preez, Christi van der Westhuizen en enigeen wat van Karl Marx, Andrea Dworkin en Carlos die Jakkals hou, welkom is om die kolomme vol te maak. Die voordeel van “By” is natuurlik dat kopers van Beeld, Die Burger en Volksblad dit as ‘n bylaag ontvang en dus maar verlief met die inhoud moet neem. Niemand sal ‘n sent daarvoor betaal nie.

Eintlik kan mens nie sê dat Liza Albrecht “uit voeling” met haar lesers is nie. Sy weet min of meer waarvan hulle hou – en gee hulle presies die teenoorgestelde. Die aanslag van Rapport – en van By – is dat Snotkop, Daggakop, Warkop, Rooikop en al die ander -koppe oor ‘n soort vrypas beskik om die Afrikanerlesers van dié publikasies week vir week te beskuldig, af te kraak en te demoraliseer. Enigiemand wat homself ‘n Afrikaner noem, is per definisie ‘n rassis en elkeen wat van skoon drinkwater hou, is ‘n Nazi wat nie die noodsaak vir diversiteit en transformasie wil erken nie.

Toevallig sien ek so pas raak dat Liza Albrecht oor ‘n Twitter-profiel beskik. Ja, reg geraai, sy beskryf haarself, nogal in die Rooitaal, as: “I’m the editor of an Afrikaans newspaper in South Africa.” Ene Jannie Momberg, redakteur van News24, ‘n volgeling van haar op Twitter, het beswaar teen die gebruik van blankes met blonde hare op die Vryheidsfront Plus se verkiesingsplakkate.

Ek vermoed Liza Albrecht het ook ‘n beswaar teen die ras en haarkleur, asook taalvoorkeur, van haar lesers. Vandaar haar veldtog om Rapport te herposisioneer as ‘n byderwetse, linkse, regstellende-aksiekoerant wat iewers in die toekoms met City Press gaan saamsmelt om net in Engels te verskyn.

Liza Albrecht en haar medejoernaliste – of eerder: -propagandiste – sal seker altyd werk hê. Immers is hulle konformiste wat bloot die heersende ideologie wat vanaf die ANC-beheerde SAUK se kassie uitgebasuin word, aanhang en in Afrikaans aan die dom Boere wat steeds aanhou om Afrikaanse koerante te koop, opdis. As Rapport weens sy grondige minagting vir sy eie Afrikanerlesers ophou bestaan, sal Albrecht vir News24, City Press of enige ander publikasie in die Naspersstal gaan werk.

Die tragedie vir Afrikaans lê daarin dat dít wat vir die “editor of an Afrikaans newspaper in South Africa” net nog ‘n werk is, waarskynlik vir die voortbestaan van ons taal, selfs ons fisieke voortbestaan in dié land, van wesentlike belang is.

Die internet gaan in die nabye toekoms die leemte vul wat deur kwynende Afrikaanse koerante soos Rapport gelaat gaan word. Allerlei “alternatiewe Afrikaanse media” wat grotendeels aan die dwangbuis van politieke korrektheid en konformisme ontkom, bestaan reeds op die wêreldwye web. Maar vir die afsienbare toekoms gaan daar steeds mense wees wat, hetsy nie oor rekenaars beskik nie, hetsy verkies om hul nuus op papier te lees.

Ek kan voorsien dat, soos wat publikasies soos Rapport saam met hul ANC-ideologie oor die afgrond stort, ons ook met omsigtigheid alternatiewe op papier gaan skep. Daar bestaan allerlei streeks-, gemeenskaps- en partykoerante in Afrikaans wat met ‘n bietjie verbeelding gekonsolideer kan word om ‘n alternatief vir Rapport in gedrukte vorm te bied.

In so ‘n geval sal die heengaan van Rapport, jou anti-Afrikanerkoerant op ‘n Sondag, geen tragedie vir ons taal wees nie, maar eerder ‘n bevryding.

Intussen het ons by praag.co.za, wat grotendeels ‘n vrywillige inernetpublikasie is, besluit om ten minste elke Sondagoggend ook ‘n uitgawe aan lesers te bied wat finaal genoeg van die Rapportkoppe gehad het.

Nuwe Tuks-rektor sit rasseoorheersing oor Afrikaners voort

Posted by Dan Roodt | Rubrieke | Vrydag 31 Julie 2009 9:43 am

Hoewel die bruin bevolking van Suid-Afrika oor die laagste deelname aan tersiêre onderrig beskik, is hul besetting van rektorsposte die hoogste, veral as dit by voorheen Afrikaanse universiteite kom. Met die aanstelling van prof. Cheryl de la Rey as rektor van die UP, beskik vier uit die vyf “histories Afrikaanse universiteite” oor bruin of kleurlingrektore.

