Leon Lemmer: Samuel Francis oor ‘n tuisland vir blankes

Deel op

My vorige rubriek (Praag 18 September) handel oor Samuel Francis (1947-2005) se boek, Essential writings on race (New Century Foundation, 2007, 119p; Amazon Kindle $5,64). Ek het egter sy omvattende derde hoofstuk oor die kwessie van ‘n tuisland vir Amerikaanse blankes agterweë gelaat. Dit is die tema van hierdie rubriek. Francis se beredenering vind in die konteks van blankes se “prospects for racial and cultural survival” plaas (Kindle 327). Sy teks is oorspronklik in Maart 1995 gepubliseer. Jared Taylor beskryf dit as “perhaps his most forceful exposition of the practical steps whites must take if the United States is to remain part of the West” (334).

Mayer Schiller se mening is: “As our population becomes increasingly non-white … European civilization can be preserved on this continent only if whites withdraw into an enclave. He conceded that territorial division was not likely in the near term but argued that no other solution could guarantee the survival of a distinctly Western society and culture” (327). Richard McCulloch het Schiller se standpunt ondersteun. Hierdie rubriek word gewy aan Samuel Francis se antwoord op Schiller en McCulloch se menings. Hou asseblief deurgaans moontlike implikasies vir ‘n tuisland vir Suid-Afrikaanse blankes of Afrikaners in gedagte.

Francis begin deur te skryf: “I do not question the arguments for the desirability of separation … I am willing to grant at least a pragmatic right of every self-conscious people to govern itself and to create and live within its own institutions” (341). Wat ‘n mens begeer is egter nie altyd haalbaar nie. “Racial separation means the relocation of the different races (let us limit the discussion here to the two main races in America, whites and blacks) either to areas of the country that would become politically independent and self-governing or to other countries” (348). Francis wil aantoon “racial separation involves problems that today are virtually insurmountable … until those problems are solved neither separation nor any other enduring solution to the racial crisis is possible” (341).

Die een moontlikheid is dus die verdeling van die land in “‘racial zones’ – in a word, the political breakup of the United States” (348). Die ander moontlikheid is “through relocation of one race by its removal (voluntary or not) to some other territory outside the present United States. In either case, there are three problems: (a) Where is each or either race actually going to go; (b) How is separation going to be implemented; and (c) How are the separated races going to be induced to stay where they are once they get there?” (348).

“Breaking up the United States” sal nie geredelik deur blankes aanvaar word nie “since it involves surrendering large parts of their own country to non-whites. Most white Americans retain too much sense of nationality and too much allegiance to their country and their own communities to accept the proposal of giving up large parts of the United States to others” (355). “Whites should not embrace this proposal because at the present time [1995] and for a long time to come, there is no need to … Europeans are still a large majority of the American population and still retain far more wealth, political power, and even cultural dominance than non-whites. If whites wanted to do so, they could dictate a solution to the racial problem tomorrow – by curtailing immigration and sealing the border, by imposing adequate fertility controls on non-whites and encouraging a higher white birth rate, by refusing to be bullied into enduring ‘multi-culturalism,’ affirmative action, civil rights laws and policies, and by refusing to submit to cultural dissolution, inter-racial violence and insults, and the guilt that multi-racialists inculcate. Ending all of these threats to the white European character of the United States … would involve an uncompromising assertion of white will and identity” (368).

Om ‘n ander land vir die hervestiging van miljoene blanke Amerikaners te vind, is problematies. Watter land sou bereid wees om dit te doen? Verder: “However much they may deplore their accelerating dispossession, most whites might not want to jump ship from the nation they created, and live in countries where they have no roots” (381). Vir groepe kleiner as miljoene kan dit myns insiens ‘n aanvaarbare alternatief bied. “If emigration to Europe [and Argentina or Australia?] is not practical for whites, emigration to Africa or other black majority regions is not practical for American blacks either. It is highly unlikely that very many black African countries would welcome large numbers of American black émigrés and even more unlikely that very many American blacks would want to go” (388). Dink bv aan die lotgevalle van Amerikaanse swartes wat hulle sedert die 1820’s in Liberië gevestig het. “Today, with independent and sovereign (however dilapidated and repressive) nation-states in Africa, mass migration there is not possible unless the African states were simply forced to accept it” (388).

