Leon Lemmer: ‘n Karakterisering van Amerika en Suid-Afrika

Tom Kawczynski

Tom Kawczynski is ‘n Amerikaner van Pools-Russiese oorsprong wie se voorgeslagte hulle 150 jaar gelede in Amerika gevestig het. Hy was aan die begin van 2018 in Amerika landswyd in die nuus toe hy op 37-jarige ouerdom ná net ‘n jaar as dorpsbestuurder van Jackman in Maine ontslaan is. Jackman is ‘n dorpie met minder as ‘n duisend inwoners; hoofsaaklik blankes. Sy vergoeding was $49 000 per jaar en hy het ‘n skeidingspakket van $30 000 ontvang. Die rede vir sy ontslag is sy uitlewing van sy konserwatiewe oortuigings. Sy standpunt is dat hy buite werkstyd vry is om sy eie menings bekend te maak. Hy dink Islam is nie verenigbaar met Westerse beskawing nie. Vir blankes eis hy dieselfde regte op as vir ander rasse. Hy is pro-blank sonder om ander rasse te haat. Aangesien swartes toegelaat word om te kies of hulle apart of geïntegreerd wil woon of lewe en daar bv oorwegend swart universiteite bestaan, is hy ‘n voorstander van vrywillige rasseskeiding, dus dat blankes dieselfde regte as swartes moet hê.

Sedert sy ontslag het Kawczynski hom voltyds op skryfwerk toegelê; enersyds om ‘n inkomste te verdien en andersyds om sy idees verder te ontwikkel en hulle bekend te stel. Met die oog hierop is die webwerf www.nationalright.us geskep. Hy het vriendskapsbande met die webwerf: www.europeanamericansunited.org. “The central idea I support is we should build our life around quality rather than equality” (boek genoem in volgende paragraaf, Kindle 2905). Vier beginsels vorm die grondslag van sy idees: “responsibility, liberty, morality, and identity” (2915). Hy het die afgelope jaar drie e-boeke by Amazon gepubliseer: op 10 Mei, 27 Augustus en 22 November. Die vraag is of dit ‘n volhoubare manier is om genoeg inkomste te verdien, onder meer omdat jy nog jonk is en sy vrou boonop aan Lyme-siekte ly en groot mediese uitgawes verg.

Someone has to say it

Kawczynski se eerste boek is: Someone has to say it: The hidden history of how America was lost (2018, 247p; Amazon Kindle $11,49). Die Amerikaanse hoofstroom-inligtingsmedia (koerante, populêre tydskrifte, radio, televisie en selfs internet, bv Google en Wikipedia), akademie/universiteite en die vermaaklikheidsbedryf (bv rolprentvervaardigers) is oorwegend linksgesind oftewel kultureel marxisties. “The Bolsheviks who ran the Soviet Union were as overwhelmingly Jewish as our media, academia, and financiers are today” (658). Die valse beeld wat van Amerika geskep word, is dié van ‘n onregverdige/”unjust” samelewing.

Die tema van die boek is om die verswygde en meer korrekte of waarheidsgetroue geskiedenis van Amerika na vore te bring. “Race matters more than ever, and it’s more than skin deep” (84). “What I said is that a religion [Islam] that marries off children, stones women for adultery, and sees beheading as a corrective might not be the best fit in America” (91). “Americans everywhere tire of this predictable hypocrisy where everything is fine and good unless it happens to be white, male, rural, traditional, Christian, or straight” (99). “I also think it’s okay to be white. Actually, I think it’s fantastic to be white” (123).

