Joerie, joerie, botter en brood,
as ek jou kry, slaat ek jou dood

Wednesday, January 27, 2016


ANC's election strategy 'reckless'

2016-01-26 07:17

Max du Preez
There is only one word for the present ANC policy to cynically abuse race and racism as an election strategy: reckless.

I don’t do this lightly, but I do think it is appropriate to remind readers of the cockroach strategy of dehumanising a whole population group that we saw unfold in Rwanda in 1994.

The rhetoric is getting more extreme and threatening every week. One day soon a spark in the right environment could ignite something really dangerous.

Wild, irresponsible posts on social media by unstable hotheads are one thing. I’m talking about the behaviour of senior figures of the ruling party – and some other politicians, for that matter.

And right in the middle of this storm the Afrikaner interest group AfriForum launched a crude anti-ANC propaganda film called Tainted Heroes that chose to ignore a large part of the truth behind the violence of the late 1980s and early 1990s: the apartheid state’s role in fomenting the violence between the IFP and ANC/UDF and the sinister role of its Third Force. The facts are readily available: the Goldstone Commission Report, the TRC reports, the Trust Feed, KwaMakutha and other court cases, Eugene de Kock’s confessions, etcetera.

It’s as if AfriForum wanted to tell its supporters: see how barbaric blacks are. 

This is equally reckless. 

How do we save a nation with such opportunists?

Many whites don’t want to hear this, but there’s no use sweetening this pill: white racist attitudes are not only morally wrong, they’re threatening our stability. 

Sure, bad governance, weak management of the economy and corruption are also threats, but it’s simply stupid and dishonest to say these are the reasons for racism, or that these issues are more important than racism and we should just get on with it.
Racism must be fought hard and culprits criminalised. 

But there can be no denying that our battle against racism is being seriously undermined by parties using it for party political gain.

The ANC leadership is using its Youth League and some of its apparatchiks, like parliamentary spokesperson Maloto Mothapo, to do its dirty work.

The Youth League’s latest lunacy is that “white supremacists” are behind the student protests to prove that blacks can’t govern. 

Another example is the violent removal of the Zuma Must Fall Banner from a Cape Town building and the charge by local ANC leaders that the banner was a white declaration of war on blacks.

Now the DA-MP who had her picture taken next to a cutout of former Transvaal Republic president Paul Kruger (he died 115 years ago) is, according to Mothapo, a nasty racist and apologist for apartheid and her party a “sanctuary of hard-core racists”.

At some point in his political education Mothapo must have read some Goebbels, the Nazis’s chief propagandist. “Kruger was a ruthless and bloodthirsty colonial era racist ruler who presided over the mass killings, torture, harassment, and cruel destruction of Black communities”, he says. “Kruger was a killing machine that carried out brutal attacks on various African tribes and condemned Black people to death in the Anglo Boer wars, whose purpose was to preserve the racial subjugation, slavery and colonial looting of resources.”

Really, Moloto? Have you ever wondered why it was called the Anglo Boer war? Not an inkling in your mind that this was the British Empire waging war on the tiny, impoverished Boer republic because of the discovery of gold? Yes, black South Africans did get caught up in it and suffered greatly, but they weren’t the reason for the war.

There’s more: “He buried alive Black people that he suspected of spying or fighting on the side of the British and cut women's breasts while they were still alive. He was a heartless monster.” Now I can’t personally testify that this never happened because I wasn’t there, but I must have read pretty much the vast majority of publications on his life and on the Boer War and never came across this. More Goebbels, if you ask me.

My interactions with Mothapo tell me that he’s quite a sharp guy. Could it be possible that he’s so badly informed about history, or was this just a dirty propaganda trick?
The problem is that many others, including some I always thought were vaguely progressive, swallowed Mothapo’s nonsense and now classify Kruger as a Eugene TerreBlanche type figure.

Someone should try and explain to these people that South Africa went through a process of state and nation building during the 19th century and that, like happened in the rest of the world, it often involved violence and the subjugation of other groups.

I’m referring to Shaka who established the Zulu as a group, Mzilikazi the Ndebele, Sekwati the Pedi, Sobhuza the Swazi, Moshoeshoe the Sotho and so on.

I have personally written a lot about, and hero-worshipped, Mantatisi of the Tlokwa, mother of Sekonyela – the navy has named one of its submarines after her. What made her famous was that she succeeded in leading her clan away from attackers, the first being Mapangazitha’s Hlubi, who were in turn fleeing from Matiwane’s Ngwane, and that she succeeded in killing many of her opponents.

Paul Kruger, tribal leader of the Boers (Afrikaners outside the Cape) should be seen as part of these processes.

Sure, the case of Kruger and the Boers of the Transvaal and Free State is a little different in that they had distant European ancestors, but they did regard themselves as from this soil. Unless, of course, one chooses to see them (and their descendants) as unwelcome immigrants who didn’t belong anywhere in Africa. (Perhaps this is the real issue…)

The much-admired Founding Fathers of the United States George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were all slave owners who had cruelly robbed the Native Americans of their land.
When Kruger was president of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, Teddy Roosevelt was president of the US. While he was president, he famously declared: “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians [referring to Native Americans] are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”

Kruger’s Australian counterpart was Edmund Burton, the man responsible for the White Australia Policy who had once declared: “The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman.”
Mahatma Gandhi, who was in South Africa during Kruger’s presidency, commonly called black South Africans the k-word.
These people were all, according to today’s sensibilities, nasty racists.
As an Afrikaner I don’t glorify Paul Kruger. I recognise that what he and his contemporaries did to local communities caused great harm, some which is still felt today.