Nog ‘n probleem is:

“How the separated races would be induced to remain separate … there will … remain immense pressures for the breakdown of this separation … Whites will want cheap labour, and many non-whites will want to supply it. If the black zone in any way resembles most of the black majority nation-states or American cities … it will be unable to support itself, to control crime and social disorder, to supply elementary administrative services, or even to avoid the most brutal political repression … Just as there would be immense pull pressure from the white zone for cheap labor, so there would be immense push pressure from within the black zone for emigration to the white zone” (395).

“The separation would gradually (perhaps quickly) dissolve. The fact is that the non-white world almost invariably beats a path to the white door, and the whites behind the door almost invariably open it … This is why, at the height of apartheid in South Africa, there were some 100 000 illegal black immigrants every year. Because whites are almost always more economically successful than non-whites, non-whites almost always want to come in, and because the whites (aside from generosity and ideology) often seek cheap labor, they often let them come or even subsidize their coming. This, after all, is why there was an African slave trade” (408).

Selfs die Suidelike Amerikaanse State wou nie eksklusief wit wees nie. Die Suiderling Hinton Rowan Helper (1829-1909), wat teen slawerny gekant was, was ‘n uitsondering (428).

Volgens Francis is ras as sodanig nie afdoende motivering vir radikale gebiedskeiding nie. “Only as it [race] takes on cultural and political flesh, as race becomes tied up with community, kinship, nationality, territory, language, literature, art, religion, moral codes and manners, social class, and political aspirations. It is precisely such accretions that convert the biological abstraction [or characteristic] of ‘race’ into the concrete category of a ‘people'” (435). Dus, Afrikaners as groep het meer as bloot ras gemeen. “Whites did not descend to their present pitiable condition because their racial purity was somehow diluted but because they conceptually surrendered their will and identity – which they did well before they began to surrender their heritage politically and materially … The conceptual surrender is leading to a situation where the biological survival of the race is threatened, and if that occurs, then – because race is necessary, because no other race or people seems able to replicate or adopt the concepts on which white civilization is based – the conceptual surrender will not be remedied, and white civilization, the whole conceptual corpus, will die with the race” (442).

“Who would be counted as part of a race and why?” (2251). Wie sou in bv ‘n Afrikanerstaat toegelaat word? Die Kodesa-hensoppers? Max du Preez, Willie Esterhuyse, Wim de Villiers, Pierre de Vos, Piet Croucamp? “If there were several white racial states, would one or more ally with non-white states against the white states? … It is idle talk about racial separatism without (a) a widely shared and well-defined concept of race to which virtually all whites would rigorously adhere and (b) equally widely shared and well-defined concepts of other criteria in addition to race that would prevent replication of the same errors and flaws that caused the problems in the first place” (455).

“Despite a good deal of racial mixture in 300 years,* there is no prospect of the extinction of either the black or white races on this continent because of mixture. The threat of white extinction is due to non-white immigration and high fertility coupled with low white fertility” (469). Verder: “The advances in transportation technology tend to render geographical isolation almost impossible, and certainly they have immensely facilitated immigration into Europe and North America” (475). [* “Whites continue to marry outside their own race less than any other race, and they do so in negligible numbers. The 2000 Census reports that only 3,5 percent of whites marry non-whites” (2325).]

“The most racially conscious white states (the early American Republic, the Confederacy, South Africa) used or planned to use the labor of subjugated races, and eventually (if the regimes lasted long enough), those races overcame their masters, at least indirectly … this urge to expand and conquer seems to be biologically rooted in whites … The passivity and timidity of today’s whites are clearly temporary though suicidal aberrations, due to historical causes” (495). “My bet is that no sooner should a white separatist state establish itself than it would begin to import non-whites for labor and other forms of exploitation [usefulness], and the whole history would begin to repeat itself. Moreover, my bet is that non-whites would eagerly lend themselves to this, as they have in the past, since the standard of living and political conditions in the white areas would be so much more attractive than in the non-white areas” (501).