Indien enigiemand nog daaroor getwyfel het of daar rassekwotas by die aanstelling van rektore geld, kan hy of sy maar gerus wees: daar ís rassekwotas.

Blykbaar word 97% van alle akademiese publikasies in Suid-Afrika deur blankes geproduseer en meer as die helfte daarvan deur blanke mans. Geen blanke man kwalifiseer egter meer om as rektor van ‘n Afrikaanse universiteit aangestel te word nie en veral geen blanke Afrikanerman nie. In dié opsig moet dr. Theuns Eloff van die Noordwes-universiteit seker besef dat hy ‘n volslae anomalie binne die “nuwe orde” verteenwoordig en waarskynlik eersdaags op grond van sy ras van sy pos onthef sal word of andersins net nie weer ‘n aanstelling sal verkry nie.

Afgesien van Nazi-Duitsland waar Jode nie universiteitsposte mag beklee het nie, is daar geen voorbeeld in die moderne geskiedenis van ‘n rassebeleid en veral ‘n diskriminerende rassebeleid wat so konsekwent teen ‘n bepaalde etniese groep gevoer is soos tans teen Afrikaners geskied nie.

In dié opsig is die grappies wat sowel Beeld as RSG oor die nuwe rektor se van gevoer het, as sou sy ‘n “De la Rey wees wat die Tukkies kom lei”, in swak smaak en kwetsend vir baie Afrikaners wat nog waarde aan hul geskiedenis en hul helde heg.

Hoewel Cheryl de la Rey ‘n van geërf het, het sy reeds tydens haar RSG-onderhoud duidelik gemaak dat sy verkies om Engels te praat en dus van geen Afrikaanse of Boeresentiment verdink kan word nie.

Prof. De la Rey, indien u geen sin vir taaletiket het nie: om op die nasionale Afrikaanse stasie Engels te praat terwyl u kennelik Afrikaans magtig is, sy dit dan vir u ‘n tweede of derde taal, verteenwoordig vir ons almal ‘n growwe belediging en is in die konteks uiters ongepoets. Dit voorspel niks goeds vir u vrome voornemens om sogenaamde “meertaligheid te bevorder” – wat in die SA konteks al ‘n sinoniem vir verengelsing geword het – en om reg aan Afrikaans aan Tukkies te laat geskied nie.

Op sy beste sit die aanstelling van “die swart vrou” Cheryl de la Rey die aftakeling van alles wat Afrikaans is en deur Afrikaners in die land opgebou is, voort, want uit haar houding blyk reeds dat sy die status quo van onafwendbare verengelsing gaan handhaaf. Op sy slegste, het ons hier net nog ‘n akademiese voorbeeld van etniese en rasseoorheersing waarmee Afrikaners in dié bose, onregverdige en rassistiese bestel vir lief moet neem.

Ons moet ook onthou dat Cheryl de la Rey ‘n lang verbintenis met sowel die Universiteit van Natal as die Universiteit van Kaapstad het, twee universiteite wat reeds dekades lank met ‘n volgehoue veldtog van Afrikanerhaat besig is en as’t ware die akademiese sentra van die huidige etniese suiweringsveldtog teen Afrikaans en Afrikaners verteenwoordig. Akademici in die algemeen is tropdiere en aartskonformiste. Heel waarskynlik dink Cheryl de la Rey nie veel anders as haar kollegas aan dié  twee universiteite nie.

Die Vryheidsfront Plus se jeugtak op die kampus sal daarom dié nuwe rektor met ‘n arendsoog moet dophou. Slegs voortgesette waaksaamheid en stryd sal Afrikaans nog hoegenaamd op die kampus laat oorleef. ‘n Revolusie sal egter nodig wees om Afrikaans hoegenaamd weer vryheid en gelykheid te gee, dít wat taalgemeenskappe elders ter wêreld as vanselfsprekend aanvaar.

Veral moet Afrikaners nie so naïef wees om te dink dat die mooipraatjies oor “meertaligheid” enigiets anders as voortgesette verengelsing en die verdrukking van Afrikaans beteken nie.

Adapt and die – South Africa’s new motto

Posted by Dan Roodt | Columns | Donderdag 2 Julie 2009 4:13 am

Have another look at this, my classic article from late 2004; it is still as valid as ever.

