Die afgelope tyd is daar op Praag verskeie kere oor die Alt Right of New Right berig. Dié verskynsel kom al hoe meer in veral Amerika, Brittanje en Europa voor, onder meer as reaksie teen die instroming van immigrante uit die Derde Wêreld. In Amerika het politieke regsheid ‘n verdere hupstoot gekry toe Donald Trump ‘n kandidaat vir die presidentskap geword het. Ook: “Obama’s first [and second] term has been a bonanza for white racial awareness … whites are becoming increasingly impatient with liberal excuses for black dysfunction” (Gregory Hood, bron hier onder, Kindle 1355). Daar vind ‘n “increasing radicalization of American conservatives” plaas (1366). Hierdie regsheid word as ‘n alternatief voorgestel of as nuut aangebied ten einde dit van historiese regsheid, bv dié van die Nazi’s, te onderskei, asook van die soort konserwatisme wat die Amerikaanse Republikeinse Party (die “Grand Old Party” of GOP) kenmerk, bv:
“Insofar as there is an intellectual justification for conservatism, it accepts the American founding as part of a gradual progression towards egalitarianism” (1231).
Die GOP is feitlik uitsluitlik op die steun van blanke kiesers aangewese maar daar is baie faksies sodat die GOP eintlik ‘n “breë kerk” of sambreelparty is. “American conservatives lack a core coherent ideology to motivate them and somehow, at the same time, they deny the concrete realities of race, place, religion, and real nationhood in the name of an abstract proposition nation” (1241). Die afsplintering in die GOP vind na regs plaas, bv die Tea Party, omdat gemeen word dat die GOP in baie opsigte nie duidelik genoeg van die linkser Demokratiese Party onderskei kan word nie. “The idea of championing a restricted franchise, nullifying laws [ Civil Rights Acts, Voting Rights Act], or recognizing identity based on ethnicity and culture is obviously unthinkable. After all, conservatives believe it’s their system” (1268). “The premises of the Left (democracy, equality, anti-racism) aren’t systematically challenged” (1287). “Ultimately, both sides in mainstream American politics are united in defining the country as a cultureless and raceless entity” (741). In Suid-Afrika is daar ‘n soortgelyke eendersheid by die twee grootste politieke partye want daar is eerder ‘n graad- as ‘n aardverskil tussen die ANC en die DA.
Die Amerikaanse alternatiewe of nuwe regses het tydskrifte en webwerwe en uitstekende skrywers soos Samuel Francis, Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson en Kevin MacDonald wat hulle boodskap uitdra. Enersyds is Amerika die oorsprong van baie van die euwels wat na Suid-Afrika oorgewaai het, soos regstellende aksie en swart ekonomiese bemagtiging. Andersyds ontluik daar al hoe meer Amerikaanse denkers wat goeie insig openbaar en aan blankes klokhelder kommunikeer wat besig is om te gebeur en wat hulle daaromtrent behoort te doen. Ek wil vandag die naam van Gregory Hood (gebore in 1980) by die pasgenoemde lysie van vier name voeg en doen dit na aanleiding van sy eerste boek, Waking up from the American dream (San Francisco: Counter-Currents Publishing, 2016, 145p; Amazon Kindle $5,69).
Hood is oortuig dat regs reg is en formuleer sy standpunt in taal wat ‘n wonderlike seggingskrag het. Let vervolgens deurgaans op vir ooreenkomste tussen die huidige Amerika en die nuwe Suid-Afrika. “Perhaps the closest parallel to the American situation is the timely example of South Africa” (551). “Once you go black, your country doesn’t come back” (1532). Die afgelope twee dekades kon waargeneem word hoe Suid-Afrika omgedop en heel moontlik vir altyd haas onherkenbaar opgedonder word. Die outeur blyk goed bekend met ons plaaslike omstandighede te wees. “Most conservatives considered Mandela a terrorist” (2023).
Nie-verloopte Afrikaners kan hulle nie met die nuwe Suid-Afrika vereenselwig nie. Insgelyks dink Hood dat Amerikaanse blankes vreemdelinge in hulle vaderland geword het. “I’ve always loved my country … it … isn’t mine anymore” (152). Dit is om ‘t ewe of die Demokratiese Party of die Republikeinse Party aan die bewind is omdat die land in elk geval nie volgens die wense van die meerderheid blanke kiesers regeer word nie. Byvoorbeeld, “repeated studies show that voters are unwilling to support social welfare programs if they are perceived as supporting foreign groups” (1079). “The vote is an all but meaningless privilege, for, even if votes are counted, elections lead to results exactly opposed to what voters say they supported” (2166). In Suid-Afrika is die grondwetlike opset sodanig dat die blanke stem in die uiterste mate gemarginaliseer is en gevolglik ignoreerbaar min invloed uitoefen.
