Ons leef in ‘n tyd waarin kunstenaars wat nie links genoeg is nie, geteiken word. Plaaslik is daar eintlik net ‘n enkele ideologie of narratief wat geduld word. Daaraan word uitdrukking gegee met woorde soos regstelling, transformasie, integrasie, assimilasie, nasiebou en verengelsing. Kerry Raymond Bolton (gebore in 1956) is ‘n Nieu-Seelander wat hom teen sulke modestrominge verset. In die verligte Wikipedia word hy as ‘n fascis, anti-semitis en selfs satanis uitgebeeld. Hy woon in Paraparaumu in die suidweste van die Noordeiland, maar word nie in die Wikipedia as ‘n “notable resident” beskou nie. In die konserwatiewe Metapedia word Bolton voorgehou as konserwatief en nasionalisties. Hy stry teen die valshede wat die massa-inligtigsmedia versprei, asook die deurtrapte linksheid van universiteite. In ‘n vorige rubriek het ek die aandag gevestig op Bolton se positiewe gesindheid jeens blankes in Rhodesië en Suid-Afrika (Praag 19.08.2016).
Ek het twee van Bolton se boeke gelees: Artists of the Right (San Francisco: Counter-Currents Publishing, 2012, 208p; Amazon Kindle $6,89) en More artists of the Right (San Franciso: Counter-Currents Publishing, 2017, 188p; Amazon Kindle $5,74). In die Kindle-verwysings hier onder word hierdie boeke as onderskeidelik I en II aangedui. Die teks van die 2012-boek, met die uitsondering van die hoofstuk oor HP Lovecraft,* bestaan uit verwerkings van artikels wat in ‘n vorige boek van Bolton, Thinkers of the Right (2003), gepubliseer is. Die teks van die 2017-boek bestaan uit die herpublikasie van artikels wat in Greg Johnson se tydskrif, Counter-Currents, verskyn het. Dit is veral literêre kunstenaars, soos digters, waarna in die twee boektitels verwys word.
[* Michel Houellebecq se eerste boek is nie fiksie nie maar ‘n biografiese essay oor die Amerikaner, HP Lovecraft (1890-1937), die outeur van die gedig, “On the creation of niggers” (1912). Dit was in die era voordat politieke byderwetsheid die Westerse wêreld getref het. Houellebecq skryf: Swartes se “vitality, their apparent lack of complexes or inhibitions, terrifies and repulses him [Lovecraft]. They dance in the street, they listen to music, rhythmic music … They talk loud. They laugh in public. Life seems to amuse them, which is worrying” (Michel Houellebecq, HP Lovecraft: Against the world, against life, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1991/2005, 247p, p 113). ‘n Land kan in sy swernoot gaan sonder dat oor die ramp wakker gelê word.]
Sommige van hierdie kunstenaars was aanvanklik kommuniste terwyl ander fasciste was wat selfs tot hulle einde fascisme aangehang het. In hierdie verband moet twee sake in gedagte gehou word. Enersyds kan enige ideologie wat aanhang geniet, afgesien daarvan of dit van ‘n politieke of religieuse aard is, ten minste teoreties oor sekere positiewe kenmerke beskik, wat die onderskrywing daarvan vir die volgelinge sinvol maak. As dit nie so was nie, sou daar nie aanhangers gewees het nie. Andersyds was dit veral tussen die twee wêreldoorloë vir baie eerbare, vooraanstaande mense moeilik om tussen kommunisme en fascisme te besluit, onder meer omdat die gevolge van hulle toepassing in die praktyk toe nog nie bekend was nie.
Vóór die Tweede Wêreldoorlog tydens die Spaanse Burgeroorlog (1936-1939) was dit by Britse literatore, bv George Orwell, in die mode om hulle by die kommuniste te skaar. TS Eliot, daarenteen, was ‘n uitsondering deurdat hy geweier het om kant te kies (Bolton II 915). Tydens die Tweede Wêreldoorlog was Brittanje vir sy voortbestaan van Russiese militêre steun afhanklik en is daar amptelik geen kritiek op die Sowjetunie en kommunisme uitgespreek nie. Byvoorbeeld, die Katyn-massamoord van Pole deur Russiese soldate is doelbewus verswyg (Praag 22.01.2017). Ná die Tweede Wêreldoorlog is veral fascisme in die Weste as boos verwerp; mettertyd ook kommunisme, maar nooit in dieselfde mate as fascisme nie. In werklikheid het kommunisme oor ‘n baie langer tyd, in veel groter mate en in meer lande as fascisme dood en verwoesting gesaai. Desnieteenstaande word fascisme tans in baie groter mate as kommunisme verdoem. Soos rassisme is fascisme deesdae ‘n skelwoord vir onrehabiliteerbare boosheid. Albei terme word feitlik uitsluitlik teen blankes gebruik. Dit is asof voorgegee word dat swartes per definisie nie rassisties of fascisties kan wees nie.