At the same time I accept that he was a crucial figure in my ethnic group’s past and a man of his time and circumstance. Leave him be, please.

We really should be more nuanced when we deal with our past.

Max Du Preez 'sanitises history'

2016-01-27 09:12
Moloto Mothapo, ANC Parliamentary Spokesperson
I respect columnist and veteran journalists Max Du Preez. He possesses an encyclopaedic knowledge of South Africa’s political history and he is not shy to regularly proffer historical lessons to the rest of nation through his columns. The only problem, however, is that he seems to have this irrepressible propensity to sanitise history when it doesn’t suit his preconceptions. This is the problem particularly with old hands at news commentary; they often become prisoners of their own personal prejudices, thereby veer towards dishonesty or sanitisation.
His latest column, ANC’s election strategy 'reckless', reminds one of veteran American columnist and author Eric Alterman’s lamentation regarding columnists’ inability at times to resist “self-satisfaction and plain old burnout”. Only a negligible number of pundits, observes Alterman, manage to pull off the simultaneous feats of intellect, reporting and integrity required to write an honest analytical column about the panoply of issue facing the nation. Could it be that our Du Preez is confronted with similar strain? His column seems to bear all the hallmarks of a burned out columnist Alterman warned about.
Du Preez’s contribution to the crucial ongoing debate on racism in the country is forked-tongued, replete with contradictions and thus difficult to comprehend its very purpose. What is clear though, is that Du Preez disapproves of the ANC Parliamentary Caucus’s characterisation of Paul Kruger, former colonial ruler of the Transvaal Republic, as ruthless and bloodthirsty colonial era racist ruler who presided over the mass killings, torture, harassment, and cruel destruction of the Black people.
Du Preez also does not like that we referred to Kruger as an apartheid pioneer who led the enslavement, dispossession, economic deprivation and subjugation of Black people. He particularly takes exception at our portrayal of his hero as a “killing machine that carried out brutal attacks on various African tribes and condemned Black people to death in the Anglo Boer wars, whose purpose was to preserve the racial subjugation, slavery and colonial looting of resources.”
Du Preez calls all these historical facts “just a dirty propaganda trick” and vehemently denies that Black people were used as pawns by both sides of the Anglo Boer war. He argues that “black South Africans did get caught up in it (Anglo Boer war) and suffered greatly, but they weren’t the reason for the war”. The war, he says, was not about Black people but over the discovered gold. One is not sure whether Du Preez is ignorant or simply dishonest. However, what is clear from his flagrant sanitisation of history is that he has a scant regard for the pain caused to Black people by both the Boer and British colonialists for over 350 years.
The Boers and the British, apart from dispossessing Black people of their land and raiding their livestock, fought over their mineral resources, condemning them to further economic deprivation, impoverishment and subjugation. Even worse, Black people were violently forced to participate on both sides of the war which, far from benefiting them, further aggravated their conditions and treatment as subhuman and outsiders in the land of their birth. The late Eskia Mphahlele wrote of his grandmother’s stories of the Anglo Boer war, in which Black people were buried alive and women’s breasts cut while alive if the Boers suspected them of spying for the British. Because Du Preez has never stumbled across this historical detail or deliberately chose to ignore it, he dismisses it as pure “nonsense”. Such ice cold indifference for the great suffering of Black people is just revolting.
Du Preez accuses me personally of engaging in a Goebbels-like propaganda to “classify Kruger as a Eugene TerreBlanche type figure”. TerreBlanche was a killer and an unrepentant racist to the end, but he would be a small-time township tsotsi compared to Kruger. This might hurt Du Preez’s feelings once again, but Kruger (I repeat) was a heartless monster and a mass killing machine that carried out brutal attacks against various African tribes who dared resist the looting of their livestock, theft of their land and capturing of women and children for slavery.
Amongst numerous deadly raids Kruger participated in was the cruel extermination of over 2000 Africans belonging to the chieftaincy of Chief Makapan in 1854. The Boer Commando drove the villagers into a cave and guarded the mouth of the cave so that anyone who tried to escape was shot. The Africans were forced to hide in the cave for months until they finally died a slow and excruciating death due to starvation and dehydration. Those who tried to escape were shot. Kruger would later proudly write in his autobiography, The Memoirs of Paul Kruger: “It was absolutely necessary to shoot these cannibals, especially as none of the culprits were delivered up and the chief (Makapan) had disappeared”. Only a coldblooded thug can do such to a fellow human being.
But this is not surprising as Kruger didn’t regard Black people as  humans, but as uncivilised "savages who must be kept within bounds"’. In terms of his supremacist philosophy “South Africa has room for only one form of civilization, and that is the white man’s civilisation; and, where there was (sic) only a handful of white men to keep hundreds of thousands of Black natives in order, severity was essential.” The black man, he said, had to be taught that he came second, that he belonged to an inferior class which must obey and learn.
Du Preez dismisses all these irrefutable historical facts, some of which are gleaned from Kruger’s own Memoirs, yet nowhere in his column does he provide his own account of history to counter ours. Like a typical latter-day colonial and apartheid apologists, he instead engrosses himself in an orgy of inconsistency and illogicality, repeatedly stating “I don’t glorify Kruger, (but)…”; “what he and his contemporaries did to local communities caused great harm, (but)…”
At the end, one cannot help but sense from the column the effects “self-satisfaction and plain old burnout” that Alterman warned about.
The likes of Du Preez and DA’s Anchen Dryer would wish that we fall for their sanitised history and ignore their hero’s atrocities and destruction of Black lives.  We are not gullible. Those who shamelessly justify, defend or sanitise such monstrous colonial and apartheid rulers essentially promote and celebrate acts of criminality they committed against Black people.
Du Preez would be well-advised, both as a columnist and a citizen of our democratic land, to free himself from the prison of his narrow racial prejudices.