“To summarize, it [racial separatism] fails to identify any physical area for the relocation of either race; it fails to anticipate the likely pressures for recombination of the races; it relies almost entirely on a suppositious white racial consciousness that has no historical precedent and would be inadequate by itself, even if it existed, to sustain a real society, culture, or government; and it involves the deliberate surrender of a part of a territory, political order, and civilization that were created by whites and remain theirs. Until the advocates of separatism can provide answers for these objections, I cannot see that what they advocate is anything more than a desperate and fantastic effort to avoid grappling with the real roots of our racial and cultural decline” (508).

“If white separatism is not the answer, what is? The answer is, quite simply, the reconquest of the United States. This reconquest does not involve any restoration of white supremacy in the political and legal sense that obtained under slavery or segregation, and there is no reason why non-whites who reside in the United States could not enjoy equality of legal rights. But a white reconquest of the United States would mean the supremacy of whites in a cultural sense, or in the sense of what is nowadays called ‘Eurocentrism.’ There are essentially three things that whites must do in order to carry out this reconquest of the nation and culture they have almost lost” (514):

“(1) Whites must formulate a white racial consciousness that identifies racial and biological endowments as important and relevant to social behavior, and their own racial endowments as essential to the continuing existence of Euro-American civilization … It means merely that we recognize racial realities, that we recognize that racial-biological endowments are necessary to certain kinds of human behavior (eg the political and civic behavior appropriate to stable self-government, the work habits and lifestyles appropriate to a dynamic economy; the intellectual behavior that is necessary for science and scholarship, etc) and that because these endowments are largely unique to whites, the behavior they make possible cannot be replicated by most non-whites” (521).

“The formation of white racial consciousness does mean that whites would recognize themselves as a race and their racially based behavior as legitimate, and hence it would mean the end of tolerance for non-white assaults on white people and the norms of white civilization. Whites would simply no longer countenance non-white aggression and insults or the idolization of non-white heroes, icons, and culture; white children* would be raised in accordance with what is proper to being white, and norms openly recognized as appropriate to whites would be the legitimizing and dominant norms of American society as they were prior to the 1960s. Racial guilt and truckling would end” (534).

[* “Non-white and non-Western holidays (Ramadan, Kwanzaa, Cinco de Mayo) are now observed in schools” (2284). Aan die Universiteit Stellenbosch word die nuwe Suid-Afrika se openbare vakansiedae met ‘n “bevrydingsgeurtjie” (Menseregtedag, Vryheidsdag, Werkersdag, Jeugdag, Vrouedag, Versoeningsdag), asook Mandela-dag en Afrika-dag, met oorgawe gevier, maar nie Van Riebeeck- of Beskawingsdag (6 April) en Afrikaansdag (14 Augustus) nie. Anders as in die geval van Nelson Mandela, wat bitter min ooit met die universiteit te make gehad het, word geen poging aangewend om jaarliks erkenning aan die stigter van die universiteit, Jan Marais, te gee nie.]

“(2) On the basis of this racial consciousness, whites must counter the demographic threat they face from immigration and non-white fertility and whites’ own infertility. This means (a) an absolute halt to all future legal [non-white] immigration into the United States, deployment of the armed forces on the appropriate borders to cut off illegal immigration, and deportation of all illegal immigrants (and perhaps many recent legal immigrants); (b) the end of subsidies for the non-white birth rate through welfare programs, obligatory use of contraception by welfare recipients, and encouragement of its use among non-whites, and (c) encouragement of increases in white fertility” (540).

“(3) Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power of non-white minorities and their white anti-white allies. This political effort would involve a radical dismantling of all affirmative action and civil rights legislation as well as a good part of the federal governmental superstructure that entrenches minority power. It also would require recovering an understanding of constitutional law that permits local and state governments to govern and private institutions to function independently of government” (540).