Dit is moeilik om presies te bepaal wat onder polities regs verstaan word. Bolton beskou fascisme as regs en kommunisme as links. In hierdie opsig aanvaar hy dus die populêre standpunt, maar dit is vir my problematies. Tussen kommunisme en sosialisme is daar eerder ‘n graad- as ‘n aardverskil. Die ANC-regime noem homself sosialisties omdat hy nie die moed en eerbaarheid het om te erken dat hy wesenlik kommunisties is nie. In soverre die ANC nog nie volskaals kommunisties is nie, is dit sy strewe om ingevolge die Vryheidsmanifes van 1955 ‘n volslae kommunistiese regime te word. Buite Duitsland was dit eerder Benito Mussolini se gematigde fascisme as Adolf Hitler se radikale fascisme wat deur intellektuele aangehang is. Maar Mussolini het sy weergawe van fascisme uit sosialisme ontwikkel – “The only doctrine of which I had practical experience was that of socialism” (Benito Mussolini, The doctrine of Fascism, 1932, 50p; Amazon Kindle $1.14, 163) – vandaar my skeptisisme oor die beweerde politieke regsheid van fascisme. Nadat hy uit die Sosialistiese Party geskop is, het Mussolini beweer dat hy teen sosialisme gedraai het, maar voeg dan by: “Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism” (110), terwyl ek eerder niks met sosialisme en vakbonde te make wil hê nie.
Wat baie van die kunstenaars genoem in Bolton se twee boeke tot die aanvaarding van tydelike of permanente fascisme beweeg het, is die volgende uitspraak van Mussolini: “Poetry is a necessity of state” (Bolton I 1711). “This displayed a higher state of civilization” (I 1711). Maar hieruit het kunstenaars soos DH Lawrence, Ezra Pound en Wyndham Lewis afgelei “that the artist is the natural ruler of humanity” (I 2050). Dit is ‘n uiters onrealistiese, romantiese siening as dit op politieke leierskap toegepas sou word. By die verskaffing van kulturele leiding kan so ‘n standpunt egter meer sinvol wees, bv “Lewis calls for a ruling caste of aesthetes” (I 2188). In sy genoemde boek het Mussolini die waarde van kultuur (63) en tradisie (84, 504) – “moral and traditional values” (524) – beklemtoon en materialisme teengestaan (84, 242). Dit pas in die kraal van konserwatiewe kunstenaars; ook omdat sowel kommunisme as kapitalisme materialisties is (Bolton I 1658, 2807, 2901). Op ‘n enkele uitspraak of handeling van ‘n politikus – soos dié van Mussolini: “Poetry is a necessity of state” – moet liefs nie peil getrek word nie. Dit is soos om die terroris Nelson Mandela, wat nooit geweld afgesweer het nie, as ‘n vredesikoon te beskou omdat hy versoening gepredik het eers nadat hy in sy bose doel geslaag het, naamlik die daarstelling van ‘n swart politieke bewind.
Wat by die lees van Hitler se Mein Kampf en Mussolini se The doctrine of Fascism opval, is hoe onspesifiek hulle opvattings in baie opsigte is. Hulle idees kan alleenlik na behore beoordeel word ingevolge hulle praktiese toepassing. Waaraan ek ‘n hekel het, is die verabsolutering van die staat. Soos Mussolini dit stel: “The State is all embracing … Fascism is totalitarian” (103). “For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative” (333). “The individual exists only in so far as he is within the State and subjected to the requirements of the State and … as civilization assumes aspects which grow more and more complicated, individual freedom becomes more and more restricted” (544). Ek, daarenteen, verkies beperkte staatsmag en groter individuele vryheid. Mussolini skryf: “Without the State there is no nation” (645). “It is the State which creates the nation” (128), soos die ANC-regime tans plaaslik probeer doen. Mussolini definieer fascisme as “an organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy” (275). Dit is vir my absoluut verwerplik. Laat die “organized” weg omdat die ANC-regime in chaosskepping uitmunt. Die ANC-bewind is sekerlik “centralized” en “authoritarian” hoewel geensins demokraties in die sin dat daar oor die belange van al die inwoners gewaak word nie. Byvoorbeeld, Cyril Ramaphosa gaan voort om oor plaasmoorde te swyg pleks van dit ondubbelsinnig te veroordeel. Nie-blankes, veral swartes, word doelbewus bevoordeel en blankes soveel moontlik benadeel. Soos die ANC en ander kommunistiese regerings noem Mussolini sy volgelinge kamerade (481).
Waar ek roerend met Mussolini eens is, is wanneer hy skryf: “Fascism is … opposed to the form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number” (116). Tereg verkies hy kwaliteit bo kwantiteit. “Fascism … asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage” (253). Naas biologiese kenmerke, soos asemhaal, is geen twee mense of groepe in Suid-Afrika gelyk of eenders nie – nie eens meer in die howe nie omdat uitspraak daar gelewer word deur mense wat dikwels op grond van ras en geslag pleks van bekwaamheid aangestel en bevorder is. Dit is absoluut absurd dat alle volwasse Suid-Afrikaanse burgers desnieteenstaande gelyke en eenderse stemreg het. In die praktyk sien ons daagliks dat “political equalitarianism” tot “the habit of collective irresponsibility” lei (275).