'I did not justify anything Kruger did' - Max du Preez

2016-01-27 13:34
Max du Preez
“We South Africans have hugely underestimated the real impact and legacy of colonialism and apartheid. …Think of the enormous dispossession of land and its ramifications, culminating in the 1913 Natives Land Act. Think of the devastating consequences to families and communities of the migrant labour system. Think of the trauma of forced removals; the humiliation of pass laws; the psychological damage inflicted by treating generations of black South Africans as humans of lesser worth and capability; Bantu education; the ‘Whites Only’ signs in public amenities; police brutality; the torture and killing of anti-apartheid activists; and the ceiling put on black development by job reservation.”
Are these the words of an “apologist of colonialism and apartheid”, of someone who “shamelessly justify and defend monstrous colonial and apartheid rulers”?
It is an extract from the chapter “Multiply wounded, multiply traumatised” in my book, A Rumour of Spring, the winner of the 2014 Alan Paton Award.
In his response to my News24 column of Tuesday, ANC spindoctor Moloto Mothapo confirms every suspicion I raised about the ANC’s reckless abuse of race and racism as an election strategy and about his role as a crude propagandist.
Mothapo believes readers are too lazy to check what I actually wrote and bargains that any argument, however false, that accuses someone of being a “colonial and apartheid apologist”, as he calls me, would immediately be accepted as real just because the accused had a white skin.
My column tried to put Paul Kruger in an historic context – he was part of the turbulent, often violent process of state and nation forming of the 19th century, just like Moshoeshoe, Sekwati, Shaka, Sobhuza, Mzilikazi and Mantatisi.
Kruger was the tribal leader of the Boers of the Transvaal (he died 116 years ago). We cannot simply judge his actions and words according to today’s mores – if we did, we would also have to do that with revered leaders such as the violent militarists Shaka and Mzilikazi – or, as I wrote, with any other world leader during the early 1900s, including Mahatma Gandhi and the American Founding Fathers, all of them proper racists by today’s standards.
I was very specific in my column: “As an Afrikaner I don’t glorify Paul Kruger. I recognise that what he and his contemporaries did to local communities caused great harm, some of which is still felt today.” And no, I didn’t add a “but” to this as Mothapo says. This was the sentence that followed: “At the same time I accept that he was a crucial figure in my ethnic group’s past and a man of his time and circumstance.”
This was my plea in my column: “We really should be more nuanced when we deal with our past.”  I tried to do this in the four popular history books that I have published. Much of my material focus on the evils of colonialism and apartheid.
Mothapo clearly can’t even comprehend the concept “nuance”; it interferes with his project to demonise those who dare question the ANC’s racial strategies.
A primary tool for the propagandist is to use a pinch of truth and a truckload of falsehood. I did not justify anything Kruger did or stood for. I did repeat Mothapo’s extreme, adjective-ridden language to demonstrate his propagandistic style, but only questioned his statement that the “purpose” of the Anglo Boer War “was to preserve the racial subjugation, slavery and colonial looting”. I pointed out that the war, as its name depicts, was primarily between the British and the Boers and added: “Yes, black South Africans did get caught up in it and suffered greatly, but they weren’t the reason for the war.” (My two grandfathers fought in that war and my grandmother survived a British concentration camp – her mother and sisters didn’t.)
I did question his statement as fact that Kruger “cut women’s breasts while they were still alive”. This allegation was made by one old woman many years after the war in a conversation with her grandson, has never been supported by any other source and is regarded by researchers as apocryphal.
Nowhere did I “vehemently deny that black people were used as pawns” in the war; I never “particularly took exception at our portrayal of his hero as a killing machine”. Mothapo just makes this up to heap up the “evidence” that I am one of those who “shamelessly justify, defend or sanitise such monstrous colonial and apartheid rulers”.
Ironically, on the same day that Mothapo was writing his reponse to my column, I was involved in a vicious war of words on Afrikaans radio and Twitter with AfriForum because of its anti-ANC propaganda film Tainted Heroes. I protested that they sanitized history by ignoring the ample evidence that the apartheid state had a strong hand in the conflict between Inkatha and the ANC/UDF between the late 1980s and the early 1990s; evidence such as the Goldstone Commission’s Report, the KwaMakutha and Trust Feed court cases, the TRC testimony that the SADF trained Inkatha militia in Caprivi, the confessions by Eugene de Kock that the Vlakplaas unit had delivered truckloads full of weapons to Inkatha, etc.
I earlier sent Mothapo a link to the strategies of the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Now I realise that Mothapo had that covered already. If you think this is harsh, please read my original column.

Monday, January 11, 2016


In mei breekt hier de revolutie uit

Een volksopstand kent vaste ingrediënten. Die van de Arabische Lente zijn ook in Europa aanwezig, waarschuwt Arnold Karskens.
Herinnert u zich de Arabische Lente? Een volksopstand tegen regeringen van het Midden-Oosten en Noord-Afrika die in 2010 begon en werd veroorzaakt door werkloosheid, oneerlijke machtsverdeling en een bevolkingsexplosie? Welnu, gelijksoortige ingrediënten vormen ook een serieus geweldsprobleem binnen de Europese Unie anno 2016. Ik voorspel daarom voor mei van dit jaar het begin van een Europese Lente. Een succesvolle revolutie voldoet aan vijf factoren.

