Die Amerikaner en trotse Suiderling, Samuel Francis (1947-2005), was ‘n historikus en joernalis wat met sy regse en ander geskrifte nasionale aansien verwerf het. Wanneer ‘n mens sy tekste lees, tref die diepte en oortuigingskrag daarvan jou dadelik. Hy het nie gewildheid gesoek nie en soms met sy onbesproke rasionaliteit sy vlakker en meer opportunistiese geesgenote teleurgestel, bv deur met redenasies aan te toon dat ‘n tuisland van Amerikaanse blankes nie realisties haalbaar is nie. Hieroor skryf ek volgende keer.
In regse geledere is daar groot ondersteuning vir Francis se standpunt dat rasse ingevolge persoonlikheid, gedrag en ook intelligensie verskil. Vandaar die tradisionele Amerikaanse beleid van rassesegregasie. Maar hy het blankes nie beter as ander rasse geag nie; bloot dat blankes anders is, bv dat wittes omstandighede skep waarin hulle (en ander rasse) meer tuis voel as die omstandighede wat deur die leefwyse van nie-wit rasse daargestel word; vandaar die uittog van nie-wittes uit hulle woonbuurte en hulle intog in tradisioneel blanke gebiede. “Non-whites may indeed create a different civilization of their own, but it will not be the same as the one we as whites created and live in, and most of us (or even most non-whites today) would not want to live in it” (Francis, bron hier onder, Kindle 2162).
Daar is ‘n omvattende versameling van Francis se geskrifte beskikbaar: Shots fired: Sam Francis on America’s culture war (FGF Books, 2006, 361p; Amazon Kindle $11,39). In hierdie rubriek bepaal ek my egter by sy politiek soos weerspieël in sy Essential writings on race (New Century Foundation, 2007, 119p; Amazon Kindle $5,64), met ‘n inleiding deur Jared Taylor.
Met verwysing na die Bybel verklaar Francis prontuit: “Neither ‘slavery’ nor ‘racism’ as an institution is a sin” (116). Albei is immers eeue lank algemeen as normaal in ontwikkelde of beskaafde samelewings aanvaar. Dieselfde geld rassediskriminasie of “apartheid and colonialism” (123). Laasgenoemde twee bestaan nie meer in Suid-Afrika nie, maar rassediskriminasie is sekerlik nog met ons, maar hierdie keer word dit met oorgawe in die naam van regstelling, transformasie, of watter eufemisme ook al, ten koste van blankes bedryf.
In die na-koloniale era “we see the transfer of power in almost every dimension of public and private life. Thus far, the transfer is more cultural than it is political or economic” (161). Francis verwys hier na Westerse lande. In die meeste voormalige kolonies is die eens blanke politieke mag aan nie-wittes afgestaan. “In South Africa, the transfer has already been completed” (154).
Vir Francis gaan dit uiteraard hoofsaaklik oor Amerikaanse toestande. Oor kulturele magsoordrag aldaar skryf hy:
“The Martin Luther King [public] holiday [introduced] in 1983 was the first and most important instance of the trend but by no means the last; indeed, it can be argued that the King holiday was merely the legitimizing agent of the attacks on other symbols that have occurred since. Attacks on the display of the Confederate battle flag and on other Confederate and Southern white symbols are now commonplace,* but the Alamo in San Antonio is another traditional white symbol that is also under attack – by Hispanics. The Custer battlefield in Montana now celebrates the Indian victory, although what is historically memorable about the battle of the Little Big Horn is not the victory of several thousand Indians over a small American cavalry detachment but rather the defeat of whites at the hands of non-whites” (161). [* “Attacks on the Confederacy really are: the opening salvo in an assault on everything that is distinctively European” (1478).]
Die swartes wil nie hê dat die vlag wat die Suidelike state in die Amerikaanse Burgeroorlog (1861-1865) gebruik het in die openbaar vertoon word nie omdat dit glo aan die era van slawerny herinner. “Only with the advent of the ‘civil rights’ era [1960s] and of mandated racial equality have the Confederate flag and all other symbols associated with the Confederacy been singled out for attack, and of course the reason is that these flags and symbols are the emblems of a government and culture that was based on slavery and racial inequality. In an age in which the egalitarian imperative is absolute and ‘racism’ is virtually a religious taboo, continuing to honor and display these symbols in public – especially by state and local governments – constitutes an outright act of resistance to the dominant egalitarian orthodoxies” (1492). “It is now open season on all things Confederate” (1558). “The rejection of the Southern and American past was implicit in signs carried by black anti-flag demonstrators last winter [1999-2000] that read, ‘Your Heritage Is Our Slavery'” (1571). Wat die swartes verlang of eis is “the total extirpation of those parts of the Southern past they find ‘offensive’ (ie anything that does not glorify blacks) and the rewriting of the past to magnify and glorify the achievements of their own race” (1577).