Myns insiens is die ANC se huidige skynbare aanhang van demokrasie vals. Omdat hy die steun van die meerderheid swart kiesers het, het demokrasie ‘n manier aan die ANC gebied om aan die bewind te kom en na ‘n kwarteeu steeds aan die bewind te wees. Maar die ANC regeer primer ten bate van die swartes en ter benadeling van veral die blankes. Ons “jong demokrasie” is nie daar om al die land se inwoners te bevoordeel nie. Bolton skryf met verwysing na Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) oor sommige van sy geselekteerde kunstenaars: “[They] were suspicious if not terrified of the mass leveling resulting from democracy and its offspring communism.* In democracy and communism, they saw the destruction of culture understood as the pursuit of the sublime” (Bolton I 156). As daar iets is waaraan die ANC-regime heeltemal onskuldig is, is dit die geestelike veredeling van die bevolking. Pleks daarvan word die samelewing al hoe meer gebrutaliseer. Wat DH Lawrence die “choice minority” noem (I 156), vind dit in die nuwe Suid-Afrika al hoe moeiliker om leefbare ruimte te vind.
[* Dit kan ook van sosialisme gesê word: “socialism as a leveling creed: ‘the scum on the democratic cauldron’” (II 738). Wyndham Lewis skryf: “No artist can ever love democracy or its doctrinaire and more primitive relative, communism” (I 2138). Oor “mass leveling” skryf Lewis: “[The] mass mind … is required to gravitate to a standard size to receive the standard idea” (I 2159). Hierdie uitspraak kan op sowel demokrasie as die massa-inligtingsmedia toepaslik wees.]
In Bolton se 2012-boek is daar ‘n hoofstuk oor elk van die volgende tien kunstenaars: DH Lawrence, HP Lovecraft, Gabriele D’Annunzio, Filippo Marinetti, WB Yeats, Knut Hamsun, Ezra Pound, Wyndham Lewis, Henry Williamson en Roy Campbell. In Bolton se 2017-boek is daar ‘n hoofstuk oor elk van die volgende sewe kunstenaars: Richard Wagner, Aleister Crowley, TS Eliot, PR Stephensen, ARD Fairburn, Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk en Yukio Mishima. Mishima (1945-1970), ‘n Japannees, is die enigste Oosterling onder hierdie kunstenaars. Dit is moeilik om in te sien in watter opsig hy in Westerse sin regs was. Die hoofstukke is nie almal ewe interessant of duidelik polities regs nie. Ek skryf selektief oor hierdie kunstenaars; veral oor wat van aktuele belang of hopelik interessant is.
In sy voorwoord noem Greg Johnson dat hierdie kunstenaars oor talle onderwerpe verskillende opinies huldig. “Yet to a man, they were united in their rejection of human equality – the common root of capitalism and communism – and their affirmation of a hierarchical model of society” (I 46). “As Rightists, these artists rejected modern decadence and sought to preserve and restore healthier pre-modern social forms within the context of modernity” (I 54). Party kunstenaars hunker terug na die voor-industriële landbou-era, selfs die heidense tyd. Maar daar is ook dié wat gevorderde tegnologie en futurisme omarm, bv die Italianer, Filippo Marinetti (1876-1944). In plaas van demokrasie word dikwels voorkeur aan ‘n natuurlike, nie-oorgeërfde aristokrasie, oftewel elite, en ‘n monarg eerder as ‘n diktator as staatshoof gegee. Emosie, gevoelens, impulsiwiteit en instinkte word deur bv die Brit, DH Lawrence (1885-1930) hoog aangeslaan, wat die gevaar van irrasionaliteit inhou.
Wyndham Lewis “rejected the counter-movement that sought to return to the past and embrace the intuitive, the emotional, and the instinctual above the intellectual and the rational. Lewis particularly denounced DH Lawrence for his espousal of instinct above reason and for what appeared to be a celebration of the doctrine of the ‘noble savage’, which has served as the basis of liberalism from the eighteenth century on” (I 1904). Lewis het ‘n groot kramp gehad in “parlor pink liberals” (I 1921), soos die lede van die Bloomsbury-groep, “the pretentious and snobbish intellectual denizens of a delineated area of London who could make or break an aspiring artist or writer” (I 1921). Lewis het teen hulle uitgevaar in sy roman, The Apes of God (1930). Roy Campbell het op ‘n soortgelyke manier gereageer in sy gedig, The Georgiad (1931).
As sodanig is die lewe nie noodwendig sinvol nie. Iedere mens moet poog om self soveel moontlik betekenis aan sy lewe te gee. Wat volgens Lovecraft nagestreef behoort te word, is “self-actualization and higher cultural and spiritual activities” (I 237). “The primary goal of a nation [is] the development of high aesthetic and intellectual standards” (I 274). “The only meaning of human existence is to reach ever higher levels of mental and aesthetic development” (I 308). “Leisure will be that of a civilized person rather than that of a cinema-haunting, dance-hall frequenting, pool-room loafing clod” (I 282). “Socialism, like capitalism, would pave the way for universal proletarianization and the consequent leveling of culture” (I 256). “Democracy is a false idol – a mere catchword and illusion of inferior classes” (I 297). Meerderwaardigheid “could not be achieved through ‘the low cultural standards of an underdeveloped majority. Such a civilization of mere working, eating, drinking, breeding, and vacantly loafing or childishly playing isn’t worth maintaining’” (I 308).