“Equality before the law, does not mean political equality, the right to vote, or the right to hold political office, let alone social and economic equality, nor the ‘right’ to attend the same schools, to serve on juries, to marry across racial lines, to serve in the armed forces, to eat at lunch counters, to ride on buses, to buy a house or rent a room or hold a job, to receive welfare, to be admitted to colleges and universities, to take academic degrees or to be promoted” (553).

“All these are phony ‘rights’ that have been fabricated through the corruption of our constitutional law and our understanding of it, and no citizen of any race is entitled to them. Under a proper understanding of constitutional law, states and localities could differ as to whether they recognized such ‘rights’ or not, but the federal government would not, and the only legal rights that either the United States or state governments would be required to recognize and enforce equally would be those Blackstonean rights of personal security, personal liberty, and property … Those citizens of either race who found these rights insufficient for the satisfaction of their ambitions would be free to depart” (553).

“In order to achieve these goals and the reconquest of the United States they involve, there must be an immense amount of cultural and intellectual reconquest beforehand, a long march through the dominant institutions and apparatus of power by which the incumbent elites exercise control over the state, the economy, and the culture of the United States … Recent political developments encourage me to believe that such a movement remains possible and is indeed beginning … it remains a strategy that is far more likely to succeed than the strategy of surrender that racial separatism involves. What white Americans must do is get on with ensuring that it does succeed before they lose their country, their heritage, and their posterity forever” (560).

Wat vir Amerika geld, kan nie sonder meer op Suid-Afrika toepaslik gemaak word nie. Maar daar is fundamentele ooreenkomste, soos hierdie netelige kwessies: Waar die een of meer tuislande gaan wees, hoe hierdie proses suksesvol uitgevoer kan word en hoe die voortbestaan van rasgebaseerde tuislande oor die langer termyn verseker kan word. Arbeidsbeleid is in laasgenoemde geval van deurslaggewende belang. Blankes sal bereid moet wees om nie van “volksvreemde arbeid” gebruik te maak nie, maar uitsluitlik van “volkseie arbeid”, soos Carel Boshoff dit gestel het.

‘n Groot verskil tussen Amerika en Suid-Afrika is dat die Amerikaanse blankes nog tyd het om sake reg te trek voordat hulle omstreeks 2050 ‘n etniese minderheid word wat aan die genade van ‘n nie-wit meerderheid oorgelaat sal wees. Maar soos Francis aantoon is dit mede-blankes wat die pogings van blankes om Amerika kultureel terug te wen, ondermyn. In Suid-Afrika is daar baie minder blankes as in Amerika en ‘n verswelgende swart meerderheid wat reeds in 1994 politieke beheer oorgeneem het. Anders as in die geval van Noord-Amerika is die Afrika-kontinent oorweldigend swart. Die “groter prentjie” is dat die tyd vir die afdwing van politieke Afrikanerideale dalk verby is. ‘n Eurosentristiese herowering, soos wat Francis in Amerika in die vooruitsig stel, kan kwalik in Suid-Afrika werklikheid word. Dit sou nie só gewees het as misleide blankes nie mede-blankes se regmatige regte veral sedert 1990 gesaboteer het nie.

‘n Opsig waarin Suid-Afrikaanse blankes en seker veral Afrikaners in ‘n sterker posisie as Amerikaanse blankes is, is dat hulle vaderland binne twee dekades feitlik onherkenbaar verander en verval het sodat hulle nie meer so sentimenteel soos vroeër daaroor voel nie, dat hulle eertydse lojaliteit verwater het, dat hulle liewer nie die brutale plaaslike werklikheid daagliks wil aanskou nie, dat dit ‘n salige verlossing kan wees om liewer elders ‘n heenkome te vind. In die praktyk is daardie hervestiging egter individueel of gesinsgewys en nie in die vorm van ‘n buitelandse tuisland nie.

‘n Positiewe element in Francis se redenasie is sy voorstel dat Amerikaanse blankes nie na ‘n ander land moet verkas om hulle probleme te probeer oplos nie; dat hulle eerder hulle eie vaderland moet hervorm. Dit is soortgelyk aan my redensasie dat ons nie ‘n nuwe private Afrikaanse universiteit moet skep nie maar eerder moet poog om die eens Afrikaanse universiteite terug te wen; te meer omdat Afrikaners daardie universiteite geskep en uitgebou het en blankes vanweë belasting steeds tot hulle voortbestaan bydra.