Die outeur verskaf ‘n outobiografiese inleiding, wat met hierdie aanhaling begin: “My father … had it better. He had his people. They had their standards. They had pride” (121). Hood noem homself “a White Nationalist” (144) wat dit onmoontlik vind om ‘n nuwe identiteit gegrond in “social justice” te ontwikkel (152). “After all, what better phrase can be used to justify White Nationalism than ‘for ourselves and our posterity’?” (594). Hy skryf:
“The great imperative of our time is for the white European population within the United States to secure its existence by creating a homeland independent of the present American system” (144). “I want a normal job and a normal life in a homeland for my people ” (163). “American life can still be prosperous, orderly, and enjoyable, but there’s something deeply wrong and sick beneath the surface” (171). “Today, the entire national and international power structure, political system, and moral code is built around suppressing white identity and European Identitarian politics” (163). “While ideologically, words like hierarchy or greatness are closer to the essence of the North American New Right, the word identity is the most relevant” (524).
In die Amerikaanse samelewing is daar dinge waaroor Hood verontwaardig is.
“That our media celebrates people who can’t decide what sex – or even species – they are.* That the smartest people in our society frantically promote an ideology that dredges up the worst within us – weakness, decadence, and an ironic condescension towards past accomplishments. That our entire society seems to be built upon deliberately destroying everything we inherited … Were men always judged not by what they did, but whether they were ‘racist’? … I felt something deeply important had been stolen from me” (180). [* “The latest frontier is the rebellion against gender identification, as progressives who refuse to say they are men or women seek to trump Nature, the ultimate Fascist” (2186).]
“At a certain point, the story of America – and the story of humanity – stopped being about the warriors, the pioneers, and the creators. Instead, it became a story about the victims, the people who built nothing but now had a right to the things other people had made. Our morality demanded it. The nation and the world we lived in had been created, and now all that was left was to point out inequalities and distribute resources accordingly” (196). Dit gaan om “the destruction of ideals, the promotion of ‘equality’, the abolition of ‘racism’ or ‘hierarchy'” (205). In Suid-Afrika het die groot geeste wat in die voor-De Klerk-era in beheer van die land was en diesulkes wat die leiding in die samelewing geneem het plek vir mikrogeeste gemaak. Só word ‘n land nie verbeter nie.
Soos in die nuwe Suid-Afrika waar verpligte indoktrinasiekursusse aan meer as een universiteit ingestel is, noem Hood die Amerikaanse universiteit “an ideological training camp … There was nothing, literally nothing, which could not be deconstructed … Statues on campus had to be torn down or buildings renamed” (205). “American higher education is just a very expensive exercise in ideological misdirection” (213). Ook in Amerika word die blanke studente deur nie-wittes verswelg. Volgens Hood is daar nie sprake dat almal gelyk en eenders kan wees nie. “All men are not created equal” (285). Amerikaanse blankes “have more in common with our racial kinsmen in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and the other nations of the Occident than with our non-white ‘fellow Americans’. Our Republic is no longer a melting pot, but a trash can. America today is simply enforced mediocrity” (293). Hood verwys na “this failed experiment we call the United States” (1366). Nie-wittes “really aren’t like us – and, absent a white majority, the cultural norms and institutions Americans take for granted simply wil not exist” (231). In Suid-Afrika neem dit die vorm aan van die transformasie van skole, universiteite en eintlik die hele samelewing met ‘n prominente neiging tot vernietiging.
Dinge soos hierdie het in Hood se gemoed veranderings veroorsaak. “I awakened to my racial identity. I understood that everything I valued – and everything worth preserving in a declining world – was ultimately dependent on the European-American population” (231). Met “emotional blackmail” word gepoog om blankes te ontmoedig om standpunt in te neem. “All that is best is systematically sacrificed in the service of what is worst” (293). Hy wil ‘n nuwe naam vir blanke Amerikaners hê. “We are not ‘Americans’ … We are Europeans, whites who have conquered the North American wilderness and are prepared to claim our birthright of a nation where we are free to be ourselves … We want a homeland – and we mean to have it. That which was best about America is still ours. But we don’t need this failed experiment anymore. We can be something better” (301). “We need the courage to break with pleasant illusions. Our nation is of blood, not of paper. We need to wake up to our own dispossession, and the forces that made it possible. And we need to create a homeland in order to take back our own souls from a culture that has become a poison” (310). “If white advocates are to triumph, we have to become the popular opposition to the ruling system” (1432).