Die Italianer, Gabriele D’Annunzio (1863-1938), het tot ‘n uitsonderlike insig gekom: “The State should always be no more than an institution for favoring the gradual elevation of a privileged [talented] class towards its ideal form of existence” (I 413). Sedert 1994 doen die ANC-regime presies die teenoorgestelde in Suid-Afrika. D’Annunzio het sy ideale kortstondig in die vrye stadstaat Fiume/Rijeka ‘n werklikheid gemaak (1920-1924). Hierdie hawestad was in die 20ste eeu agtereenvolgend Oostenryk-Hongaarse, Italiaanse, Joego-Slawiese en Kroatiese besit. Ná die Italiaanse oorgawe in 1943 het Duitsland Rijeka beset. In 1945 was daar 27 000 Duitse soldate wat Rijeka teen Joego-Slawiese aanvalle verdedig het. Hiervan is 16 000 gevange geneem en 11 000 gedood, baie van hulle nadat hulle oorgegee het. Die Joego-Slawiese regering van Tito (1892-1980, staatshoof 1943-1980) – die Weste se gunsteling-kommunis – het valslik outonomie aan die Italiaanse inwoners van Rijeka belowe. Nadat die Tito-kommuniste beheer oorgeneem het, is diegene wat outonomie begeer het sistematies verdryf. Minstens 650, hoofsaaklik Italianers, is ná die oorlog tereggestel. Oor hierdie ernstige kommunistiese oorlogsmisdade word geswyg. Maar wanneer die blanke regering in Suid-Afrika ‘n krotbuurt en misdaadnes soos Distrik 6 opruim of enkele of ‘n paar dosyn swart skoorsoekers dood, is daar na bewering ‘n misdaad teen die mensdom gepleeg. Tydens die “bevrydingstryd” is daar sekerlik baie meer swartes deur swartes as deur blankes gedood. Ná ons “bevryding” in 1994 is heel moontlik meer blankes deur swartes gedood as die dodetal wat aan blankes tydens die “bevrydingstryd” toegeskryf kan word.
Die Ier, WB Yeats (1865-1939), “is condemning the leveling effects of the democratic media, pandering to the lowest denominator for the sake of maximum profit via the largest market, part of a general commodification of culture, which was why Yeats, like Lawrence, Wyndham Lewis, Pound, et al, deplored the democratization process”(I 1001). “Yeats advocated planned human upbreeding and joined the Eugenics Society at a time when eugenics* was a widely held belief among the intelligentsia” (I 1063). “Psychometric studies … showed intelligence to be inherited, and [Yeats] expressed concern at the proliferation of the unintelligent” (I 1086). Yeats “was suspicious of any movement that appealed to the masses” (I 1173). Hy het sy lewe lank weerstand teen vulgariteit gebied en die bevordering van hoë kultuur bepleit (I 1183).
[* Eugenetiek: “wetenskaplike ondersoek van alle faktore wat ‘n ras kan verbeter” (HAT). Suiwer rasioneel behoort daar nie beswaar teen die verbetering van etnisiteite, rasse en die mensdom te wees nie. Teen die (verdere) verslegting van mense behoort daar wel gewaak te word.]
Die Noorweegse Nobel-pryswenner, Knut Hamsun (1859-1952), was ‘n interessante, eiesoortige, aartskonserwatiewe gees. “Hamsun attacked the crass materialism of the US. He despised democracy as a form of despotism, abhorring its leveling nature and mob politics … He also expresses his misgivings about the presence of Africans in the US” (I 1253). “His constant theme [the] rediscovering [of] one’s roots in the simple life, in family, and in children” (I 1286). “As [Oswald] Spengler [1880-1936] noted, there is nothing more important than the continuation of a family lineage, generation after generation … there is nothing more dreadful than being the last of a family’s line” (I 1324). Maar kulturele marxiste wil juis die tradisionele gesin, die kern van Westerse beskawing, vernietig. Homoseksuele doen lustig hieraan mee. Spengler skryf: “A woman of race* does not desire to be a ‘companion’ or a ‘lover’, but a mother … barrenness is the hardest curse that can befall a woman and through her the race” (I 1332).
[* “By ‘race’ Sprengler did not [mean] a biological, or ‘Darwinistic’ conception, but an instinct. ‘Race’ means ‘duration of character’” (I 3776).]
Hamsun “had been appalled by the British war against the Boers, which he would surely have regarded as a war by a plutocratic power against an entire folk who epitomised a living remnant of the type portrayed by Isak in [Hamsun’s novel] The growth of the soil” (1917) (I 1445).