During the time of National Party reforms in the seventies and eighties, the cliché “adapt or die” used to do the rounds. Nowadays, given the highest murder rate in the world, this should be modified slightly to read, “adapt and die”. For the endemic social violence in South Africa is probably incurable.

Optimists think that violent crime can be solved through better policing, more efficient courts and more secure prisons. Even assuming that such improvements were possible under conditions of hard-core affirmative action, it must be admitted that criminal justice treats the symptom and not the cause of social violence. The Department of Correctional Services, for one, has lost 496 out of 500 former Deputy Directors since 1994, representing most of the intellectual capital in the department. Newcomers may learn their job properly, or they may not, but they have to be flown to overseas countries to find out how prisons work as most of those previously involved in managing our prisons are no longer there.

South Africa used to have a problem of political violence. It was not as bad as elsewhere in Africa, but for some reason elicited hysterical international condemnation. However, actors in political violence are mostly driven by some sort of creed or belief system. Whether such a person is a communist, an anarchist, a neo-Nazi or an ethnic or religious guerilla fighter, he is usually amenable to persuasion or compromise. Even a group of Muslim suicide bombers might declare peace if they were given a territory in which to set up an Islamic theocracy, governed only by themselves and not subject to any outside influence.

In the same way, South Africa’s so-called liberation movements who were at one time fanatically convinced of the need for violent and bloody revolution, laid down arms and bombs upon being told that F.W. de Klerk would surrender power unconditionally. Solving political violence is often intractable, but not impossible.

Not so social violence. Endemic crime, the breakdown of the social fabric, a sense of drift regarding norms of good conduct, point to a far deeper problem. The freedom fighter or urban terrorist is ultimately rational, despite a value system that normal society might find idiosyncratic.

But what is “normal society”? It is only the sum-total of behaviours prevalent in any given society at any given time. The Aztecs, infamously, practised daily human sacrifice to appease their sun god. It might revolt many of us today, but to them it was entirely normal. South Africa currently sacrifices about 87 humans per day to violent crime, or 32 000 per year. Those are only the ones who actually die. Scores of others are injured, maimed, traumatised, robbed, raped, burgled and so on.

In any suburb today an entire history of murders, hijackings, and other violent events can be written, if only the locals were narcissistic enough to consider their own history worth recording for posterity. On the other hand, social violence lacks the charm and grandeur of political violence as it is usually not committed in the interest of some glamorous cause like national liberation or world revolution but simply to acquire some hapless person’s BMW or rape his wife because she happened to be inside.

However, some time ago a Johannesburg newspaper engaged in chronicling some local history in the suburbs of Westdene and Lakefield in Benoni. Nearly every resident had a story to tell, an entire litany of mayhem. Mr. John Gee miraculously survived a shot through the eye, but now feels traumatised. His wife says, “One lives in fear in one’s own home. One does not sleep. One prays for protection, yet only more fears come.”

But who are the authors of South Africa’s social violence? Even asking this question presents one with a sense of discomfort, because most violent criminals in South Africa are young black men between the ages of 16 and 36. As one surgeon who had stitched together at least three child rape victims, two of whom were infants, said recently, “Probably white men commit such acts too; it is just that no-one in South Africa has come across such a case.”

Of course, it would be preposterous to say that all young black men are prone to violence. Judging from our daily experiences in crime-torn South Africa, however, a sub-section of that population, large enough to cause more havoc than even a well-equipped guerilla army of a few thousand men, has taken up practices such as heists, hold-ups, murders, sexual violence exacted upon women and children, and so on.

Explanations for such deviancy are manifold. The ubiquitous answer of it being due to apartheid might have been satisfying if other African societies never subject to group areas and a homeland system did not display similar traits. The Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone come to mind. There is a whole nature/nurture debate around black violence, except that no adherent of the “nature” side would publicly admit to being one, for fear of being branded a racist. Even though mainstream American cancer research has conclusively shown that black men have higher levels of testosterone than their white counterparts, few would hazard the notion that this might be linked to their greater propensity for violent crime.

America has a gargantuan prison population of two million, over half of which consists of African-Americans. This is despite their minority status in the USA, comprising only 12% of an overall population amounting to 290 million. South Africa could neither afford nor succeed, given the dire state of our criminal justice system, in jailing a similar number of black male offenders. Currently, only 10% of murderers in South Africa get arrested and only 6% are convicted. Any murderer therefore has a 94% chance of getting away with it.