1. Een hechte club neemt de leiding

De eerste factor is een centrale commandostructuur, een hechte club die de leiding neemt. Nationalistische partijen over heel Europa, van het Franse Front National en Geert Wilders’ PVV tot Hongaarse en Poolse partijen met daarnaast tal van buitenparlementaire extreemrechtse groepen, werpen zich op als hoeders van de westerse waarden. Zij kunnen, onder andere door sociale media als Twitter en Facebook, sturing geven aan de onvrede die leeft onder de ruim 500 miljoen EU-burgers. Velen staan huiverig tegenover de komst van de door de Europese Commissie afgelopen najaar voorspelde drie miljoen asielzoekers tot eind 2016 en de demografische gevolgen, namelijk oprukkende islamisering en daarmee gepaard gaand herlevend conservatisme. Steeds openlijker storen Europeanen zich aan het lastigvallen door allochtonen van vrouwen, zoals tijdens de nieuwjaarsnacht in de Duitse stad Keulen, het beledigen en bedreigen van homo’s of andersgelovigen als christenen en joden, en moeten leven met angst voor een gecoördineerde terreuraanslag als op 13 november in Parijs met 130 doden.

2. Economische onvrede

Ook economische onvrede vormt een belangrijke drijfveer voor een opstand. De jeugdwerkloosheid bedraagt in EU-landen als Griekenland en Spanje bijna 50 procent. Laaggeschoolden voelen de concurrentie op de arbeidsmarkt door migranten. Wie in aanmerking wil komen voor sociale huisvestiging ziet zijn kansen voorlopig verkeken. Werkloosheidsuitkeringen en pensioenen staan door Europese regelgeving onder druk terwijl de kosten voor de asielopvang schrikbarend groeien. In Nederland verdubbelt sinds 2013 nagenoeg ieder jaar het aantal asielaanvragen, in 2015 tot zo’n 60.000 personen. Volgens cijfers van het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek is het merendeel van de Somaliërs (68,9%) en Syriërs (62,2%) afhankelijk van een uitkering.

3. Gebrek aan leiderschap

De derde factor is een wijdverspreid gevoel van onzekerheid door gebrek aan daadkrachtig politiek bestuur. Vicevoorzitter van de Europese Unie Frans Timmermans waarschuwde afgelopen november in Amsterdam zelfs voor het voortbestaan van de 28 landen tellende Europese Unie als de vluchtelingencrisis en eurocrisis elkaar in een „perfecte storm”, versterken, zo groot is de twijfel bij de EU-top over de uitvoerbaarheid van het eigen beleid.
EU-maatregelen voor het aanpakken van het kernprobleem, de asielstroom, blijken een wassen neus. Het Europees Agentschap voor het beheer van de buitengrenzen, Frontex, heeft de laatste jaren geen enkele boot met opvarenden teruggestuurd naar Turkije of Libië, ook al is het vertrekpunt veilig. De zogenaamde grensbewakers maken het migranten juist makkelijker, door hulp bij registratie.

4. Een incident

Ieder conflict begint met een incident. Bij de Arabische lente was dat de zelfmoord door verbranding van de Tunesische marktkoopman Mohammed Bouazizi op 17 december 2010. De latente onvrede over corrupt bestuur en miskenning sloeg vervolgens als een steekvlam over naar zo’n tien andere landen in Noord-Afrika en het Midden-Oosten.

5. Gunstige weersomstandigheden

De Europese geschiedenis leert dat opstanden vooral beginnen wanneer de weersomstandigheden dat toelaten. Zelf schat ik mei 2016. Bovendien stijgt in het voorjaar de stroom migranten vanuit Turkije en Noord-Afrika opnieuw tot grote hoogte, de wind gaat liggen en het zeewater warmt op, wat een succesvolle boottocht verzekert. Reken tegen die tijd op ruim tienduizend personen per dag, tegen ongeveer vierduizend nu, die in Griekenland en Italië aan land komen. Die zullen ergens heen moeten. Uit angst voor een stuwmeer aan migranten controleert Zweden en Denemarken de grenzen. Terwijl Duitsland eigenlijk jaarlijks niet meer dan 200.000 vluchtelingen ordentelijk kan opvangen, volgens Horst Seehofer, minister-president van de Duitse deelstaat Beieren. Hongarije heeft al een fysieke barricade opgeworpen in de vorm van een hek. De kans is daarom reëel dat de eerste grote conflicten tussen plaatselijke autochtonen en opeengestapelde nieuwkomers uitbreken op de Balkan en in Griekenland. De Duitse bondskanselier Angela Merkel waarschuwde vorig jaar november in Darmstadt al voor „militaire conflicten” in die regio.
De strijd in het Midden-Oosten en Noord-Afrika richtte zich in eerste instantie tegen de dictatoriale machthebbers en ontspoorde vervolgens in gevechten tussen sjiieten en soennieten en radicale strijdgroepen onderling. Door gebrek aan sterk leiderschap zal de kladderadatsch in Europa vooral een confrontatie zijn tussen voorstanders en tegenstanders van een ruimhartig asielbeleid, tussen islamieten en christenen, joden, seculieren en tussen zwart en wit. Leger en politie staan in het midden.