‘n Soortgelyke pro-Afrikanergesindheid word by die Nieu-Seelander van Poolse oorsprong, Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk (1903-1997), aangetref. Om sy afkeur tuis te bring het hy “english” (II 2527) en “jews” (II 2505) met kleinletters geskryf. In 1964 het Potocki Two blacks don’t make a white: Remarks about apartheid gepubliseer. Daarin spreek hy uit “a cynicism in regard to humanitarianism as a façade for ignoble purposes … Potocki’s outlook on South African apartheid was based decidedly on the general inferiority of the blacks to whites, insofar as they had not, and could not, make a civilization” (II 2566). “Attacks on apartheid, Potocki claimed, were the result of the post war era of ‘univeral humbug’, the product of a coalition of Christians, communists, and democrats. He pointed to the selective hypocrisy of the liberal conscience, which was silent about communist dictatorships, and to the record of the British Empire in their treatment of colored colonials. He drew heavily on South African government publications citing the services that had been rendered to the blacks under apartheid, pointing out that the Afrikaners did not dispossess indigenous blacks, but had met the Xhosa while both were migrating from opposite directions” (II 2576).
Op 11 November 1965 het Ian Smith Rhodesië eensydig onafhanklik verklaar. “In 1966, Potocki took up the cause of Rhodesia. His solution to the crisis was … to proclaim Rhodesia a Kingdom … ‘In this way the Rhodesians will set the whole world a good example, take the wind out of the sails of the minority of piratical hypocrites in England, & provide a turning-point for the Good in the history of the world, at a time when it never needed it more’” (II 2586). “In 1977 Potocki returned to Southern African themes, namely: ‘Let the Rhodesians not be surprised that England should try to sell them down the river to a gang of bolsheviks and other terrorists. For after having plotted the most gigantic blood-bath and world-wide flood of misery that the world has ever seen, and carried it through by fiendish means (Dresden etc) backed up by Hellish lies (six millions etc) on the pretext of safeguarding the independence and territorial integrity of Poland, England shamelessly sold that great country (once the largest kingdom in Europe) to the wickedest terrorist of known history, calling himself Stalin’” (II 2595).
Die Amerikaner, Ezra Pound (1885-1972), “regarded the rise of materialism, democracy, and the masses as detrimental to the arts, as newspapers and dime novels replaced literature, and the mass market determined cultural expression. Pound saw artists or what we might call the ‘culture-bearing strata’ as a class higher than the general run of humanity who, under the regime of the democratic era, had been leveled down to a ‘mass of dolts’, a ‘rabble’, whose redeeming feature was to be ‘the waste and manure’ from which grows ‘the tree of the arts’” (I 1617). “Culture were the product of races, and each race had its own soul … of which the artist was the guardian” (I 1711).
Naas Nietzsche en Spengler put sommige van hierdie kunstenaars inspirasie uit Thomas Ernest Hulme (1883-1917) se werk. In Robert Ferguson se biografie, The short sharp life of TE Hulme (London: Faber & Faber, 2012, 342p; Amazon Kindle $16,09), word Hulme beskryf as “the conservative character at its best.” “Both Pound and Lewis were influenced by the Classicism of the art critic and philosopher TE Hulme, a radical conservative. Hulme rejected nineteenth-century humanism and romanticism in the arts as reflections of the Rousseauian (and ultimately communistic) belief in the natural goodness of man when uncorrupted by civilization, and of human nature as infinitely malleable by a change of environment and social conditioning” (I 1962). Dit is hierdie dwaasheid van Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), wat oorerwing/DNS buite rekening laat, wat aan die grondslag lê van wat ons deesdae daagliks moet aanhoor: As alle mense dieselfde geleenthede het, sou die uitkoms glo wees dat almal gelyk is; dus net so goed, bv intelligent, bekwaam, toegewyd, ens, as ander mense. In die praktyk sien ons egter dat gelyke geleenthede nie gelyke uitkomste verseker nie. Selfs superieure geleenthede, soos die hedendaagse blatante bevoordeling op grond van ras, lei plaaslik dikwels tot teleurstellende resultate.
Hulme skryf: “The root of all romanticism: that man, the individual, is an infinite reservoir of possibilities; and if you can so rearrange society by the destruction of oppressive order then these possibilities will have a chance and you will get progress” (I 1972). Dit herinner my aan die rektor wat swart studente nie op grond van bewese akademiese prestasie tot universitêre studie wou toelaat nie, maar op grond van potensiaal. Ek het toe aan hom gesê hy moet vir my ‘n swarte uitwys wat nie potensiaal het nie. Hy kon nie met ‘n sinvolle reaksie vorendag kom nie.
Hulme skryf voorts: “One can define the classical quite clearly as the exact opposite to this [cf previous paragraph]. Man is an extraordinarily fixed and limited animal whose nature is absolutely constant. It is only by tradition and organisation that anything decent can be got out of him … Put shortly, these are the two views, then. One, that man is intrinsically good, spoilt by circumstance; and the other that he is intrinsically limited, but disciplined by order and tradition to something fairly decent” (I 1979). Dit lyk na oordrywing om te beweer dat die menslike natuur “absolutely constant” is. Mense kan myns insiens individueel en groepgewys bv (moreel) verbeter of versleg.