If by some miracle all serious criminals in the country had to be caught and imprisoned, the prison population would surely treble or quadruple from the present 200 000, which is already high by world standards. Not only is such an improvement inconceivable under current conditions, but it would also be politically unpopular with the ruling ANC who would be incarcerating large numbers of young black males who are mostly its own supporters at the polls. Few whites, if any, commit violent crime and there are only 3 900 of them in prison, mostly for white-collar offences such as fraud or insider trading on the stock exchange.

All that remains in the world’s most violent society, is precisely to adapt and die. Twice as many South Africans of all races now die of murder than of road accidents – even though the road accident rate is also the highest in the world, surpassing that of Turkey. Crime extends to trade in driver’s licences, so that a large number of drivers use so-called “bought licences”, hardly a contribution to road safety.

There are some people naive enough to think that “something can be done about crime” in South Africa, mostly opposition politicians who dream about diverting funds from arms procurement to policing, but this would be futile. There are already three times as many private security personnel as state-employed policemen, and even they do not succeed in containing what has become Africa’s only peacetime killing field.

“I killed them because they were white.” These famous words were spoken last year by William Kekana, who participated in one of the most horrendous incidents in which the entire family of Mr. Clifford Rawstorne was wiped out, consisting of his fiancée, baby, as well as his own mother. Even this massacre of an entire family would not have made headlines, were it not for the fact that one year-old Kayla was executed on her very first birthday with a shot in the head. Needless to say, the two adult women were first raped before being killed. Both William Kekana and his accomplice, Charles Fido Baloyi, fell into the high-risk group of young black (and Coloured) males who commit almost all violent crime in the country.

South Africa actually has a Minister of Safety and Security, which to some might seem like an example of absurd humour. His Excellency Mr. Charles Nqakula, whose official résumé proudly states that he was once “a waiter and wine steward”, has immortalised himself by euphemistically stating that there was no real crime problem in South Africa, except that it was “a little on the high side”.

All in all, South Africa has got remarkably used to its new-found status as the crime capital of the world. The high-rise districts of Hillbrow and Berea in Johannesburg have been officially designated by Interpol as having the highest murder rate in the world, that is, 600 people per 100 000 population members per annum. Consider for a moment that such a figure represents 12 times the rate found in inner-city ghettoes in the United States, often seen as no-go zones by many Americans.

One British immigrant to South Africa who has survived three car hijackings, refuses to emigrate, stating that he is now accustomed to having Kalachnikovs pointed at him from point-blank range. Everyone knows a relative or friend who has been killed or at least subjected to some form of violent crime, and no South African can remotely imagine a society where people do not live behind razor wire, electrified fences, high walls, burglar bars and similar decorative props.

Outsiders might find our lifestyle bizarre, but many pundits in South Africa consider our society to be much more “normal” now than at any time in the past, which was tarnished by ethnic separation albeit without the present large-scale violence. At the height of segregation and apartheid under Hendrik Verwoerd, South Africa was almost as peaceful as Switzerland but she was immoral. Today we are the apotheosis of racial morality and political correctness, yet as violent as the Congo or Liberia. Surprisingly, however, our economy continues to function amid the carnage. No economist has ever studied this as far as I know, but not only is crime our biggest industry – bigger than gold-mining or manufacturing – it also stimulates consumption as stolen goods are replaced; it is a boon to the insurance and security industries and ultimately makes surgeons and undertakers rich. The government earns billions of rands in Value-Added Tax on stolent goods being replaced with new ones. So crime pays.

News about killings or shoot-outs no longer elicits the slightest surprise. It is part of our daily existence, and one assumes the lethal risks attending to something as simple as going shopping or driving to work. My wife, for example, has twice been to the local shopping centre where in the one instance a shoot-out was taking place in the parking area so that she had to hide between the cars with our 18 month-old son in her arms; in the second case an armed robbery had just taken place with the robbers casually strolling by with their guns and their loot.

Everyone knows someone who has been killed, raped or maimed. Just this week, the wife of a friend and former literary editor of Die Burger, François Smith, was stabbed to death with a screwdriver in their home in Wellington, near Cape Town. Her murderer was a 16-year-old squatter camp resident whose race was omitted by the press but presumably few, if any whites, reside in his particular squatter camp which is dedicated to black Africans. Lisbé Smuts-Smith was a well-known academic and head of the Afrikaans literature department at the University of Cape Town. Just two weeks ago, another UCT academic, mathematician Brian Hahn, was attacked by a former student, dr. Maleafisha Steve Tladi (35). Hahn died in hospital a week later, while Tladi was released on bail of R500 (about $80).