Onderschat de massaliteit van een mogelijke strijd niet. Verhalen over grootschalige verkrachtingen of een terroristische aanslag kunnen de stoppen ieder moment laten doorslaan. Naast reguliere asielzoekers, die kans maken op een verblijfsstatus, zoals Syriërs, groeit ondertussen de stoet van honderdduizenden uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers. Frustratie – wegens de afwijzing – en een gerucht over een koranverbranding vormen ook aan die kant een explosief mengsel.
De belangrijkste overeenkomst tussen de Arabische Lente en de Europese Lente – ongeacht uiteindelijk resultaat – blijft de les dat iedere rebellie ontstaat door gebrek aan kordaat, eerlijk leiderschap en het veronachtzamen van de eigen bevolking.
– Arnold Karskens


My liewe Thea

Jy behoort beter as die meeste ander mense en minstens so goed as Pierre te weet dat ek 'n antwoord is wat wag vir 'n vraag om gestel te word - in 'n mindere of meerdere mate natuurlik danksy TEPHOTGQ en wyle jou pa, wat my altyd aan James Dean laat dink het, soos, trouens, jou broer Sidney ook - en dan lok jy my só uit:

"Petrus , ek hoop die woelinge in België en res van Europa met ISSIS en hul dinge affekteer julle nie so erg nie.!"

Met die aanvang van die voortdurende migrasieseisoen het 'n Vlaamse boernaler (blogger) die volgende gepubliseer:

Ek was op die punt om daarop te reageer toe ek eers die reeds verskene kommentaar daarop lees, waaronder die volgende een, wat my laat besluit het om myne nié te lewer nie:

"E. Janssens 
Nogal een naïef stukje Sanctorum: Europa worstelt, ten gevolge van de koloniale uitwassen en WOII, blijkbaar nog steeds met een kolossaal schuldgevoel en blijft daardoor de politieke fouten op elkaar stapelen. Bovendien is de Europese cultuur nog steeds doordrenkt van een christelijk medelijden dat een dodelijke Verhofstadt-arrogantie verhult. Dit maakt dat rationele politieke keuzes onmogelijk zijn geworden, dat men iedere dag honderden, zo niet duizenden bootvluchtelingen opvangt waarna dezen in de Europese, kapitalistische jungle onderduiken. Of er terroristen bij zijn zal Klaas wel weten, maar het is zo goed als zeker, want IS heeft ze ons beloofd, en wat IS belooft te zullen doen doet ze, gegarandeerd. Dus kunnen we ons aan nachtelijke onthoofdingen op het San Marcoplein te Venetië of in de Sint Pietersbasiliek verwachten. Niets staat de Islamitische Sadisten in de weg, vooral niet de EU-politici die ervoor gezorgd hebben dat de Khadaffidam tegen Afrikaanse export van terroristen en gelukszoekers gesloopt werd. Sanctorum zal niet akkoord gaan, maar ik denk dat Europa zich slechts op één manier tegen de absolute barbarij kan verdedigen, en dat is niet door zich te distantiëren van de eigen slechtheid en een suïcidaal collectief van gutmenschen te blijven. Zo Europa gedurende enkele maanden de bootvluchtelingen systematisch terugstuurt naar waar ze vandaan komen houdt de aanvoer wel op. Een omelet bak je niet zonder eieren te breken, de rechtstaat verdedig je niet door ze aan sadisten over te laten. Ik hoop dat men dat in Brussel en Rome beseft."

In my kommentaar sou ek gesê het dat die oplossing gewoon is om seemyne op die internasionale grens in die Middellandse See te plaas en met behulp van  "interkonnektiviteit" deur middel van "informasietegnologie" en die sosiale media, sou ek bereid wees om 'n weddenskap aan te gaan dat dié boodskap só vinnig onder die potensiële seevaarders sou versprei, dat dit nie nodig sou wees om meer as drie skepe te kelder nie en die uitstappies sou tot 'n einde gekom het. Nóú, waarskynlik 5 000 drenkelinge en soveel maande later, begin die Europese skip kreun onder die rotte en nóg is het einde niet.
(Toe ek dié potensiële kommentaar éérs by enkele Vlaminge getoets het, was die verontwaardiging só groot dat selfs ék my daarvan weerhou het om dit te plaas.)

Indien Frau Merkel enigsins dieselfde ervaring met haar ouers gehad het as Peter Hitchens wanneer hy skryf: 

"Yet all the adults in my life still dwelt in the shadow of recent war. This was not the glamorous, exciting side of war, but the miserable, fearful and hungry aspect.

My mother, even in middle-class suburban prosperity, couldn’t throw away an eggshell without running her finger round it to get out the last of the white. No butcher dared twice to try to cheat her on the weights.

Haunted all her life by rationing, she would habitually break a chocolate bar into its smallest pieces. She had also been bombed from the air in Liverpool, and had developed a fatalism to cope with the nightly danger of being blown to pieces, shocking to me then and since."[]

...óf dít wat híér gedokumenteer is:


...dan sou ek sonder twyfel die bona fides van haar menslikheid aanvaar het, maar inmiddels het ek ook, soos my goeie kameraad, agtergekom "...dat "homo socialis media" (sosiale mediamens) 'n ekshibisionistiese, sieklike sentimentalis en smartvraat geword het..." - die konteks kan hier bekyk word:

Intussen het die deuntjie van die heelboonste boernaler al beduidend verander:

Wat die arme Europese drommelaars gelukkig nou met Keulen begin besef - hopelik nie terminaal te láát soos hulle Afrikaanse afstammelinge nie - is wat Andries Treurnicht dertig jaar gelede by herhaling verklaar het:

"Sagte hande maak stinkende wonde..."