“There seems to me nothing more natural than loving what you are, whatever that may be, as race, ethnicity, and heritage, are things about which we have no choice in what we are bestowed … Were I to have written about the rights of black people, or Latino people, or any approved hyphen-based identity [eg African-American], I would probably be getting an award right now for my enlightened thinking. For the approved groups, identity is seen as a positive means of self-actualization and a way for groups to redress grievances” (132). Insgelyks het blankes in Amerika en Suid-Afrika die reg op selfbeskikking en om teen onreg, bv rassediskriminasie, te stry. “While every other group can organize to their benefit, all we can do is to be glad to be permitted their sufferance while they undo all that our parents and the generations before them sweat and bled to build and be grateful for the opportunity to right their wrongs by giving away all our wealth, our control, and ultimately, even our population – as is happening in both America and Europe” (148).

Ná die Tweede Wêreldoorlog “facts became racist. Saying blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes, though demonstrably true by statistics, is racist. Saying Jews are disproportionately able to secure professorships or have massive over-representation in the media, though easily provable, is racist. Saying Muslims are more likely to commit mass acts of terror than organized groups in the west, though evident, is racist. And the single biggest crime, for which we bled and fought in World War II, was to prevent race from ever being used to look at people” (1100). Nasionalism het toe ook ongewens geword.

“World War II may eventually be understood as the culmination of a great civil war within the west, where Marxism won, and the forces of dialectical materialism – which is to say that having stuff would lead to the greatest happiness – defeated the nationalists – those who believed people mattered as the groups they had existed as for many years, and the dissolution of the white race was embraced unanimously as the prize of the victors” (1116). “With LBJ[ohnson], these cultural Marxists found someone willing to adopt their program wholesale” (1441). “Civil Rights equated to Black Power” (1465). Gelykheid het plek gemaak vir die bevoordeling van swartes (1457). “The Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 … encouraged immigration from the Third World with quotas and chain migration” (1480). “It was impolitic to question the new people being brought in from the Third World because they were people too” (1662).

“The 1960s questioned everything and kept nothing … No stone was left unturned in a battle against inequity, which in many ways was a struggle against nature itself” (1631). “Life is not fair. People have unequal talents. Groups have imbalanced merit” (1638). “Obama was the fulfillment of the cultural Marxist strategy, a platform devoid of content save to realize the long-term goal of equality for all people” (2789). “Blacks vote Democrat. Latinos vote Democrat. Only whites divide their votes, because we’re the only ones who don’t think of our own people when we vote. This is because fifty years of culture and education have taught us to hate who we are, and to see ourselves as some sort of oppressors rather than as the originators of the civilization which powers most of the world at this point” (2797).

“Some call this white genocide. At a minimum, it is white displacement. It starts by negating our proud legacy as a people, taking away the accomplishments of our civilization. It accelerates with an agenda to bring in people by the hundreds of thousands into only countries founded by white people. It is facilitated by a media that puts out imagery daily encouraging our submission and marginalization. And it ends, as it does now in South Africa, with the loss of our rights and status as we become minorities” (2797). Oor Suid-Afrika skryf Kawczynski verder: “Cecil Rhodes was responsible for plundering much of the wealth of Africa and for the predicament of South Africa, a country actively being erased of its white settlers, today” (2158).

The coming civil war

Die voorafgaande toon Kawczynski se regsinnigheid. Hy is goed ingelig en beskik oor goeie insig. Hy skryf onderhoudend en duidelik, maar ek het min wat nuut is in sy eerste boek gevind. Sy tweede boek is myns insiens baie beter: The coming civil war (2018, 397p; Amazon Kindle $11,49). Sy tema is die groter wordende gaping tussen liberaliste en konserwatiewes, oftewel globaliste en nasionaliste, wat tot die verbrokkeling van Amerika en selfs burgeroorlog kan lei. Die beeld wat Kawczynski oor Amerika voorhou, is soortgelyk aan die verbrokkeling van die Europese Unie en selfs burgeroorlog, wat Julian Langness in Europa voorsien (Praag 15.09.2018). Kawczynski se standpunt oor Amerika is soos dié van bv Billy Roper: Ethnostate (2018, 190p; Amazon Kindle $3,44). Dit is egter ‘n onderwerp wat ek eerder in ‘n latere rubriek sal bespreek.

