Etiket: Milo Yiannopoulos

Leon Lemmer: Die verpolitisering van universiteite

Die Universiteit van Suid-Afrika (Unisa) was ‘n baanbreker op die gebied van afstandsonderrig. In 1946 het Unisa begin oorskakel van bloot ‘n eksaminerende instansie na die verskaffing van tersiêre onderrig oor die pos, waarmee in 1947 begin is. Aanvanklik was daar groot skeptisisme oor of so ‘n onderneming genoeg studente sou trek en in hoeverre die kwalifikasies naas dié van residensiële universiteite deur werkgewers en ander universiteite erken sou word. Die persoon wat Unisa meer as enigiemand anders op ‘n gesonde akademiese grondslag geplaas het, is Samuel Pauw, die rektor van 1956 tot 1972. Sy uitgangspunt was dat die onderrig wat Unisa aanbied en die standaarde wat hy stel, eerder beter as net so goed soos dié van ander universiteite moet wees.

Die geskiedenis van die eerste eeu is deur Maurice Boucher geboekstaaf: Spes in arduis: ‘n Geskiedenis van die Universiteit van Suid-Afrika (Pretoria: Unisa, 1973, 404p). Die teks is ook in die oorspronklike Engels gepubliseer. Vir elke vraestel in elke kursus in elke vak/leergang het die student gedrukte studiegidse en studiebriewe ontvang. Hy moes die voorgeskrewe boeke aankoop en die aanbevole boeke by die Unisa-biblioteek in Pretoria leen en terugbesorg. ‘n Doeltreffende posdiens het suksesvolle afstandstudie moontlik gemaak. Gedurende die jaar moes die student ‘n bevredigende punt vir sy verpligte werkopdragte behaal om toelating tot die eksamen aan die einde van die jaar te kry. In die eksamen is vasgestel hoedanig die student se kennis en insig is, asook of hy daardie kennis kon vertolk en toepas. Soos dit in Unisa se leuse gestel word, het afstandstudie van die student inderdaad moed teen die styltes geverg. Maar geeneen kon toe met reg meer aanvoer dat hy nooit die geleentheid gehad het om ‘n universitêre kwalifikasie te verwerf nie.

Deesdae is afstandskommunikasie baie gouer en makliker en word afstandsonderrig toenemend deur residensiële universiteite aangebied. Sonder elektroniese uitvindings soos rekenaars en die internet sou Unisa in die nuwe Suid-Afrika, ná die ineenstorting van die posdiens, nie kon voortbestaan nie. Die onderrig is in sowel Afrikaans as Engels aangebied. Wat personeel (dosente en administratiewe amptenare) betref, was Unisa tot 1994 oorwegend ‘n Afrikaanse universiteit. Fakulteits- en senaatsvergaderings is feitlik uitsluitlik in Afrikaans gehou. Sedertdien het transformasie plaasgevind. Engels-eentaligheid het ingetree en sowel die akademiese as administratiewe aansien van Unisa het ernstige en heel moontlik onherstelbare skade gely.

Ek skryf oor die goeie ou dae toe Unisa-studente eerder deeltyds as voltyds studeer het. Vanweë die groot aanvraag vir sy onderrig, plaaslik en in die buiteland, kon Unisa vakke, bv in vreemde tale (soos Spaans), aanbied wat aan geen ander plaaslike universiteit lewensvatbaar sou wees nie. Maar daar was ook ander innovasies. Byvoorbeeld, in die wysbegeerte/filosofie was daar twee hoofvakke: Geskiedenis van die Wysbegeerte (GW) en Sistematiese Wysbegeerte (SW). In GW is die vak chronologies aangebied: 1ste jaar (1 vraestel) Antieke/Griekse wysbegeerte. 2de jaar (2 vraestelle) Middeleeuse wysbegeerte en Thomisme en Nieu-Thomisme. 3de jaar (3 vraestelle) Moderne wysbegeerte tot die 19de eeu. In SW is die vak ingevolge wysgerige subdissiplines aangebied: 1ste jaar (1 vraestel) Inleiding/Aard van die wysbegeerte. 2de jaar (2 vraestelle) Formele logika en Wetenskapsleer/Metodologie. 3de jaar (3 vraestelle) Kennisleer/Epistemologie, Metafisika, Etiek, Waardefilosofie/Aksiologie: Estetika of Staatsfilosofie.