Thursday, January 7, 2016


Jewish Religions and The Prospect of Dissent

By Gilad Atzmon
"The Jewish religion is a religion of Mitzvoth (commandments) and without this religious idiom, the Jewish religion doesn’t exist at all."   Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz

While Islam and Christianity can be easily understood as belief systems, Judaism actually defies the notion of belief all together. Judaism is an obedience regulative system. The Judaic universe is ruled by ‘mitzvoth’ (commandment), a set of 613 precepts and directives ordered by God. In opposition to Christianity and Islam that build from spiritual and heavenly precepts in worship to a transcendental God, the Judaic subject subscribes to strict earthly and material observance. While the Islamo-Christian is wrapped in God’s loving and the spirituality of the sublime and divinity, the follower of Judaism is judged by his or her ability to adhere to hundreds of rigorous earthly orders.

A brief look at the Judaic Sabbath common prayer reveals the nature of Judaism as an obedience regulatory system. As we can see below, in Judaism, even God-loving is not an involuntary act:

“You shall love Adonai your God with all your heart,
with all your soul, and with all your might.
Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day.

…Thus you shall remember to observe all My commandments
and to be holy to your God.

I am Adonai, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God:
I am Adonai your God.”

(Common Prayers for Shabbat Evening From Deuteronomy and Numbers)

For the Jew, belief and God-loving are not subject to either rational discretion or spiritual impulse. God loving, as we read above, is a strict “charge”, an order. But if Judaism is not a belief system, what kind of system is it?  Does the Judaic subject believe in anything at all?
The answer is yes: the Jew believes in ‘The Jews’ and the Jews believe in ‘The Jew.’ This mode of mutual affirmation establishes a solid and forceful tribal continuum that serves the collective as well as the singular subject.  Accordingly, the subject adheres to the collective and vice versa. In pragmatic terms, the Jew sticks to the ‘chosen people’ and, together the ‘chosenites’ uphold a collective sense of choseness.

In Judaism, ‘choseness’ is the belief that the Jewish people were singularly chosen to enter into a covenant with God.  For religious Jews, being chosen is realised as a duty. According to Judaic belief, the Jews have been placed on earth to fulfill a certain purpose. This purpose is bestowed upon the Jews and they pass it from father to son.[1]

In reality, the first Jews invented a God who chose them over all other people. For some reason this God is occasionally cruel, often non-ethical and as if this were not enough, not exactly a nice father. The Jewish God doesn’t even allow his people to call him by name. One may wonder what led the first Jews to invent such a horrid father figure. One may further question what led the Jews to sustain their ‘relationship’ with such an obnoxious father. The answer is surprisingly simple. They don’t.

The Jews don’t believe in God, they are observant of God. They believe in themselves- the Jews believe in ‘The Jew’ and vice versa. Within this peculiar troubled family affair, the Jew is free to dump God, as an author can freely re-write or at least re-shape his or her own narrative.  But the Jew can never dump the Jews as much as the Jews can’t allow ‘The Jew’ to go free. And what about God, can he be emancipated, can he choose another people? Certainly not. Unlike the Jew who is free to dump God while clinging to a Jewish identity, the Jewish God is merely a Jewish protagonist, he can’t go anywhere, he is stuck with ‘his’ chosen people forever.   

Choseness, so it seems, is hardly a heavenly gift, it is in fact a curse. It confines the Jew in a realm of self-imposed commandment and materiality. Instead of beauty, holiness and the pursuit of the divine and the sublime, the rabbinical Jew is left with an earthly obedience scheme that is sustained by a rigid tribal setting. ‘The Jew’ and ‘The Jews’ are bound in a set of mutual affirmations in which God serves an instrumental role.

Some may rightly argue that this spectacular bond between the Jews and ‘The Jew’ is essential for an understanding of the dichotomy between Judaic tribalism and the universal appeal of Islamo-Christian beliefs.

The Judaic crude intolerance towards dissent serves as an example of the above. Throughout their history, Jews have proven themselves hostile toward their nonconformists; now we are ready to grasp why.  For the Islamo-Christian, secularization, for instance, entails a rejection of a transcendental affair. But for the rabbinical Judaic subject, failure to conform constitutes a rejection of the Jews. It interferes crudely with the fragile relationship between ‘The Jew’ and the Jews. It shatters the self-affirmation mechanism. While in the case of Christianity and Islam dumping God suggests turning one’s back on a remote supernatural entity, in the case of Judaism, such an act is interpreted as a disbelief in the tribe.

This interpretation may help illuminate Jesus’ plight. It may explain the reasoning behind the brutal Rabbinical Herem (excommunication) against Spinoza and Uriel Da Costa. And it also explains why the secular and the so-called ‘progressive’ Jew is equally obnoxious towards dissent or any form of criticism from within. If Judaism is not a belief system but rather a system of obedience regulation, then Jewish identity politics is merely an extension of the above regulatory philosophy.

Jews often drop their God, simply to invent a different God who ‘facilitates’   subscription to a new regulatory system. The new system, like the old outlines a new set of strict commandments, a manner of speech and rigorous boundaries of ‘kosher’ conduct.