In Amerika het die agteruitgang van die blanke Westerse kultuur in 1965 tydens die bewind van Lyndon Johnson (1908-1973, president 1963-1969) begin. Kawczynski verwys na “the betrayal of 1965” (370), bv die Hart-Celler-wet ten gunste van immigrasie uit die Derde Wêreld (474), toe begin is om aan die eise van die swartes se gewelddadige burgerregtebeweging toe te gee. “As soon as the Cold War was won, the Cold Civil War began” (2686). Dit herinner aan FW de Klerk se verraad in 1990/94 in Suid-Afrika. Toe die oorlog teen terrorisme tot ‘n einde gekom het, het die kulturele oorlog teen die blankes, veral die Afrikaners, begin.

Kawczynski kom met elementêre waarhede voor ‘n dag, bv: “Different people are different. Not everyone is the same. Men and women are different” (538). “Look at South Africa, at the brutal murders of White people who gave away their once First World country to have peace. They gave their homeland to Blacks for racial peace, either not realizing or perhaps, not caring enough that these people were communists in waiting. Now they are being butchered, murdered, stripped of their rights … The ideology being employed against Whites here [in America], with the doctrines stating we are to be held accountable for all history’s wrongs, is no different” (3363).

After Trump

Kawczynski se derde boek is: After Trump: How nationalism can save America (2018, 136p; Amazon Kindle $11,49). Dit is meer as bloot ‘n pro-Trump-boek. Trump is volgens die outeur besig om ‘n gesonde grondslag vir die toekoms te lê. Amerika se eie belange moet voorop gestel word: “America First.” Op hierdie manier sal die land weer ‘n grootse voorbeeld of ideaal aan ander lande stel: “Make America Great Again” (184). Amerika sal egter op die lange duur slegs by die Trump-era baat as Trump se beleid nie net voortgesit word nie, maar geradikaliseer word. Trump is te geneig om kompromieë aan te gaan (236). “What Trump is doing is identifying those who want to assimilate to our historic values of industry, opportunity, and fairness, and welcoming them into the tent, hoping that enough people will switch to shift the culture for good” (244).

Trump reik uit na minderheidsgroepe, dus nie-blankes, terwyl Kawczynski Amerika se herontdekte heil in blankes vind: “The only real choice is to recognize White identity at the heart of future endeavors” (1083). Hy wil Amerika se toekoms op sy “White Western Christian heritage” bou (582). “As Whites remain the majority in this country with over 60% of the population, and equally relevant, as well over 90% of the voting Right, we are functionally already united upon this basis and are only hindered by our unwillingness to voice the obvious: The Right essentially is White America” (1083). Hoe kan blankes verseker dat hulle die meerderheid kiesers bly? Deur in plaas van een mens, een stem, kwalitatiewe vereistes aan kiesers te stel, bv funksionele geletterdheid, ‘n misdaadvrye geskiedenis, nie-afhanklikheid van staatstoelaes, ens. “Nationalism does not mesh well with democracy” (1134). Vóór 1990 was daar selfs in die allerlinksste politieke geledere eenstemmigheid dat ‘n stelsel van een mens, een stem, ongewens in Suid-Afrika is. Desnieteenstaande is dit die resultaat waarmee ‘n groepie ruggraatlose en hoogs onbekwame blanke Afrikaanssprekende onderhandelaars voor die dag gekom het.

Tensy radikaal met die benadering van die afgelope halfeeu gebreek word, gaan die blankes as die huidige meerderheid in Amerika teen die middel van hierdie eeu deur ‘n nie-blanke meerderheid verswelg word – soos wat met katastrofiese gevolge al hoe meer in Suid-Afrika gebeur. Dink aan onteiening sonder vergoeding by die lees van die volgende: “So long as the human instinct to want what another has remains, and people are willing to use these impulses to manipulate others, we will always deal with people who seek to gain through theft what they are either unable or unwilling to gain through merit … They want to take your stuff, and then take you out for keeping from [them] what they see as their birthright” (251).