Eksamen kon in talle sentra dwarsoor die land en in sommige hoofstede in die buiteland geskryf word. In Kaapstad, in die jare vyftig, het die Universiteit Kaapstad die eksamenlokaal in Oranjezicht verskaf. ‘n Bejaarde dame, mevrou Adendorf, het as opsiener opgetree. Op ‘n dag sê sy dat sy nog altyd gewonder het wat die verskil tussen historiese en sistematiese wysbegeerte is. Op ‘n ander dag is sy, met die dag se eksamenskrifte by haar, op die stasie dood aangetref.

‘n Rooms-Katolieke Belg, Herman de Vleeschauwer (1899-1986), het in 1923 ‘n doktorsgraad verwerf en in 1934 ‘n professor in Gent geword. Hy was van 1951 tot 1966 ‘n Unisa-dosent en het die Geskiedenis van die Wysbegeerte aangebied. Hy het ‘n spekulatiewe, kontinentale benadering tot die wysbegeerte gehad. Die ateïstiese AMT (Bert) Meyer (gebore in 1922) was van 1959 tot 1971 die dosent in Sistematiese Wysbegeerte. Daarna het hy na Nederland geëmigreer. Hy het die wysbegeerte Anglo-Amerikaans en analities benader. In Pieter Duvenage se boek, Afrikaanse filosofie: Perspektiewe en dialoë (Bloemfontein: Sun Media, 2016, 306p – Praag 16.04.2017) is daar ‘n hoofstuk oor Bert Meyer.

Wat duidelik is, is dat Unisa-studente met twee volwaardige voorgraadse hoofvakke omvattender as aan residensiële universiteite met die wysbegeerte kennis gemaak het. In daardie stadium is die aanbieding van die wysbegeerte aan die Afrikaanse universiteite, soos in die Middeleeuse, sterk deur godsdienstige/teologiese oorwegings beïnvloed en daardeur gerig en selfs oorheers. Dit is waarom Bert Meyer sy pos aan die Universiteit Pretoria ontruim het om eerder ‘n Unisa-dosent te word. Unisa-studente is, soos dit hoort, aan verskillende benaderings blootgestel: bv in die wysbegeerte Rooms-Katoliek en kontinentaal teenoor ateïsties en analities. Maar selfs daardie opset was nie vry van onregverdigbare religieuse beïnvloeding nie. De Vleeschauwer het aan die druk van die Rooms-Katolieke Kerk (RKK) toegegee deur voorgraads ‘n hele vraestel aan die basis van RKK-teologie te wy: die wysbegeerte van Thomas van Aquino (1225-1274), dus wesenlik die verchristeliking van Aristoteles (384-322 vC), en sy navolgers, die Nieu-Thomiste, tot in die 20ste eeu.

Dit het onder meer die volgende hoogs ongewenste gevolg gehad: Ten spyte van die rojale voorgraadse aanbod het die leerplan die studie van die geskiedenis van die wysbegeerte, met die uitsondering van Nieu-Thomisme, nie verder as die 19de eeu gevoer nie. Eers in die eerste honneursvraestel het 20ste eeuse/hedendaagse wysbegeerte aan die beurt gekom. Daar was vier honneursvraestelle. Hierna was daar nog nie ‘n einde aan die buitensporige vereistes wat Unisa aan ‘n student gestel het nie. Die magisterleergang in die wysbegeerte het uit twee vraestelle en ‘n volwaardige verhandeling bestaan, terwyl die residensiële universiteite net ‘n verhandeling vereis het. Deesdae word die magisterleergang aan die plaaslike universiteite dikwels afgewater tot slegs vraestelle of vraestelle en ‘n skripsie van beperkte omvang, soortgelyk aan ‘n vakkundige artikel.