Die Brit, Wyandham Lewis (1882-1957), onderskryf Hulme se opvattings. By Lewis vind ek ook ondersteuning vir sommige van my ander standpunte: “Lewis opposes the ‘melting pot’ where different races and nationalities are becoming indistinguishable. Once again, Lewis’s objections are aesthetic at their foundation. The Negro gift to the white man is jazz, ‘the aesthetic medium of a sort of frantic proletarian subconsciousness’, degrading and exciting the masses into mindless energy, an ‘idiot mass sound’ that is ‘Marxistic’. We might reflect now that this was the beginning of the process upon which the modern music industry is largely founded, with ‘popular’ music – the transient music of the mass market – centered around frenetic rhythms accompanied often by a frenzied pseudo-tribal dancing, symptomatic of the return [of] the ‘cult of the primitive’ in the name of ‘progress’” (I 2197).
Die Brit, Henry Williamson (1895-1977), spreek tereg sy afkeur van die twee wêreldoorloë uit omdat “the youth of Europe shed the blood of their own family, and the jackals of the world grew fat” (I 2551). ‘n Kolossale onnoselheid in dieselfde orde as FW de Klerk se magsoorgawe in 1994 is: “the Soviets had been permitted to invade half of Europe” (I 2540) in 1944/45 en is daarna toegelaat om hierdie besetting tot in 1990/91 voort te sit. Roy Campbell, Lewis se “literary ‘bodyguard’” (I 2724), “was horrified by the Allied victory that had placed half of Europe under the USSR” (I 2983).
Roy Campbell (1901-1957) is die enigste Suid-Afrikaanse kunstenaar wat in Bolton se twee boeke aan die orde gestel word. Campbell was sterk teen marxisme gekant en het hom tydens die Spaanse Burgeroorlog aan die kant van Francisco Franco se nasionaliste geskaar. Campbell het hom teen Adolf Hitler se fascisme uitgespreek maar dié van António Salazar gesteun. Hy wou egter nie lid van Oswald Mosley se Britse fascistiese party word nie (I 2814). Campbell was erg beswaard oor Britse kolonialisme. Hy het hom ook spoedig van die Bloomsbury-groep se “sex-socialism” (I 2713) gedistansieer. Volgens hom was hulle “intellectuals without intellect.” Bloomsbury was aanvanklik “impressed with his rough manners and hard drinking” (I 2620). “The robust Campbell found their refined manners, pervasive homosexuality, and pretentiousness sickening” (I 2680).
Campbell’s “own aesthetics, as the basis of his rejection of liberalism and socialism, was a synthesis of the romanticism of Provence and the classicism of the Greco-Romans” (I 2704). “Campbell explains that a hypocritical ‘humanitarianism’ is the ‘ruling passion’ of the British intelligentsia, which ‘sides automatically with the Dog against the Man, the Jew against the Christian, the black against the white, the servant against the master, the criminal against the judge’” (I 2889). In 1931 het Campbell profeties geskryf: “The liberal-democratic European idea is doomed, for in its tendency toward petty franchises and nationalisms and in its superficial idea of ‘freedom’, it is anarchistically hostile to the organization of the white race as a whole, and is one of the chief causes of the decline of European power” (I 2735). Campbell het ‘n weersin in industrialisering en tegnologie gehad. “He never used a typewriter or learned to drive” (I 2795).
Campbell het geprotesteer toe bruin mense se stemreg in die jare vyftig in Suid-Afrika weggeneem is. Bolton skryf: “However, Campbell’s misgivings about the South African situation were not prompted by the liberal desire for a democratic, monocultural state. He feared that antagonism between the races would result in Bolshevism and the destruction of his rustic ideal. With the advent of black rule, free market capitalism was ushered in on the wings of Marxism and revolution, which would hardly have surprised Campbell. Today the ANC calls globalization and trade liberalization the ‘correct path to Marxism-Leninism’” (I 3003). In nog ‘n opsig het Campbell dus die toekoms korrek voorspel. In 1954 het die Universiteit Natal ‘n eredoktorsgraad aan Campbell toegeken. “In an off-the-cuff speech, much to the embarrassment of the liberal audience, he defended South Africa against England’s condemnation of apartheid, ridiculing Churchill and Roosevelt, who had sold ‘two hundred million natives of Europe’ to the far worse slavery of Bolshevism” (I 3003).