“That’s why identity politics emerged on the Left: not as a healthy celebration of culture and heritage to which all people of all races and ethnic groups should be equally welcome to participate, celebrating their own unique contributions, but as a means to organize entire groups in defence of their worst habits, to cultivate generational resentment, and ultimately supplement the existing malcontents with millions more. These people being brought in from foreign nations are not being introduced to America because of what they can contribute, but rather because they add chaos into our system, causing more strife and anger. And that’s precisely why the Left fights so hard to maintain a system that disproportionately brings in random people from some of the most violent parts of the world. The rhetoric doesn’t match the reality, but the way they keep us from speaking against what they are doing is to punish us with epithets like ‘racist,’ because they know that if they don’t control us through fear and intimidation, we will destroy them with truth” (258).

“If we define ‘American’ to mean ‘anyone who wants to be here,’ we’ve already lost the argument to the globalists. We can define this by race, by culture, by belief, by ideas, by law, or some combination of such. But whatever choice we make, we need to define our American nation in a way that unifies a core of people behind a common set of principles and with the willingness to defend one another and govern in the best interests of all those so defined” (801). Sy strategie is: “We work from our current position toward increasingly greater stability, more social, cultural and racial homogeneity, and clearly assert first on a legal and then increasingly on a cultural basis, the distinctiveness and exceptional uniqueness of America” (808).

Amerika is ideologies in twee verdeel. Hierdie twee kampe dryf al hoe verder van mekaar en word dus al hoe meer onversoenbaar. Aan die linkerkant is die liberaliste, sosialiste, kulturele marxiste, globaliste, ens, dus die aanhangers van gelykheid/middelmatigheid. Aan die regterkant is die konserwatiewes, behoudendes, christene, nasionaliste, ens, die aanhangers van kwaliteit/meriete. Wat nodig is, is ‘n stratregie waarvolgens die regses die oorhand oor die linkses kan kry. Die aangewese manier om dit te doen, is die herstel van die tradisionele Amerikaanse Westerse kultuur, insluitend ‘n terugkeer na die eertydse immigrasiebeleid waarvolgens voorkeur aan blanke immigrante gegee is. Daar is (of was) so iets soos ‘n kenmerkende Amerikaanse kultuur. Dit is ‘n blanke en onmiskenbaar Westerse/Europese kultuur waarop Amerikaners opnuut trots gemaak moet word. Tradisionele waardes moet herontdek en uitgebou word.

Kawczynski beskou kulturele nasionalisme as ‘n brug tussen burgerlike/”civic” en etniese nasionalisme (888). Vir blankes is so iets myns insiens moontlik in ‘n land met ‘n blanke meerderheid, soos tans nog in Amerika. Vir Afrikaners in Suid-Afrika val kulturele en etniese nasionalisme verkieslik saam. Afrikaners se kultureel-etniese nasionalisme is heeltemal onversoenbaar met die nasionalisme van die swartes, wat die land sedert 1994 polities en kultureel oorheers en deur swart Afrika-nasionalisme gevoed word. Sedert die 1960’s word die kultuur van die Amerikaanse blankes ook al hoe meer negatief deur die vinnige vermeerdering van die nie-blankes beïnvloed. “We are a less cultured people than we were just three generations ago … It was a safe America, a healthier America, and one where the family was the center of life and optimism was abundant” (948). In die nuwe Suid-Afrika kan daar kwalik sprake van sekuriteit en optimisme wees. Hoogs ontstellend is die vinnige agteruitgang van die gemeenskapslewe van die blankes en veral die Afrikaners, wat op vernietiging kan afstuur.