In Suid-Afrika matig nie-wittes en hulle blanke meelopers hulle die reg aan om ‘n verbod op die openbare vertoon van die vorige Suid-Afrikaanse vlag by bv sportbyeenkomste te plaas omdat dit glo aan apartheid herinner, asof die era van apartheid net sleg was. Daar is egter geen verbod op lof vir die afgryslike barbaarsheid en misdadigheid wat bv ANC/UDF- en PAC-terrorisme gekenmerk het nie. Ter verduideliking van wat hier bo staan: By Alamo is 180 blankes in 1836 deur Hispaniste gedood in die stryd om Texas se onafhanklikheid van Meksiko te verkry. Nie-wittes se oorwinning oor blankes by Alamo en by Custer mag gevier word maar nie blankes se oorwinnings oor Hispaniste en Indiane nie. Nie-wittes het in hierdie sin die kultuurstryd gewen. Die rede hiervoor is dat Hispaniste en Indiane, soos swartes en Asiate, etniese minderheidsgroepe in Amerika is en op grond daarvan as benadeeldes, as slagoffers van blanke boosheid, beskou word. Insgelyks mag die Voortrekkers se oorwinning by Bloedrivier eintlik nie meer gevier of selfs herdenk word nie omdat dit glo in nie-wit geledere aanstoot sal gee. Ook in die nuwe Suid-Afrika is die veralgemenende persepsie gevestig dat nie-wittes en veral swartes goed en blankes en veral Afrikaners sleg is. Op hierdie manier dring nie-wittes in Amerika en veral swartes in Suid-Afrika hulle wensbeeld van die geskiedenis aan die blankes op.
“The holidays, public anniversaries, flags, songs, statues, museums, symbols, and heroes that a people shares are fundamental to its identity and its existence as a people. What we are witnessing on the official level of public culture in the attacks on these traditional symbols and their displacement by the symbols of other races is the effective abolition of one people and the gradual creation of another” (168). Dit is aan hierdie soort kultuurmoord wat Max du Preez meedoen as hy skryf dat Cecil Rhodes se standbeeld maar gerus verwyder kan word want hy het nooit van Rhodes gehou nie. Du Preez het nie die visie om te besef dat dit in ‘n reeksaksie teen standbeelde van blankes sou ontaard nie. Insgelyk het Wim de Villiers van die verwydering van die laaste oorblyfsel van wat eens die Verwoerd-gebou was ‘n openbare spektakel gemaak om die ANC en Open Stellenbosch ter wille te wees. Mense soos Du Preez en De Villiers, met hulle Hugenote-vanne en anders as Francis, het nie die insig om te besef dat kultuurmoord die aanloop tot die uitwissing van die blankedom kan wees nie.
“Western movies now routinely define the whites as the villians and the Indians and Mexicans – or, even more fantastically, blacks – as the heroes or martyrs … It is routine also to display almost all criminals – rapists, murderers, robbers – as whites, though the statistical truth, of course is that violent crime in the United States is largely the work of non-whites” (175) al is hulle demografies die minderheid. Francis verwys na Mel Gibson se Lethal Weapon-reeks. “The second installment … depicted white South Africans – today’s Hollywood version of Nazis, no doubt – as masterminding drug smuggling into the United States” (181). Wanneer ek sodanige misleidende uitbeelding aanskou, dink ek: As rolprente en televisieprogramme en -advertensies die werklikheid weerspieël, het lande soos Amerika en Suid-Afrika glad nie ‘n ernstige misdaadprobleem nie.
“While the explicit racial hatred of whites expressed in black-directed films is well known, an increasingly common theme in mainstream television and film is that of the dangers represented by hordes of violent and vicious white supremacists, skinheads, neo-Nazis, paleo-Nazis, and racist terrorists who seem to lurk in every city, behind every storefront, in every small town throughout the country, everywhere, all the time. Recently [1994], in the ABC-TV production of the eight-hour film of Stephan King’s The Stand, a tale of the final struggle at the end of the world between supernatural forces of good and evil, the personification of goodness and of God was an elderly black woman, while the devil was portrayed as a blue-eyed, blond-haired white man, whose evil followers waved the Confederate flag. Even at the end of the world, it seems, Hollywood cannot rid us of white racism” (181).