Die tweede hoofstuk handel oor die Amerikaanse droom wat oorspronklik behels het dat geleenthede aan almal gebied behoort te word (340). Aan die begin van die Amerikaanse geskiedenis is daar in hierdie opsig egter net aan blanke Amerikaners gedink. Soos Jared Taylor dit stel: “The Founding Fathers took for granted that ‘only people of European stock could maintain a society in which they would wish to live'” (661). “The United States of America was built by and for the white race” (1304). Hierdie samelewing het egter ontaard in bv “multiculturalism, anti-racism, and diversity” (319). Daarom word van die Amerikaanse droom gesê: “You have to be asleep to believe it” (340).
Let op hoe dinge skeefgetrek word. “George Washington no longer has a holiday in the country he bequeathed – that honor is reserved for Martin Luther King, Jr. The Father of His Country is remembered as a slave-owner, if at all, by non-European Americans” (481). Met verwysing na Barack Obama skryf Hood: “The presidency is now an affirmative action job” (567). “We have the challenge of breaking away the core population from the state they created” (567). Soos vir Afrikanertuislanders is daar vir Amerikaanse geesgenote ‘n uitdaging: “The primary strategic challenge … is breaking European Americans’ emotional attachment to the state” (602). “We have to tell them that equality is the path to a meaningless life” (575).
Hood wil uit die kokon van die huidige Amerika ontsnap, “the current embarrassment we call a country” (1038). “It is precisely those who contribute least to the country who are most actively rewarded. Therefore, why sacrifice for those who hate you?” (602). Wat word ‘n Amerikaanse skoolkind geleer? “He is being taught that white people are uniquely evil, that he is the recipient of unearned ‘privilege’ because he was born, and that to be a moral person, he has to turn his back on his ancestors” (1543). “European Americans need to fight for identity. They need to fight for a homeland. They need to fight for their very existence and survival” (610). “The American Dream is over – and it has to be replaced with the waking vision of the White Republic” (628).
In ‘n latere hoofstuk skryf Hood (en dit herinner my aan die nuwe Suid-Afrika): “The state is most responsive to those constituencies that offer the least to the national community. Slowly democracy transforms into kakistocracy – rule by the worst. A welfare-dependent minority that votes as part of a bloc is an important part of a politician’s winning coalition … those who receive the most from the state seem to be those who contribute the least to the common good” (701). “‘Equality’ is being taken to its logical conclusion – and all you can ever hope for is serving the people who hate you … you are a slave, and the people who hate you rule you” (1635). “Whites … subsidize people who hate them” (2362). “Instead of an economy that subsidizes the worst in people, we could have had something which promotes the best” (999).
Na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, tydens die Koue Oorlog met die Sowjetunie, maak Amerika “racial egalitarianism a strategic necessity and established it as an American moral principle” (951). Dit gee in die jare sestig aanleiding tot die Amerikaanse swartes se burgerregtebeweging, gevolg deur ander minderheidsregtebewegings. “Ironically, it is the United States that has emerged as the great champion of cultural Marxism even as post-Cold War Russia moves in a more conservative direction, raising the question for the American Right whether they [the Americans] actually lost the Cold War” (951). In Sirië “the United States is committed to preventing the rise of a truly European Europe” omdat hy kant ten gunste van die Moslems in Kosovo gekies het. Die Amerikaanse bevelvoerder, Wesley Clark, het gesê: “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states” (960). Die keuse wat Amerika aan Europa gestel het is “being either a soulless museum or a conquered province of the Dar al-Islam” (969).
“Race is superior to any other foundational principle, including religion, ideology, or economics, as the basis of a society. A sophisticated understanding of race is in and of itself sufficient to ensure the survival and perpetuation of a society … At the most basic level, the physical existence of the people has to be guaranteed … Economic recession, military occupation, disease, and political repression can pass with time – all are temporary if the folk remains intact” (1038). Vir die “white advocacy movement” (1661) “the overall strategic objective of political activity is to make race the defining difference between various political, cultural, and social groups, as a precursor to the formation of an ethnostate, the great dream of the White Republic” (1680). Selfs die uiters linkse Noam Chomsky erken: “Race is in fact a human characteristic – there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic” (2107). “We know that people are mentally healthier in ethnically homogeneous societies. We know diversity destroys social trust” (1050). “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion” (1079). “It doesn’t matter if black unemployment is skyrocketing and their communities are devastated – they vote black. It doesn’t matter if Nevada has the worst economy in the country – they vote Hispanic” (1532). Hood begeer: “Our people first – Eigen Volk Eerst as the Vlaams Belang says” (1145).