Wat is die kiem wat blanke kultuur in Amerika verwoes? Die liberaliste “bought the story of equality and that is how they killed our culture. So, how do we rebuild the culture? We start by admitting that equality is not only an unachievable goal, it is an undesirable one. We aim for supremacy – American supremacy – taking the best people we have here, strengthening the existing majority with those from without who have the most to contribute, and actively standing against those who threaten those of us who want to build. We cannot co-exist with Marxism, and we need to retake our schools, our media, and restore the institutions of civic life” (962). “America was once a country with weak laws and a strong culture, and it worked because the culture itself mandated the habits which allowed us to enjoy such liberties without the heavy hand of the state. Now, we are a country with a divided culture, but strong laws” (993).

Kawczynski vestig die aandag op ‘n belangrike waarheid: “Laws and habits create culture” (985). Dit is omdat die blankes/Afrikaners nie meer die wette maak nie dat ons so ontuis in die nuwe Suid-Afrika voel. Die nuwe wette (bv ter bevordering van gelykheid en gedwonge rasse-integrasie) ondermyn doelbewus die tradisionele gewoontes en dus die kultuur van Afrikaners. Ons behoort nie toe te laat dat dit gebeur nie. Wat nodig is, is “to stand for our beliefs without apology and without quarter for those who think they can steal from us what we fairly earned, possess, and develop” (1023).

Oor die immigrasiebeleid skryf Kawczynski dat duidelikheid verkry moet word oor wat Amerika tans is en wat die land behoort te word. Hy steun die repatriasie van onwettige immigrante (1334). “With stronger enforcement measures, the southern border wall which we desperately need is but a preliminary step in a much more comprehensive series of acts we must take” (1342). “We do not need and do not want more people from the Third World” (1394). So ‘n verbod sal, wat Kawczynski betref, nie Afrikaners insluit nie, want hy weet dat ons Eerste Wêreld-mense is wat sonder ons toestemming in 1994 in die Derde Wêreld gedompel is.

“If we are going to contemplate changes to immigration, what I would argue is that we need a system where we define what we want for ourselves and find only those people who will help us achieve those goals as potential new members of our society. One example which comes to mind, which is getting more publicity these days, is the sad plight of the Boers in Africa. Christian people of European extraction, they confront a government which wants to steal their land, earned and worked over generations, to fulfill a communist plot to redistribute these productive holdings to masses who have no knowledge or experience in farming the land, but who have numbers and racially motivated angst and ideology to steal that which they did not earn. People like the Boers will understand why America is special, and if anyone deserved a better chance, it would be them” (1401). Let daarop dat hy nie Engelssprekende blankes en ander plaaslike linkses ook as uitsonderlik geskikte immigrante identifiseer nie.

Tydens besprekings van die ANC se voorneme om die eiendom van blankes sonder vergoeding te onteien, is die toestand waarin Venezuela verval het telkens as waarskuwing voorgehou. Kawczynski koppel ook hierdie twee lande. “I suggest you look into what is presently happening in South Africa or Venezuela as two probable examples of what might be in store for our future if the Marxists are allowed to take control. It may very well sicken you to discover what humanity is capable of, sometimes merely to survive, and how such horrors can be inflicted upon fellow men. These are modern day calamities, perhaps even genocides, but the media ignores them because, as is the case in nearly every circumstance, the Left is the one responsible for the deaths” (2283).

Dit gebeur al hoe meer in die Amerikaanse literatuur dat die nuwe Suid-Afrika voorgehou word as die slegste scenario vir wat in Amerika kan gebeur. Byvoorbeeld, Julian Langness skryf soos volg oor “the worst-case scenario for America”: “Everyday life would likely be like Brazil or South Africa … there would be massive crime, massive suffering, and little-to-no way to turn things around” (Praag 15.09.2018). Greg Johnson skryf: “If white Americans want to see what life is like as a despised minority in a majority non-white society, they need only look at South Africa today” en “To appreciate what life will be like once whites are a hated and powerless minority within a majority non-white, Third World country, we only need to look at the fates of whites in Rhodesia and South Africa” (Praag 4.11.2018).