“Today anti-white themes … provide the background and the context of popular entertainment” (195). “This is a calculated tactic aimed at seizing cultural legitimacy and cultural hegemony and ultimately coercive political power on behalf of non-whites at the expense of whites … It offers a conspirational interpretation of history in which whites are systematically demonized as the enemies of the black race, and a myth of black racial solidarity and supremacy. ‘Afro-racism’ is the ideological and political apparatus by which an explicit race war is prepared against the white race and its civilization, not as part of ‘rage’ nor as a response to ‘injustice’ and ‘neglect’ but, like any war, as part of a concerted strategy to acquire power” (201).
Francis haal die volgende groot waarheid op: “Of course non-whites are by no means the only peddlers of anti-white racism. One of the most remarkable features of our interesting times is the degree to which whites themselves help dig their own racial and civilizational grave” (208). Die nuwe Suid-Afrika is ‘n skandalige toonbeeld hiervan. Verlooptes redeneer dikwels “that race is merely a social invention rather than a fact of nature and argues for the abolition of the concept of race as applied to whites. Racial identity is forbidden for whites but not for non-whites (or at least blacks)” (208), wat op dubbele standaarde neerkom. “Of course the explicit goal is to destroy white civilization by doing away with the symbols and institutions of the collective consciousness that defines the race and is the foundation of the culture” (215).
“We know from the population projections by die US Census Bureau last year [1993] that by the middle of the next century [ie 2050] the present white majority of the United States will have dwindled to a minority in its own country, and given that fact and the increasing legitimization of anti-white racism in the United States, the situation in this country for whites is not going to get any better, to say the least. Of course, the revolution could not have succeeded or gone as far as it has without the active assistance of whites” (250).
Bill Clinton is een van die wittes wat die anti-wit-revolusie in woord en daad aanhelp. Omdat die meerderheid Amerikaners teen 2050 na verwagting nie-wit gaan wees, het Clinton blankes gewaarsku om goed vir nie-wittes te wees anders gaan hulle vorentoe bars. Sy naïewe veronderstelling is dat as blankes bv swartes op die hande dra en hulle oorvergoed, hulle dieselfde teenoor blankes sou doen as hulle politieke beheer kry. Dit is egter dwaas om te veronderstel dat daar wederkerigheid gaan wees. In Suid-Afrika het die nie-wittes en veral die swartes tydens apartheid steen en been oor rassediskriminasie gekla omdat dit oneties en ‘n euwel is. Desnieteenstaande is rassediskriminasie nie in die nuwe Suid-Afrika verbied nie en word dit met oorgawe toegepas, maar hierdie keer ten koste van blankes. Tydens apartheid het nie-blankes geëis dat politiek uit sport gehou moet word. In die nuwe Suid-Afrika is politieke inmenging in sport meer as ooit tevore aan die orde van die dag. Die “apartheidsregering” het tuislande aan etniese groepe gegun maar die ANC-regime gun nie ‘n tuisland aan blankes of Afrikaners nie. Blankes word deur swartes uitgesonder vir verguising en nie vir verering vir alles wat hulle tot stand gebring het nie. Ek kan steeds nie die onoortrefbare dwaasheid glo dat toegelaat is dat alles wat sedert 1652 plaaslik opgebou is grootliks onverdiend in die skoot en beheer van die swartes beland het en dat daar geen greintjie (amptelike) dankbaarheid of selfs blote erkentlikheid uit daardie oord jeens blankes is nie.
Volgens Francis is “the pervasive venom of universalism” (256) die onderliggende euwel. “In the universalist world-view, there is neither history nor race nor even species, neither specific cultures nor particular peoples nor meaningful boundaries. Therefore there are no concrete duties to race, nation, community, family, friend, or neighbor and indeed no distinctions to be drawn between neighbor and stranger, friend and foe, mine and thine, us and them. In the happyland of universalism, we owe as much to the children of Somalia – indeed more – than we do to the hapless citizens of Los Angeles … Even to invoke ‘our’ identity, our interests, our aspirations is to invite accusations of all the ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’ that are deployed to prevent further discussions and to paralyze the formation or the retention of a common consciousness that might at some point swell up into actual resistance to our dispossession (263).
Max du Preez is een van diegene wat van ander mense (eerder as homself) verwag om die onderskeid tussen “ons” en “hulle” uit te wis. Daar is ook Wim de Villiers met sy globale benadering waarvolgens die Universiteit Stellenbosch eerder ‘n Afrika- en wêrelduniversiteit moet wees as een wat aan die groepbelange (soos die tradisies, geskiedenis, kultuur en taal) van Afrikaners reg laat geskied. Francis huldig die teenoorgestelde standpunt:
“What we as whites must do is reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites” (283).