Tot dusver het ek gepraat van ‘n “tuisland”, dus ‘n plek waar blankes hulle eie ding na goeddunke kan doen, insluitende ‘n mate van plaaslike selfregering. Die eintlike ideaal is egter ‘n onafhanklike volk- of nasiestaat. Die Jode het dit teen die verwagting in in 1948 met die totstandkoming van die staat Israel reggekry. Maar die resultaat is onvolmaak, onder meer omdat meer as ‘n vyfde van die bevolking nie-Jode is, onwettige inkommers groot probleme skep en die inwoners se veiligheid deurlopend bedreig word. Alles in ag genome lyk dit asof Suid-Afrikaanse blankes of Afrikaners kwalik iets soortgelyks in Suid-Afrika of elders tot stand sal kan bring.

Berusting in die status quo is nie vir egte Afrikaners aanvaar- of leefbaar nie. Gaan ons sê: Waar daar ‘n wil is, is daar ‘n weg; oftewel: ‘n Boer maak ‘n plan? Die tragedie is dat die beste huidige alternatief blykbaar die stigting van mini- of posseël- (soos Ferdie Hartzenberg gesê het) enklaves soos Orania is. Dit is dalk die naaste wat daar deesdae aan Afrikanerselfbeskikking gekom kan word; ‘n “gereduseerde bestaan,” soos Carel Boshoff dit gestel het. Die Afrikaner het ‘n “randverskynsel”* geword. Die idee is dat Orania die eerste groeipunt vir ‘n Afrikanervolkstaat moet wees en dat dit deur ander soortgelyke groeipunte in die omgewing gevolg sal word, ‘n “pêrelstring van dorpe” (kyk: “Carel Boshoff: apart sonder apartheid,” Praag 19.12.2015). [* Wanneer die blankedom voorheen in tekste genoem is, is veral na Europa, Noord-Amerika, Suid-Afrika, Australië en Nieu-Seeland verwys. Dit is opvallend dat Suid-Afrika deesdae uit hierdie lysie gelaat word.]

As Francis gelyk gegee word dat ‘n blanke tuisland, volk- of nasiestaat in die hedendaagse wêreld ‘n verlore saak is en ons toegee dat dit ook vir ‘n Afrikanertuisland geld, besef ‘n mens die enormiteit van die onnoselheid asook die gemeenheid van die mandaadlose politieke magsoorgawe in 1990/94. ‘n Klein groepie blankes, waaronder Afrikaanssprekendes wat die leiding geneem het, het hulle mede-blankes grootliks sonder bedingingsmag gelaat. Sedertdien is daar by Afrikaners ‘n grootliks geïnternaliseerde rouproses aanwesig. Tot my laaste dag sal ek oor die verlies van die Afrikaner se politieke mag rou, des te meer omdat dit ook tot die einde van die blankedom in Suider-Afrika kan lei. Ek rou en dit is nie berustend nie maar wrokkig.

Neem deel aan die gesprek en lewer gerus hier onder kommentaar!

L.W. U gebruik die Disqus-kommentaarafdeling op eie risiko en PRAAG, die redaksie of enige verwante persone of entiteite aanvaar geen verantwoordelikheid vir u kommentaar en watter gevolge ook al daaruit mag voortspruit nie. Terselfdertyd vereis ons dat u ter wille van beskaafdheid, redelikheid en die gerief van ander gebruikers, u sal weerhou van kwetsende taalgebruik, vloekwoorde, persoonlike aanvalle op medegebruikers, twissoekery en algemene "trol"-gedrag. Enigeen wat só 'n laspos word, sal summier verbied word en sy IP-adres sal insgelyks versper word. Ons sal ook nie huiwer om, waar nodig, kriminele klagte aanhangig te maak teen individue wat hulle aan dreigemente, teistering of intimidasie skuldig maak nie.