Selde het ek ‘n oortuigender pleidooi gelees as Hood se hoofstuk: “A White Nationalist memo to white male Republicans.” Ek wens die teks kon in sy geheel op Praag herpubliseer word. Ek stip vervolgens enkele waarhede aan wat Hood daarin en in ander hoofstukke opper.
● “A successful black President will restructure the entire country along anti-white lines” (1343). “Take a good, hard look at those Obama victory rallies. They are celebrating your dispossession, your displacement from the country your ancestors built … Even the President of the United States said: ‘Voting is the best revenge’. Revenge for what? … It’s revenge for ‘racism’ … It’s vengeance against the America that once was … Obama is President … and was re-elected because, not in spite of the fact that he despises everything America was” (1509).
● “As a white American, you are a second-class citizen in jobs, education, and government benefits” (1616). “The end of responsibility is really the end of citizenship. Back when America was a real country, citizenship was a duty owed to the larger society” (2156). “Today, citizenship is a burden, offering punishment and censure rather than full participation in political life. The founding stock of the country is actively discriminated against in jobs, education, and financial aid, and is utterly cut off from meaningful political participation in many of the nation’s largest cities on account of our race. Meanwhile, immigrants and their advocates protest that they are ‘second-class citizens’ when in actuality they are not citizens at all. As recipients of free medical care, tax exemptions, state-sponsored ethnic solidarity, and a vast system of patronage and welfare set up for their benefit, those who are not part of the political community are more assiduously courted than actual Americans” (2166).
● “American nationalism is far more appealing to European Americans than White Nationalism. ‘Whiteness’ is a foreign idea* to many whites” (2487), asof hulle geen “legitimate group interests” het nie. “In contrast, other groups (including Jews) do have legitimate group interests” (2529). “But we are now in a position where whites are being forcibly enrolled in what is a state church with no salvation. To be white is to be racist, full stop … many whites … will simply stop calling themselves white and suddenly rediscover whatever miniscule non-white heritage they have. Many Hispanics who would have been considered ‘white’ in years past now aggressively demand their membership as part of an ‘oppressed’ group, and other ‘minorities’ are eager to follow suit. Even Asians say they’re oppressed now. But there still need to be some white men left to pay the bills” (2487).
Wat opval is dat wanneer nie-wittes groepverwantskap (bv ras) ophaal ter eie bevoordeling dit by voorkeur “solidariteit” genoem word. Wanneer wittes dieselfde doen, dikwels bloot ter selfverdediging en om die behoud van hulle groep (soos Hood doen), word dit as “rassisme” geëtiketteer. Daarteenoor word blatante rassediskriminasie deesdae eufemisties “regstelling” of “transformasie” genoem.
[* Anders as by swartes beroep wittes hulle tradisioneel nie op hulle blankheid nie en deesdae slegs ter beskerming van hulle belange, insluitende hulle voortbestaan. Dit kan daarop dui dat wittes (van nature) nie rassisties is nie, dat hulle om historiese of ander redes stille vertroue in die aard van hulle etnisiteit het. In die praktyk word dikwels die teenoorgestelde beweer, dus dat wittes van nature rassisties is en swartes nie rassisties is of kan wees nie.]
In regse geledere is daar glo (feitlik) noodwendig verdeeldheid. “White Nationalists are … incredibly divided when it comes to political action – the price of being independent thinkers against the egalitarian ideology of the regime” (1343). Dit is ‘n (twyfelagtige) argument wat dikwels ter verduideliking en selfs as regverdiging van regse verdeeldheid gebruik word.
In iedere Amerikaanse verkiesing is vuurwapenbesit ‘n omstrede kwessie. “The current debate has been refreshingly frank about the use of firearms by whites to defend against non-white crime. The Left simply charges that whites have a duty to die as a form of penance for past sins against egalitarianism” (2156). “The entire network of human rights, constitutional guarantees, and all the rest are a way for the state to criminalize attempts at self-protection” (2215). Wat reeds gebeur is “robbers suing homeowners for attacking them” (2215).