Ek het grootgeword in die dampkring van ‘n protestantse predikant vir wie die Roomse gevaar die grootste onding op aarde was. De Vleeschauwer het die ryke kultureel-geestelike verskeidenheid van die Middeleeue, wat hy van 400 tot 1400 nC gedateer het, aan my bekend gestel. Dit was nie donker eeue soos dit dikwels in protestantse geledere voorgestel word nie. In daardie era is die grondslag vir die moderne tyd, die Renaissance, Verligting, Protestantisme, moderne wetenskap, nasionale state en tale, ens, gelê. Die latere geskiedenis van Europa, die Weste en die wêreld kan nie afdoende sonder kennis van die Middeleeue verstaan word nie.

Dit bring my by Milo Yiannopoulos (gebore in 1984) se boek, Middle Rages: Why the battle for Medieval Studies matters to America (Dangerous Books, 2nd edition, 2019, 56p; Amazon Kindle $3.44). Die boek is deur die outeur self gepubliseer. “This story was originally slated to appear in one of the country’s most prestigious higher education publications … Two days before publication, I was abruptly informed that the story would not run as intended, with no further explanation offered” (Kindle 288). Die eerste weergawe het in 2018 op die outeur se webwerf, dangerous.com, verskyn.

Ek het by ‘n vorige geleentheid oor Milo geskryf. Ek haal ‘n paragraaf aan: “JH du Toit het reeds oor die Milo-manie op Praag (11 Februarie [2017]) geskryf. Milo lyk en is in vele opsigte anders as die stereotiepe beeld wat aan regses gegee word. Dit maak dit moeilik om hom sonder meer te ondersteun. Lees bv die omvattende Wikipedia-artikel. Maar Milo het veral op Amerikaanse universiteitskampusse ‘n oorwegend heilsame invloed, waar – soos deesdae in Suid-Afrika – regse standpunte feitlik nooit gehoor word nie. In hierdie konteks word Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) soos volg deur Milo aangehaal: ‘The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any'” (Praag 7.10.2017).

Intussen het Milo verder op sy eiesoortige pad gevorder. “Milo lives in New Jersey with his husband, John” (Kindle 778) – waarskynlik ‘n skuilnaam. Die boek is aan John opgedra (11). “I am married to a black man from Jersey” (251). Sy lewensmaat is dus soos dié van die vigslyer en gay-aktivis, Edwin Cameron, wat teen wil en dank op aandrang van Wim de Villiers as kanselier van die Universiteit Stellenbosch (US) aangestel is om as rolmodel vir studente en andere te dien. Cameron is ‘n US- en Unisa-oudstudent. Volgens Nelson Mandela is Cameron “one of South Africa’s new heroes” (Wikipedia). Wat goed genoeg vir Mandela is, is (vanselfsprekend) goed genoeg vir die getransformeerde US.

In sy nuwe boek toon Milo weer sy omvattende ingeligtheid en sy buitengewoon goeie insig, al beweer die Wikipedia die teenoorgestelde. Hy slaag daarin om op ‘n sprankelende manier sy gedagtes te verwoord. Vryheid van denke en uitdrukking bly sy hoofokkupasie eerder as konserwatiewe, behoudende denke – daarvoor is hy in te vele opsigte te radikaal. Maar hy het fundamenteel reg met: “Wat deesdae regstelling, korrektheid en byderwetsheid genoem word, is eintlik almal polities oordraagbare siekte; tentakels van dieselfde sindroom” – soos ek dit in die vorige rubriek oor Milo gestel het. Hy dink, soos ek, dat ‘n universiteit nie net verskillende standpunte moet toelaat nie, maar dit daadwerklik moet aanmoedig. “Wanneer ‘n universiteit soos Stellenbosch [egter] deesdae diversiteit propageer, gaan dit om die obsessie om ‘n verskeidenheid rasse en kulture op die kampus te hê; nie om die studente ook aan nie-linkse, bv regse, idees bloot te stel nie.”

Milo se benadering tot die Middeleeue is ewewigtig en myns insiens korrek. Wat aan veral die Amerikaanse universiteite gebeur, is dat Medieval Studies verdag gemaak en gekritiseer word omdat dit glo te wit en manlik is. Wat verlang word, is inklusiwiteit, oftewel diversiteit en multikulturaliteit; dus die soort pleidooie wat al hoe meer ook op die plaaslike universiteitskampusse opklink. Dit is “die ander” wat deel van die hoofstroom wil wees en dus ook gekanoniseer moet word; dus nie net (of veral) blanke mans nie, al het die ander nie (in dieselfde mate) gepresteer nie. Die sogenaamde benadeeldes koester slagofferstatus en wil hê dat die geskiedenis herskryf moet word sodat die rol wat hulle voorgangers na bewering gespeel het, ook die aandag geniet wat hulle glo verdien.