“The reassertion of our solidarity must be expressed in racial terms for two major reasons. In the first place, the attack upon us defines itself in racial terms and seeks through the delegitimization of race for whites and the legitimization of race for non-whites the dispersion and destruction of the foundation of our solidarity, while at the same time consolidating non-white cohesivemess against whites” (283). “Secondly, we need to assert a specifically racial identity because race is real … I do not suggest that race as a biological reality is by itself sufficient to explain the civilization of European man – if race were sufficient, there would be no problem – but race is necessary for it, and it is likely that biological science in the near future will show even more clearly how necessary racial, biological, and genetic explanations are to understanding social and historical events more fully” (290).
“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.* If the people or race who created and sustained the civilization of the West should die, then the civilization also will die. A mere cultural consciousness, then, that emphasizes only social and cultural factors as the roots of our civilization is not enough, because a merely cultural consciousness will not by itself conserve the race and people that were necessary for the creation of the culture and who remain necessary for its survival. We need not only to understand the role of race in creating our civilization but also to incorporate that understanding in our defense of our civilization. Until we do so, we can expect only to keep on losing the war we are in” (296).
[* Dink aan hoe woongebiede, skole, universiteite en wat ook al wat blankes opgebou het vir nie-wittes en veral swartes onaanvaarbaar is en opsluit verander/getransformeer moet word om eerder vir hulle as vir blankes te pas.]
Francis kom tot die gevolgtrekking “whites do not act cohesively or think of themselves as a unit, that whites have no racial consciousness … In the United States today, whites exist objectively but do not exist subjectively, and that is in my view the fundamental racial problem they face, the basic reason they (I should say ‘we’) are losing the racial war against us … the spineless abnegation of their own country and culture that is at the root of white male paranoia offers proof of the absence of a subjective existence” (310). “As long as whites continue to avoid and deny their own racial identity, at a time when almost every other racial and ethnic category is rediscovering and asserting its own, whites will have no chance to resist their dispossession and their eventual possible physical destruction” (317).
Blankes wêreldwyd het myns insiens meer om op trots te wees as waaroor hulle skaam hoef te wees. Hulle moet hulle nie laat breinspoel deur nie-wittes wat hulle kritiseer met eensydige voorstellings waarvolgens blankes net sleg is en dat hulle skuldig daaroor moet voel nie. Ek was voorheen (soms) geneig om eerder kultuur- as rasverskille te beklemtoon, maar Francis maak ‘n oortuigende saak daarvoor uit dat blankes in hulle eie belang rasbewus moet word en dat hulle hulle nie moet laat intimideer deur bv swartes wat rasbewustheid by blankes as “rassisme” etiketteer nie. Rasbewustheid kom in groot mate by swartes voor en behoort as teenvoeter ook algemeen by blankes aangetref te word.
Na aanleiding van die invalle van “barbare” in die Romeinse Ryk verwys Francis na “the Roman poet Juvenal’s [60-140 nC] famous line that ‘the Orontes [the main river of ancient Syria] empties its garbage into the Tiber” (942), die rivier by Rome in Italië. Gebeur iets soortgelyks dalk tans in veral Duitsland weens die instroming van immigrante uit die Midde-Ooste en van elders in die Derde Wêreld?
“The perversion of our strengths into weaknesses is exploited against us and our rivals seek victory through our back doors. European Man can survive today only if he begins to recognize that victory through honorable combat is not enough; he must also be prepared to meet the challenges on the level of cultural combat, and the only way he can do so is through recovery of his racial heritage, the roots of who we are and where we come from as a people” (949).
“Jared Taylor noted … ‘There is increasing evidence that personality traits … are under genetic control’ … we now know and are increasingly learning about the role of genetic forces (and therefore race) in shaping personality (and therefore culture)” (962). “Europeans have shown a tendency to neglect their own racial interests and … they find developing their own racial consciousness … difficult. As Jared Taylor noted … every other race tends to think in terms of its own race and group, and ‘Only whites pretend that pluralism and displacement are good things and that measures necessary to ensure group survival may be immoral.’ We tend to think that way because we are naturally prone to transcend subjective and particular interests and to idealize what is objective and universal” (989).