Campbell is in 1922 met Mary Garman (1898-1979) getroud, die oudste van die sewe Garman-susters. Van hulle word op die Amazon-webwerf gesê: “Their morals were unconventional: bisexuality, unfaithfulness and illegitimate children were a matter of course.” In Connolly se boek (kyk hier onder) word drie van die Garman-susters in besonderhede beskryf. Mary was, soos Virginia Woolf (1882-1941), een van Vita Sackville-West (1892-1962) se minnaresse. Woolf het haar boek, Orlando (1928), na aanleiding van Mary se verhouding met Vita geskryf. Terwyl die Campbells in Frankryk gewoon het, het Uys Krige (1910-1987) daar opgedaag. Hy was veronderstel om onderwys aan die Campbells se twee kinders te gee, maar het ook ‘n seksuele verhouding met Mary gehad. Kathleen Garman (1901-1979) het met die beeldhouer, Jacob Epstein (1880-1959), getrou. Lorna Garman (1911-2000) was met die uitgewer en kommunis, Ernest Wishart (1902-1987), getroud, maar Laurie Lee (1914-1997)* het ‘n kind by haar verwek en sy het later ook ‘n seksuele verhouding met die skilder, Lucian Freud (1922-2011), gehad. ‘n Vierde Garman-suster, die tweede oudste Sylvia (gebore in1899), het haar onderskei as moontlik die enigste vrou wat seksueel met TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia, 1888-1935) verkeer het. Nog ‘n Garman-suster, Ruth (gebore in 1909), het vyf kinders gehad, waarvan twee binne die huwelik was. Daar was twee Garman-broers, Douglas en Marvin, albei kommuniste. Douglas het ‘n tyd lank saam met Peggy Guggenheim (1898-1979), ‘n welgestelde bevorderaar van die skone kunste, gewoon.
[* In hoofstuk 7 van sy boek, As I walked out one midsummer morning (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971/1975, 186p; Amazon Kindle $14,58) vertel Laurie Lee van sy ontmoeting met die Campbells in Toledo, Spanje. Roy het toe van Mary gesê: “She’s got more genuine saintliness in her little finger than the whole of this god-damn town” (p 115). Lee skryf Roy “loved the Afrikaans language and described its primitive vigour” (116).]
Die agnostiese Campbell “at the initiative of his wife converted to Catholicism in 1935” (Bolton I 2787). Vóór dit was Mary allermins soos ‘n non, maar sy het fanaties godsdienstig geword en sowel Kathleen as Lorna beïnvloed om dieselfde te doen. Heiligheid is egter nie maklik volhoubaar nie. Mary “lost her faith about two years before she died. It seemed to disappear suddenly and without reason, like a bird alighting from a branch” (Cressida Connolly, The rare and the beautiful: The lives of the Garmans, London: Harper, 2005, 281p, p 225). Hierdie boek is deur Johannes Comestor op LitNet (28.10.2011) bespreek.
Volgens die Duitse komponis, Richard Wagner (1813-1883), “the noblest of all races was the ‘white’” (Bolton II 313). Ruimte ontbreek om Wagner se idees te bespreek wat later deur die Naziis as ondersteuning van fascisme en anti-semitisme vertolk is. Hy was “an aesthete who is instinctively repelled by the mob and its leaders” (II 208). Wagner skryf: “I am neither a republican, nor a democrat, nor a socialist, nor a communist, but an artistic being” (II 342). Vir hom het dit gegaan om “the völkisch basis of art … the artist as expressing the Volk-soul” (II 293). Wagner het onder meer gesteun op die nasionalisme van Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803 – II 105) en Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814 – II 95). Volgens Herder “the vehicle of living culture is a distinct Volk or nation with its distinct language and traditions” (Dagobert D Runes, ed, Dictionary of Philosophy, New York: Philosophical Library, 1942, p 125). Fichte word as die vader van Pan-Duitsheid beskou omdat hy Duitssprekendes geïnspireer het om teen die Napoleontiese besetting in opstand te kom.
Die Brit, Aleister Crowley (1875-1947), het soos baie van hierdie kunstenaars geen vertroue in verkiesings en demokrasie gehad nie: “The elected man is always the mediocrity; he is the safe man, the sound man, the man who displeases the majority less than any other, and therefore never the genius” (Bolton II 716).
Die Amerikaner, T(homas) S(tearns) Eliot (1888-1965) het hom in 1915 in Engeland gevestig en in 1927 Britse burgerskap aanvaar; “a resident alien” (II 790). Hy was besorgd oor die nieu-barbaarsheid waardeur verworwe Westerse beskawing ondermyn word (II 781). Globalisme het tot kulturele pessimisme aanleiding gegee (II 797). Sy Notes towards the definition of culture (1948) “are particularly cogent expressions of Eliot’s criticism of liberalism and commercialism and his apologia for tradition” (II 807). In 1948 is die Nobel-prys vir letterkunde aan hom toegeken. “He never compromised his views in a post-1945 world in which democracy and egalitarianism had assumed idolatrous veneration” (II 816). Tereg was hy van mening “that tradition can only develop where the population is homogeneous” (II 874).
“His aim was to revive religion as the foundation for a cultural, aesthetic outlook” (II 904). Eliot “enthused about visiting Westminster Abbey and other great churches in London. Looking at their great architecture, Eliot saw the living embodiment of a past high culture” (II 937). In 1925 is sy gedig, “The Hollow Men”, gepubliseer. “‘Hollow Men’ … [have] no attachment, no place in a living tradition” (II 1034). Hy het multikulturalisme verwerp. “What is required for a tradition to become established is a sense of place and permanence” (II 1141). “A class-structured society … is a ‘natural society’” (II 1258). “A mob will be no less a mob if it is well fed, well clothed, well housed, and well disciplined” (II 1208). “Eliot saw the [Second World] War as having ruined the unity of European culture” (II 1236). “The cultural health of Europe required that the culture of each country should remain unique” (II 1300).