Dit is eintlik soortgelyk aan die besware teen kolonialisme. Die geskiedenis moet verwring word totdat dit in ooreenstemming met hedendaagse ideologiese oortuigings is. Die kere toe hieraan toegee is, “accurate understanding of the past and its greatnesses have given way to scapegoating, victimology, and ressentiment” (21). “The intersectionalists are actually the specific heirs to a Western egalitarian tradition with no parallels. To turn on the culture that produced you and label it the origin of all evil is a sort of oedipal auto-cannibalism that literally cuts off inspiration at its source” (657). Hedendaagse Amerikaanse universiteite is feitlik per definisie anti-Amerikaans, dus dislojaal, onpatrioties en deurspek met kulturele marxisme.

“Medieval Studies is an outlier in the academy. Although the foundational texts of medieval history are also the foundational texts of the academy itself, it has always been on the margins as a discipline. Since the founding of the Medieval Academy in 1925, it has been an interdisciplinary endeavor including language, liberature, history and philosophy” (199). “Medieval Studies would be a glistering jewel in the social justice diadem, because study of the Middle Ages is fundamental to understanding how the Christian West emerged, and how dramatically its character differs from other cultures.* Read properly, medieval history is about the divine comedy of Christianity – and about the rise of its great eastern antagonist, Islam. Europe’s self-criticism is what medieval studies is largely about, so it stands at the heart of current debates about Europe and western civilization,including the current moral panic about white supremacy” (332). Onderwerpe soos “white ethno-states” (369), nasionalisme, skone kuns en religie, veral die Christendom, kan nie vermy word nie. Hulle almal het tot die Weste se sukses bygedra (337). Volgens die kritici is die studie van die Middeleeue ” a safe space to be elitist, a safe space to be white, a safe space to be Christian, Eurocentric, misogynist” (354). Wat deesdae, in sy geheel gesien, onaanvaar van die Middeleeue is, is sy “unbearable whiteness” (390). “Europe is too ‘white-centric'” (405).

[* Ingevolge sosiale geregtigheid is bv mense, religieë en kulture gelyk en fundamenteel eenders. Die andersoortigheid van die Weste mag dus nie uitgelig word nie. Maar: “The historical fact remains that from around 1000 CE western European Christian society developed in ways connected to, but distinct from, other parts of the world” (354). Die linkses se eintlike grief is “the cultural and economic superiority of the West” (396).]

In die boek word daar veral verwys na die smeerveldtog wat teen ‘n gerekende historikus in Middeleeuse Studie gevoer word: die “white, Republican-voting Catholic convert” (136) Rachel Fulton Brown, verbonde aan die University of Chicago. “Here we have several common features of academic decay: the politization of a scholarly field, the arousal of tribal resentments, allegations of white supremacy, a victim of color, a white perpetrator, a protest letter with many, many signatures, and a compliant media” (27). Die “victim of color ” is ‘n ander dosent in Middeleeuse Studie, die Koreaan Dorothy Kim.

Die beswaarskrif teen Brown is deur 1 500 dosente ondersteun. Sy word beskou as “being insufficiently woke on matters of social justice” (131). “Sharp-elbowed young professors know that a preoccupation with social justice is both fashionable and advantageous. It can also excuse you from the perky business of serious scholarly work” (220). “They signed the letter because they wanted to signal their virtue, because they wanted their colleagues to think well of them, or because they wanted to ease for a moment their liberal guilt” (37). Onderliggend is daar identiteitspolitiek en politieke korrektheid, waarvolgens nieblankes verheerlik en blankes verdoem word. Dit is ‘n voorbeeld van die “anti-intellectual ossification into which the humanities have deteriorated” (32).