Two years ago Louw Rabie, a brilliant albeit reclusive geologist and brother of author Jan Rabie, was beaten to death with a fence pole by two Coloured men to whom he had lent some money a week earlier. Police in the small Cape town of Montagu readily caught his murderers because they happened to have drinking money during the week, taken from his home. He was 80 years old, but in good health. He is reputed to have been one of the most brilliant geologists and intellectuals this country has ever produced, writing copiously throughout his life but disdaining publication and public esteem. Africans with their oral tradition are fond of saying that “when an old person dies, a library burns down”. What strikes me about the relentless killings of educated whites, is that the criminals are indeed “burning down the libraries” of this country and physically exterminating the intellectual class, much like Pol Pot did in Cambodia. The media are celebrating youth, dance, colour, being black and exuberant – as opposed to the quiet studiousness of middle-aged and elderly whites, the bearers of knowledge and understanding. Are these learned whites who are being killed in exuberant, paradisiacal outbreaks of violence simply the remnants of a civilisation that is being eradicated in the name of decolonisation? No government spokesman has ever condemned such killings; so we may assume that the present regime is completely indifferent to them, where such killings do not enjoy their tacit support.

Around our local school in the past week there have been two car hijackings, as well as one murder. It is not really considered to be an exceptionally violent area. Most of this is not even reported in the press, because there really is not enough space and ordinary crime is no longer newsworthy. It needs some further sadistic element to make the front page, such as babies getting killed or raped, or elderly farmers being tortured to death. Farming in South Africa is now arguably the most dangerous profession in the world with more than 1600 farmers murdered since 1994, often in macabre and dehumanising ways.

To the outside world, white South Africans are congenitally evil. If our murderers and rapists had been white and their victims black, Europe or the United States would long ago have sent an expeditionary force to put a stop to it. At present, news of white suffering in South Africa inspires the occasional yawn in Western capitals. This is why a recent article in The Despatch, detailing the rape of a dog by three black men, gave me some hope that a chord will be struck somewhere in the coolly indifferent breasts of our fellow-Westerners. Even if the lives of Louw Rabie, Brian Hahn, Lisbé Smuts-Smith, Kayla Rawstorne and tens of thousands of others are of no value to them, perhaps they will take pity on the mongrel bitch in Grahamstown that was recently raped by three black men. Or perhaps two black men, as the third one protested his innocence upon being dragged out of the shack by screaming, “I came here to relieve myself. These two were raping the dog when I arrived!” Cruelty to humans, especially white humans, is today a normal feature of our society, just like human sacrifice used to be in the culture of the Aztecs. Cruelty to animals, or non-consensual sex with dogs, may still evoke some sympathy, not only locally, but also internationally. I therefore feel sorry for Masganda – the name of the dog concerned – who was rescued with a bleeding vagina and in need of veterinary attention, but perhaps this lowly creature of uncertain lineage could become a martyr for our cause in alerting opinion-makers and political leaders of our plight.

Cycling has become a popular sport in South Africa. However, its practitioners regularly get shot at by gangs of black youths in the street, so that many of them carry guns and knives for self-defence on their bicycles. Members of the Johannesburg mountain-bike club were outraged a while ago when two cyclists, Scott and Lloyd Griffith, were charged with murder after an armed battle with their four black assailants, one of whom succumbed to his wounds.

Most of the time, however, whites are helpless victims of crime. The government has recently passed a new gun law which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to own a fire-arm. They have also abolished rural commandos of military reservists entrusted with crime-prevention in the country, without any police units replacing them. Occasionally the newspapers carry stories of crime victims successfully defending themselves against attacks, offering armed resistance. As a result of the new gun law, this will soon end and we shall simply be able to hide or flee from our assailants. Defending oneself against a marauding robber or rapist might be a manifestation of racism, and is therefore frowned upon as being a kind of “right-wing” response.

Being robbed of one’s vehicle or household belongings is now considered quite normal, and often people ascribe escaping with their lives to their own astuteness, such as being friendly to the robber, helping him load the effects into a vehicle, not looking him in the face so as not to recognise him afterwards, et cetera. A friend of mine in Kempton Park kept up a reasonable conversation with the thieves emptying his house, tied up as he was with a gun pointed at him. He survived, although his elderly mother was badly roughed up and had to be hospitalised. In other instances, of course, people are not so lucky and they become just another murder statistic. Then they simply adapt and die.