Eliot het twee boeke met kultuur as kernonderwerp gepubliseer: The idea of a Christian society (1939) en Notes towards the definition of culture (1948). By Amazon is albei saam as ‘n Kindle-weergawe verkrygbaar onder die titel, Christianity and culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1948). Vir Eliot het dit om Europese kultuur gegaan. Hy het die intieme verband tussen kultuur en beskawing uitgewys. Hy het ook tussen die kultuur van ‘n individu, groep en samelewing onderskei, asook lae of populêre en hoë kultuur. Alle kultuur, oftewel lewenswyse, was volgens hom gebonde aan religie; in die Weste spesifiek aan die christelike religie, waarvan hy ‘n sterk voorstander was. Hy skryf oor “the essential relation of culture to religion … No culture has appeared or developed except together with a religion” (TS Eliot Kindle 1182). In ons gesekulariseerde era word hierdie standpunt deesdae bevraagteken.
Die meer skeptiese Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) het ‘n onderskeid tussen kultuur en religie getref. Daarom het Eliot die standpunt van Arnold gekritiseer en “Christian culture as the highest culture” gepostuleer (1506). Eliot het die werklikheid van klasverskille erken. Sy uitgesproke voorkeur was vir hoë kultuur en hoë beskawing. Daarenteen was die ambisieuse Arnold se siening: “Culture being a pursuit of our total perfection, by means of getting to know, on all matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world” (Matthew Arnold, Cuture and anarchy: An essay in political and social criticism, 1869; Amazon Kindle $0, 43). “A man’s life of each day depends for its solidity and value on whether he reads during the day, and, far more still, on what he reads during it” (51). Soos Arnold dit dikwels gestel het: Hy was op soek na volmaaktheid, na “sweetness and light” (bv 115, 248).
Terug na Eliot se boek. Let op sy sobere siening: “All positions in society should be occupied by those who are best fitted to exercise the functions of the positions” (1550). “Qualitative differences between individuals must still be recognised, and … the superior individuals must be formed into suitable groups, endowed with appropriate powers … these groups are what we call elites” (1541). “This higher level of culture must be thought of both as valuable in itself, and as enriching the lower levels” (1569). “The primary channel of transmission of culture is the family” (1654). “The elimination of an upper class at a more developed stage can be a disaster for a country” (1717). Die nuwe Suid-Afrika kan as ‘n tragiese toonbeeld hiervan dien.
Die Australiër, Percy Reginald (Inky) Stephensen (1901-1965), het ‘n eiesoortige Australiese kultuur wat duidelik van dié van die Britte verskil asook nasionale selfrespek bepleit (Bolton II 1470). Stephensen skryf: “Race and Place are the two permanent elements in a culture, and Place, I think, is even more important than Race in giving that culture direction. When races migrate, taking their culture with them, to a new Place, the culture becomes modified. It is the spirit of a Place that ultimately gives any human culture its distinctiveness” (II 1484). “It is literature, according to Stephensen, that gives the greatest sense of Place and Race and Permanence to a nation and which indeed creates the nation” (II 1493). “Culture is the essence of nationality, and the nation an extention of the individuals that comprise it ‘generation after generation’. Nationality gives the individual a sense of pride and meaning” (II 1512). Stephensen “called for a white Australia as a ‘biological aim’ to create a permanent home for persons of ‘European racial derivation’” (II 1636). “The White Australia policy … had been a mainstay for the development of Australian nationhood, based on the aim of what he calls ‘Fused-European Homogeneity’” (II 1716).
Die Afrikanernasie is in 1994 (grootliks) van sy vaderland beroof. Die nuwe heersers het Afrikaners (eintlik alle blankes) tot setlaars of besoekers verklaar. Die permanentheid van die Afrikanerdom word ondermyn omdat ons ons tradisionele plek al hoe minder as herkenbaar, bv as wesenlik Europees, ervaar weens toksiese afrikanisering en hartwringende verval.
Die Nieu-Seelander, ARD (Rex) Fairburn (1904-1957), het op ‘n manier soortgelyk aan Stephensen daarop aangedring dat “New Zealand had to discover its own identity” (II 1899). Fairburn het dit teen die “alien pseudo-culture as conveyed by Hollywood and MTV. It is part of the ‘one world’, ‘internationalized commodity standard’” (II 2079). Fairburn skryf: “My own instinct leads me to resist standardisation of human behaviour in all possible contexts. I believe in ‘personalism’ (which is not quite the same thing as individualism), in regionalism, and in organic growth rather than mechanical order” (II 2089); dus nie sosiale ingenieurswese/manipulasie soos bedryf deur die ANC-regime nie. Ook: “The best status for men is that of independence” (II 2174); dus selfbeskikking, nie-parasitering, ens. “He calls feminism an ‘insidious hysterical protest’ contrary to biological and social imperatives. He saw the biological urge for children as central to women” (II 2218). “He foresaw the danger of New Zealand succumbing to Asia, which in the past few decades has indeed happened, and which proceeds with rapidity” (II 2238).