Baie van die akademiese euwels wat in hierdie rubriek aan bod kom, is reeds in my vorige rubriek oor Michael Rectenwald genoem (Praag 20.07.2019). Milo verwys spesifiek na die geval Rectenwald (622). Daar is talle ooreenkomste tussen die stryd wat Rectenwald gevoer het en dié van Brown. In die genoemde vorige rubriek het ek ook bronne gelys wat handel oor die oorweldigende linksheid van Amerikaanse universiteite. Die aanslag teen Middeleeuse Studie is deel hiervan.

Brown se misstap is dat sy in 2015 ‘n inskrywing op haar blog met die opskrif, “Three cheers for white men”, gepubliseer het. “She was responding playfully to the ‘dead white male’ trope in academia, gently pointing out that the wicked Caucasian dudes of social justice folklore were responsible for, among other things, the development of chivalry, consensual marriage and, to some extent, the success of feminism itself” (49). Wat Brown na bewering via haar blog gedoen het, is “‘facilitating cyber-harassment’. In the topsy-turvy world of social justice, reporting is abuse, journalism is harassment and political dissidence is a capital crime” (478).

“Brown’s colleagues declared war on her, incensed by her refusal to back down and apologize” (55). Sy het ‘n permanente doseerpos, maar haar werkgewer het die kritiek op Brown as baie ernstig beskou, maar tog besluit om haar nie te ontslaan nie. Dit is te danke aan die feit dat die University of Chicago sterker akademies en (dus) minder polities byderwets as baie (of die meeste) ander Amerikaanse universiteite is. Maar: “How can the University of Chicago, rightly lauded for its attitude to academic freedom and freedom of speech, win the fight against trigger warnings and safe spaces if other universities don’t recognize what it means to stand for academic freedom against the social justice warriors? Or for truth against social justice?” (725). “To this day, the University of Chicago remains silent on the matter, and her [Brown’s] department [history] has done nothing besides issue a boilerplate statement distancing themselves from Fulton Brown’s personal opinions. The Medieval Academy of America, an academic body to which most medievalists belong, didn’t punish Kim, instead, they rewarded her. Kim was given free membership … for life” (189).

Die gebeure dui op hoe toksies die atmosfeer aan universiteite is; hoe kronies siek die akademie geword het. Dit verduidelik bv waarom daar by die dosentekorps van die Universiteit Stellenbosch geen daadwerklike teenstand teen Wim de Villiers se verengelsingsbeleid is nie. Ook waarom die US-senaat vroeër vanjaar eenparig die verlenging van De Villiers se termyn as rektor vir ‘n verdere vyf jaar aanbeveel het. Almal val sonder verset in by wat in die mode is. “Scholars are not known for their courage” (736). Eintlik is die houding van die US-dosentekorps dalk eerder “self-serving cowardice – not to mention suicidal professional stupidity, given the vast body of evidence we now have about what happens to university departments and academic disciplines once they capitulate to the insatiable cult of social justice” (742). Die eens goeie beeld van die US as akademiese inrigting het die afgelope dekade of twee radikaal verander. “The glamor and admiration once associated with higher education is evaporating, now that universities are seen as hyper-partisan centers of political indoctrination and fortresses of elitist hypocrisy” (616). “Educators refused to defend their own academic freedom from the rising tide of political correctness, social justice, victimhood culture and millennial entitlement … The faculty has no one to blame but itself” (622).

“Brown was taken to task for refusing to acknowledge the problematic ‘whiteness’ of her field and her responsibility as a Medieval Studies professor to ‘do something about it'” (55). Dit is klaarblyklik “an attempt to inject into the study of the Middle Ages the same far-Left identity politicking that has done so much damage to liberal arts departments” (60). In die humaniora in Amerika is dit veral Engelsdepartemente wat hulle aan ekstreme linksheid oorgegee het en in die sosiale wetenskappe is dit veral dosente in kulturele/sosiale antropologie en sosiologie. Die beswaar teen Brown is onder meer “about medieval history being used to shore up white supremacy” (84).

‘n Mens vra jou af: Hoe op aarde moet Brown die studie van die Middeleeue ontwit? Sy het ruggraat en het vir die aktivistiese akademici uitdagend aangesê: “Learn some fucking history” (84). “Her point being that learning the facts about the Middle Ages destroys any white supremacist narratives” (235). “The story grew legs, and journalists started sniffing around, ears cocked for any headline into which they could crowbar a reference to white supremacy” (105). Retories is Brown daarvan beskuldig dat sy ‘n rassis, fascis, nazi, anti-semitis, blanke heerssugtige, wit nasionalis, ens, is. Die siening van haar kritici is bv “the Crusades as a manifestation of white imperialism” (359) en “Medieval Studies is actively hostile to minorities [ie non-whites]” (430).