Sedert die jare sestig gee die Amerikaanse regering, anders as voorheen, voorkeur aan immigrante uit die Derde Wêreld; dermate dat deesdae beweer word “America is a ‘nation’ defined by no particular racial or ethnic identity” (1150). Ben Wattenberg het hierdie nuwe realiteit soos volg geformuleer: “America is the ‘first universal nation'” (1150). Bill Clinton noem dit “an embrace of our common humanity” (1164). Hierdie selfverklaarde Amerikaanse etniese en kulturele identiteitloosheid hinder hom nie. Francis skryf: “The idea that America is or has been a universal nation, that it defines itself through the proposition that ‘all men are created equal’,* is a myth. Indeed, it is something less than a myth, it is a mere propaganda line invoked to justify not only mass immigration and the coming racial revolution but also the erosion of nationality itself in globalist free trade and a One World political architecture. It also justifies the total reconstruction and re-definition of the United States as a multi-racial, multi-cultural, and transnational swamp” (1185). Later vra Francis: “If they are born or created equal, do they remain equal?” (1198). [* Die tweede sin van die Amerikaans Onafhanklikheidsverklaring (1776) lui: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …” Francis noem dit “one of the most arcane – and one of the most dangerous – sentences ever written, one of the major blunders of American history” (1205).]
‘n Grondwetkenner word soos volg aangehaal: “Black freedom and equality were, and are, a revolutionary change in the original constitutional system” (1232). Francis skryf: “We are not and never were a ‘universal nation’ … defined by the equality clause of the Declaration” (1329). “A universal nation is … a total rejection of the American past and the national identity as we have always known it. Racial universalism is not simply an adjustment or a ‘reform,’ let alone a continuation of the proper direction of American history, but a revolutionary reconstruction of the American identity” (1336). “Without the common blood that made us a nation in the first place, there will be no American nation” (1383). In Amerika neem die ras- en kulturele revolusie sulke afmetings aan dat daar van die “new America” gepraat word (1798, 2121), wat uiteraard aan die frase “nuwe Suid-Afrika” herinner. Bill Clinton verwelkom die nuwe Amerika en noem hierdie proses “the third great revolution in America” (2114).
“There are three general reasons why a revival of white racial consciousness and identity is needed. In the first place … race deeply affects and shapes cultural life” (2190). “What kind of society and how much civilization a people creates is now clearly known to be related to what kind of race they are, and the decline or disappearance of the white race can be anticipated to impoverish what remains of Western civilization” (2197). “Second, regardless of the role of biologically based racial differences in accounting for behavioral and cultural differences, whites, like any race, should wish to survive and flourish simply for their own sake … whatever their merits or flaws. Even the minimal rationale for racial survival is denied to whites today because of the constant demonization of whites that non-whites and whites themselves heap on them and because of the blindness of whites … to their own racial identity. And third, white racial consciousness is necessary simply as a means of self-protection. White racial identity is an integral component of the historic identity of America as a culture and a nation. The emergence of an explicit racial consciousness among non-whites in a country that remains (so far) majority white and in which whites have constituted the culturally defining and dominant race creates tensions that are already obvious and threaten to become far more dangerous and destabilizing in the future” (2203). Voorheen “white supremacy was able to exist at all only because whites possessed a powerful racial consciousness, and non-whites did not. Today, that situation is reversed – with ominous implications for the dwindling white population” (2250).
Deesdae klink die BLM-frase, “Black Lives Matter,” dikwels op. Plaaslik is ons grusame ervaring dat baie blankes jaarliks in ons stede en dorpe en op ons plase vermoor word, dikwels deur swartes. Het dit nie tyd geword dat ons die BLIK-frase, “Blanke Lewens Is Kosbaar,” tot vervelens toe ophaal nie? Ons weet dit is die waarheid. Waarom word dit nie gesê nie? Dit is myns insiens hoogs onwaarskynlik dat ‘n Afrikaanse koerant weens die sug na politieke korrektheid hom in ‘n hoofartikel positief oor BLIK sou uitlaat. As Max du Preez net lof vir swart bewussyn het, word ruimte graag daaraan afgestaan; selfs aan sy verregaande bewering: “swart landgenote sedert 1994 méér as ons moes aanpas en toegee” (Netwerk24, 13 September). Vir blankes sal Du Preez nie ‘n lansie breek nie. Ewewig is nie in sy aard nie.
Die lengte van hierdie rubriek is sodanig dat ek een van die belangrikste sake wat Francis beredeneer, die moontlikheid van ‘n tuisland vir blankes, nie kon insluit nie. Ek hoop om hierdie kwessie volgende naweek in my rubriek aan die orde te stel.