In the beginning of the 20th century, for instance, Bolshevism appealed to many Eastern European Jews. It provided a sense of self-righteousness in addition to regulating a strict form of obedience. As we know, it didn’t take long for Bolshevism to mature into a genocidal doctrine that made Old Testament barbarism look like a juvenile fairytale. The Holocaust, that seems to be the most popular Jewish religion at present, may be the ultimate and final stage in Jewish historical development. According to the Holocaust religion, ‘God died in Auschwitz.’  Within the context of the Holocaust religion, ‘The Jew’ is the new Jewish God. The Holocaust religion has finally united ‘The Jew’ and the Jews into a self-sufficient comprehensive and independent ‘God-less’ religious narrative. Both were about to be eradicated. But, not only were they both saved: they have prevailed and each did so independently. In the Holocaust religion, Jews are both victims and oppressors - they have transformed slavery into empowerment and they did it all alone, in spite of being dumped by their treacherous God.   The Holocaust religion, like Judaism, prescribes a manner of speech and a strict set of commandments. Most crucially, like more traditional Judaism, it is totally and disgracefully intolerant toward dissent.

Due to the lack of a divine transcendental entity, Jewish religions have always regarded criticism as rejection of the tribe. Jewish religions, whether Judaism, Bolshevism or Holocaust, are equally intolerant towards criticism and dissent. Jewish religions treat opposition as a vile attempt at ‘delegitimization’ on the verge of genocidal inclination.

Jewish religions can be defined as different templates that facilitate a sense of choseness. They affirm a bond between an imaginary marginal ‘collective’ and a phantasmal ‘archetype’: the Bolshevists and ‘The Bolshevik’, the Survivours and ‘The Survivour’, the Jews and ‘The Jew,’ and so on.  The bond between the collective and the idea of an archetypical singularity is always maintained by a set of rigid commandments, a correct manner of speech, some strict regulatory guidelines for behavior and vile opposition to dissent.

Tragically enough, intolerance of dissent has become a universal Western political symptom. Incidentally, Christianity, Islam, religion and divinity in general are also under attack within the context of contemporary Western discourse. Is this a symptom of the Jerusalemification of our Western universe? Is the emergence of the tyranny of political correctness a coincidence? And if we are becoming Jews, is there any room for the hope that our universe may, at some stage, embrace a universal ethos once again? Can we once again believe in something?   Or do we have to wait for a new Jesus figure to resurrect our trust in the human spirit and humanity in general?  Or have we been re-designed to self-destruct as soon as we come close to such a lucid awareness? 

[1] As God himself suggests in the Book of Genesis: "And I (God) will establish My covenant between Me and you (the Jews) and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you."  (Book of Genesis, Chapter 17).