Kawczynski skryf: “In some ways, Venezuela is simpler and less grotesquely violent than South Africa because unlike the latter, race isn’t there to serve to ramp up the violent impulses” (2336). Ek laat Venezuela vervolgens agterweë en beperk my aanhalings tot wat Kawczynski oor Suid-Afrika skryf (2291-2321). Ek dink hy toon redelik goeie insig in ons plaaslike geskiedenis. Maar sal bv die Nasperskoerante sy siening publiseer? Ek dink nie so nie.

“Thirty years ago, it was a progressive First World nation, settled by European settlers in an area that was actually less populated by natives than our own North America and those roots stretch back well over three hundred years. When we hear Africa, we think of Black people and the tribes which primarily inhabit the center of that vast continent, but the reality is that the southern tip of the continent was empty save for a few placid tribes and some nomadic herdsmen. Here, Dutch settlers built their first colony which would eventually, after years of strife and conflict, including the shameful creation of the first concentration camps by their British imperial overlords, emerge as South Africa.

“Those same British, who in their ravenous desire to exploit the gold and diamond mines for which South Africa is now famous, imported Africans from Zulu and other tribes to the north of South Africa to undertake the dangerous labor, to displace the native Boers as the Dutch came to be called, and to extract the wealth of their country for their global enterprise. If this sounds like the precursor to the global corporatism which sustains the Left today, you’ve earned your Rhodes Scholarship as many of the worst ideas were piloted down there.

“In response to this, the South African government tried to manage the importation of so many foreigners to their land through the Apartheid regime, which while castigated and demonized by the media, was simply an effort to separate the different groups in society into self-governance. In the same way America was made up of different states like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, with different peoples and different beliefs, South Africa was also a polyglot state where the British forced together Boer, British, Zulu, and other peoples, each of whom primarily occupied certain areas, and who had different traditions and values.

“For as much as it has been derided by those who squawk about equality, the system worked a thousand times better than the current regime in meeting the safety, logistical, and agricultural needs of the people, protecting the rights of the settlers and their private property, a value they brought with them from Europe, but which the radicalized minority groups, who quickly came to be a numerical majority through an extraction driven immigration policy, opposed, because they thought majority rule allowed them to do whatever they wished.

“The world agreed with the latter, and celebrated joyously as Nelson Mandela, an avowed communist, came to power in South Africa, marking the end of an era. The old South African flag was erased, the symbols of its history were destroyed, its anthem forbidden, and a new power came to the fore. Twenty-five years have passed: Where are we?

“The infrastructure is crumbling, people are seeking to leave in mass exodus even as the government forbids such action [?], and its major city which literally sits on a river to the ocean is in danger of running out of water. A safe, clean, First World country has now become known for crime, corruption, and in this very year, the government is voting to now legally seize land from families who have worked and held title to it for generations in the name of social justice. Does than sound familiar?

“You’re not allowed to say this, but the media turns the other way because the crimes are being committed by the Black majority against a White minority. The depressingly commonly occurrence of Boer Farmers being brutally slaughtered after their families are made to watch is covered up by that government, and those who speak out find their lives in peril. These people are not even political, but simply wish to exist and follow the rule of law they had embraced for centuries. Democracy changed that, and a new population meant new laws, with radical Marxist justice having no respect for life, liberty, or property, the foundations upon which South Africa was built just as surely as the United States.

“You don’t have to believe me. Do your own research and see what happens when nations think they can admit anyone, because we’re all good people and those feelings are what count. Besides, equality isn’t supposed to mean hurting those who have things, like you probably do if you had the resources to purchase my book. But the funny thing about Marxism is for all their rhetorical talents, and all their theories on redistribution, they don’t seem to understand the first bit about why and how people produce things. So, if you do, and you give them power, you had better expect them to use you and abuse you.” Inderdaad: die ANC-regering is by voorkeur besig met roofbou ten koste van die blankes; dus om te parasiteer op wat die blankes besit en tot stand gebring het pleks van self op eie inisiatief te skep en daarop voort te bou.

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.