Die laaste hoofstuk handel oor Donald Trump en is geskryf voordat hy as die Republikeinse Party se presidentskandidaat benoem is. Sedert Trump met sy presidentsverkiesingsveldtog begin het “things will never be the same for the American Right” (105). “Trump has undoubtedly fueled the rise of the Alt Right … It’s not that Trump is ‘pro-white’; it’s that he’s not anti-white, which makes him far Right in the current political context … what he would lead to [could be] a legitimate, nationalist American Right” (2487). Aan die ander kant “the anti-white identity politics of the Left will be accelerated under a Trump presidency” (2505). Hy wil Amerika weer “strong and great” maak (2446; ook 2505). “Without explicit white identity politics to safeguard the core population, America can never be great again, let alone greater than it has ever been, as Trump promises” (2514).
Hood dink dit is onwaarskynlik dat Trump tot president verkies sal word (2476, 2514) maar “the Great Wall of Trump would be a glorious symbol of our national will to survive. Unfortunately, unless we repatriate post-1965 non-white immigrants, legal and illegal, the demographic damage is already done” (2476). “The only future for the American Right is identity politics” (2514). As Trump president word, sal dit “the USA a longer lease on life” gee (2514) maar “it’s only a temporary reprieve for the United States and for European Americans” (2538). Die wenslikheid van ‘n etniese nasiestaat vir blankes sal nie minder word nie. As Trump verloor, sal dit na verwagting die einde van sowel konserwatisme (2514) as “Americanism” wees (2521).
Karel Schoeman het ‘n boek, Die laaste Afrikaanse boek (2002), geskryf. Hermann Giliomee het ‘n boek, Die laaste Afrikanerleiers (2012), gepubliseer. Dan Sleigh het ‘n boek, 1795 (2016), oor “die laaste goeie man” geskryf. Dit lyk asof ons die eindtye betree het, want Hood verwys na Trump as “the last American because he’s the last politician who will ever appeal to the core American population, in the name of the old American order, through the old democratic means … Trump is already a transformational figure. He reveals the System is incapable of saving itself, and European Americans should plan for what comes next” (2547).
“What are whites in the American system? Everything in terms of the core culture, the source of political power, and the fount of political legitimacy (as they created the state). But what are they in the political and social order explicitly? Nothing. What is our job? To make them something … Culturally and historically, whites will never surrender their sense of ownership of the United States, whatever regime rules it” (2538).
Vir my persoonlik is daar drie dinge in Hood se boek wat verrassend ooreenstem met wat ek voorheen geskryf het. Eerstens noem hy die openlike misbruik van die maatskaplike stelsel ook parasitering (1448). Tweedens gebruik hy die term “castrati” (1277, 2285). Ek het dieselfde term gebruik vir die ontmagtiging van Afrikaners en Afrikaans (Praag 1.09.2013 en 8.09.2013). Derdens skryf Hood oor Amerika: “There’s no nation. Instead, there’s a collection of individuals” (2400). Ek het al meermale genoem dat daar nie ‘n Suid-Afrikaanse nasie is nie; net ‘n bevolking waarvan miljoene nie eens Suid-Afrikaanse burgers is nie. Desnieteenstaande beweer die ANC op grond van die 1955-Vryheidsmanifes dat Suid-Afrika aan al sy inwoners behoort.
Hood bepleit blanke nasionalisme wat hopelik uiteindelik neerslag in ‘n blanke staat gegrond op ras (of etnisiteit) sal vind. Hy verhef eerder ras as kultuur tot norm, moontlik omdat eersgenoemde konkreter en dalk makliker bepaalbaar is. ‘n Belangrike insig is dat hy blanke Amerikaners die (gesonde) kernbevolkingsgroep noem; daardie mense wat Amerika die suksesvolste en voorspoedigste land ooit gemaak het. Dit is maklik om te begryp waarom hy verontwaardig is omdat hierdie waardevolle mense geminag en vertrap word en hy voorstelle doen om die situasie te beredder. Aan sy opregtheid twyfel ek nie.
Hy sal egter kwalik vry bly van die ongegronde, wilde maar gewilde beskuldiging van rassisme. Diegene wat tot ‘n suksesvolle, presterende groep behoort sou uiteraard geneig wees om hulle groepverwantskap, bv ras, voorop te stel. Insgelyks sou diegene wat tot ‘n groep behoort wat met negatiewe kenmerke geassosieer word, poog om die viering van groepverwantskap vir ander groepe taboe te maak. In die praktyk word gevind dat swartes hulle rasgroep met bv “Black is beautiful” propageer. Wat Hood wil hê, is dat blankes as teenvoeter ook rasbewus moet wees en hulle ras moet vier, bv met “Wit is bakgat”; des te meer omdat blankes dwarsoor die wêreld oorvloedig rede daartoe het. Hy verlang dat blankes dieselfde mate van ras- of stambewustheid as swartes moet hê. Hy bepleit nie rassisme of rassehaat nie.