Lucky are those who believe — yet are not misled — for they keep hope alive

Those of us Don Quixotes who have convinced ourselves that we quest after some sort of objective truth often talk among ourselves about what percentage of the world's population it would take to wrench control of society out of the hands of the pathological outlaws who control it now and reset the course of the human history toward a healthier and more practical destination.
I know this kind of talk often popped up late at night among 9/11 skeptics as we discussed the ever-growing body of evidence that the tragedy was an inside job, conceived and executed with the full knowledge of the highest authorities in our own government.
As we compared notes we would inevitably speculate on what percentage of the population it would take to convince enough people to arrest our leaders, who are really members of a criminal elite aiming to turn the world into a prison camp run by themselves and their Jewish banker handlers who basically control — with their bribes and their missiles — the entire political operation of the whole world.
In these discussions the actual number for criticality would always vary. One person would say, "If we had just had 10 percent of the population on our side, we could impeach the judges, arrest the president and the Congress, and get to the bottom of the real story of 9/11, which was surely done by the Mossad, the CIA, and the superrich Jewish bankers who have controlled the White House throughout the 20th century." 
Sometimes the number would be 20 percent, sometimes it would be 2.
But whatever number we agreed upon, it always seemed to be not enough to overcome the media mindlock that had convinced the public that it was Arab terrorists "who hated our freedoms" who knocked down the Twin Towers as a kind of "blowback" to repay the U.S. for its depredations in service to Israel.
Of course we of that certain percentage know now that "blowback" and hijackers were not involved, and neither were Iraq or Afghanistan. That percentage of us — maybe it's as high as 12 or as low as 5 — knows for sure that every member of Congress today knows that 9/11 was an inside job engineered by Israel, their puppetized politicians in Washington, and the richest Jewish bankers in the world.
So the question that always concluded these conversations always seemed to be, whatever the magic number actually is, we have yet to achieve it, or the real perps would already be in jail, or better yet, lying in their graves after being convicted of treason, mass murder and obstruction of justice, and then executed.
Still, there was and is a magic number — a certain number of high-integrity people — who will never be persuaded by this cynical media blitz that created the empty-headed hysteria that precipitated the needless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and a bunch of other brown-skinned countries, and I'm thinking that's the number we may safely call the 2 percent.
And no, it's not enough to change the course of human history, but it is enough to keep a sufficient number of conscientious humans who still believe in things like honor, justice and honesty to keep fighting to unbury the truth about 9/11, the phony wars and even the secret sexual depravity that lurks behind the behavior of those who the media tell us are the most important people in the world.
Those of us in the 2 percent know what kind of danger we're in. And it's not only the rigged legal system that will take us down in a heartbeat if we achieve too much success in convincing the public of the crimes our government is committing, there is also something more dangerous, something that can best be described as what happens to you professionally if you say something negative (and true) about the Jewish control of America.
Or even worse, if you're a doctor genuinely trying to help the health of your patients and you discover something that will significantly cut into the profits of the Jewish pharmaceutical giants, well, then you're more than likely to lose your life, as was demonstrated recently by the rash of murders of holistic doctors who were curing people of cancer that the Jewish pharmaceutical industry simply could not abide.
We in the 2 percent know all too well that the history of the planet and our species clearly shows that the greatest heroes and the greatest leaders have also been the greatest killers.
We also know that in a population where 98 percent of the people are controlled by cynical media lies and are willing to kill those who point out the faults in their perceptions, we are in grave danger trying to insist upon the truth when most of the rest of the world is perfectly happy to accept the lies they are being told.
And no matter how hard we try to tell them that they are in grave danger, the valid warnings simply cannot override the programming they have received from mass media, and especially from the worst mass media in the world, which is the education they receive in government funded public schools, who are still saying Arab terrorists knocked down the Twin Towers and Obama bin Laden was killed by Seal Team 6 (ten years after he actually died!).
There is one main reason the vast majority of the population is so easily swayed by disingenuous media reports, and it's very difficult to talk about because it cuts right to the core of what people believe. And of what people are very afraid to lose — the very things they have believed that have shaped their lives.
Indeed, the vast majority of Americans have refused to accept the notion that their own government was willing to murder 3,000 of its own citizens merely to allow the government to make war on the Arab world as a form of vengeance for these contrived atrocities falsely blamed on fictitious patsies. This is Jewish perfidy of the highest order, getting the United States to do its killing for these cowardly Jews who slaughter Palestinians like so many pestiferous cockroaches.
All people are entrained to accept authoritarian pronouncements of their belief systems. From the Sermon on the Mount to the declarations of Muhammad, people are prepared to kill those who question their most cherished beliefs.
The worst habit they have developed is to accept the pronouncements of authority figures without exercising any critical thinking about what they are being told. For instance, how can one disgusting group of people declare that they are the only real humans on Earth who must rob and kill everybody else without any penalty?
This is why this essay is titled "The 2 percent" rather than "The 15 percent" or "The 25 percent". The cohort of people who believe in the absolute miracle of life yet are not trapped in the fascist behaviorism of a religious belief system is vanishingly small.
Think about it. Do you owe your allegiance to a Jew-controlled Pope who tells you that you no longer have to believe in Jesus but you must accept homosexuality as psychologically healthy human behavior? Are you totally committed to your National Council of Churches spokespeople who check their nonprofit tax status before making politically correct statements about anything?
Or are you one of those Zionized evangelicals who believes in the supernatural sanctity of the divine state of Israel? Even worse, perhaps you are one of those Christian Identity zealots who want to be the new Jews and insist their wrathful god Yahweh is a great humanitarian as he orders the destruction of foreign cities and the rape of captured women?
And shit, I won't even mention the Muslims who kill people if you defame their imaginary God and rape women if they dress normally, or the Buddhists who insist you have an infinite number of chances to get things right, so don't worry about doing wrong in this life.
All of these so-called divine disciplines render their adherents helpless in the face of authoritarianism, so when each one of these dupes preaches for peace, they really are advocating for their own brand of exclusive supremacism, and their own figmented version of eternal life.
And when their governments command them to murder the infidel, they don't hesitate, they just start shooting without really caring who they kill.
It predisposes each one of these delusional people into not challenging psychopathological authoritarianism, into accepting the inevitability of unfathomable evil, and putting up with the never-ending reign of criminals who never tell the truth about why they are always lying and why they must kill so many innocent people to maintain their evil hold on planetary society.
But with all that said about organized religion, it's a fool's error to not believe that life is a miracle that has yet to be explained in rational, empirical terms.
Excluding all the supernatural myths that have been propagated since the dawn of time, the closest anyone has come to pinning down how life perpetuates itself involves the study of DNA, which has maintained life since long before humans uttered their first words. Everything else is just a malicious fairy tale stolen from cultures that have preceded ours that everybody has forgotten about.
That we know so little about the subject tells us how little we actually know about the world. The pride we have in our knowledge base is best reflected by the number of species we kill every hour.
But some of us realize that just because we don't know everything, we don't have to accept lamebrained versions of what bogus pitchmen think life and history should be.
All those religions that promise eternal life in some imaginary off planet heaven are simply political manipulations constructed to control people, and on the same order as Americans boasting about the so-called freedoms they have because they follow a magical Constitution or Communists insisting that having workers control the world is a system worth dying for.
It has always appalled me that humans could be so supercilious as to promise their eternal soul to some organization that bribes them to accept a phony truth — no thing in nature, except DNA, lives forever. To believe you can live forever by believing in a mythological story someone has told you is to believe in a lie by someone who can't accept his own death.
Whether it's the bravado of futurist Ray Kurzweil or the psychological trickery of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the belief in eternal life is a nasty joke played by those who want to dominate others.
The best thing you can hope for in your final moments is to be able to say I did my best at being honest and compassionate, I loved and was loved, and I have left the world a better place for my actions. In this state of sublime comfort, you may rest on the hope that nothing that follows your life will be anything worse than the true garden of earthly delights that it was your privilege to experience in this life.
What you receive after your final breath will be exactly equal to the effort you made for peace on Earth, and for this reward, you may only offer your eternal thanks, and be overjoyed in expressing it.
This is what characterizes the 2 percent, so you can see why there are so few of us, undeterred by the bribes and enticements that cause so much misery for so many. We will know no peace until we realize there is only one life that we all share, and to kill any part of it is to kill a part of ourselves.
One day soon, if we keep doing what we are doing now, there will be nothing left to kill. This is the primary item on the minds of the 2 percent.
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.