Dorothy Kim “kicked off all the drama” (277) en het Brown die skerpste en herhaaldelik aangeval. Sy is aktivisties en polities betrokke. “Neutrality is not optional” (277). Kim is baie jonger as Brown en het nog nie ‘n vaste aanstelling as dosent in Middeleeuse Studie nie. Brown is ‘n medeprofessor in geskiedenis terwyl Kim ‘n assistent-professor in ‘n Engelsdepartement is en in letterkunde spesialiseer. In 2015, toe die polemiek ontstaan het, was Kim aan Vassar College (Ploughkeepsie, New York) verbonde. “She has since been appointed at Brandeis University [Waltham, Massachusetts], which has a reputation for indulging identity politics and social justice demands to a degree considered extreme even by university standards” (225). Kim het ‘n boek oor die gebeure geskryf wat na verwagting aan die einde van 2019 gepubliseer gaan word: Digital whiteness and Medieval Studies (153p). Daar is interessante inligting oor hierdie polemiek op die internet beskikbaar: Google Rachel Fulton Brown en Barbara Kim. Dit is duidelik dat Brown se vriendskap met Milo Yiannopoulos haar by baie mense in onguns gebring het. Die National Association of Scholars het genadiglik sy steun aan Brown toegesê.

Al die afgesaagde besware teen die blankes en die Weste word ter diskreditering van Middeleeuse Studie opgehaal. “Insufficient attention is paid in medieval curricula to the ‘problem of whiteness’ and its complicity in European slavery … But the medieval slave trade stretched from Scandinavia to the furthest reaches of the Muslim world. Vikings began their raids not for food or precious metals, but to abduct people they could sell into servitude. Globally speaking, slavery isn’t a ‘white thing’ – it wasn’t in the Middle Ages and it isn’t now” (414). “Leftist critiques of the field seem to have less to do with rebalancing a Eurocentric understanding of the past than they do with giving white Christian Europe – and, by implication, modern Christian America – a bad name” (420).

Daar is ook aktiviste wat “queer readings of the Middle Ages” verlang (493). Hierteenoor kan ‘n meer realistiese standpunt gestel word, soos dat “modern feminism [is] … a ‘sour mix of victimization and privilege'” (532). ‘n Tipiese (oordrewe) verweer is dat dit ‘n uitdrukking van haat jeens vroue is (536). Maar dit kan ook beskou word as ‘n geldige beswaar teen “the excesses of feminism” en ‘n poging “to build men up” (541) uit hulle huidige vertrapte toestand.

Leon Lemmer: Nasionalisme teenoor globalisme – Lauren Southern en Ricardo Duchesne

Lauren Southern (gebore in 1995) is ‘n aantreklike Kanadees wat haar politieke idees as regs eerder as konserwatief beskryf. Sy is reeds op Praag (14.07.2018) bekend gestel. Tot Maart 2017 was sy ‘n joernalis by Rebel Media, wat deur Ezra Levant (gebore in 1972) gestig is. Sedertdien doen sy onafhanklik joernalistieke werk. Levant was aktief betrokke by die Unite the White-beweging (1996-2003) in Kanada en was daarna die redakteur van die Western Standard (2004-2007) in Calgary, Alberta. In 2006 het hy heelwat opspraak verwek deur die Deense Mohammed-spotprente te publiseer. Levant het naas ander boeke twee uitstekende werke gepubliseer, wat ek nog wil bespreek: Shakedown: How our government is undermining democracy in the name of human rights (2009, 234p; Amazon Kindle $13,79) en Trumping Trudeau: How Donald Trump will change Canada even if Justin Trudeau doesn’t know it yet (2017, 102p; Amazon Kindle $5,74).

Hierdie rubriek handel egter veral oor Southern. As regse aktivis is sy net so bedrywig soos Milo Yiannopoulos (gebore in 1984) (Praag 7.10.2017), maar anders as die homoseksuele Yiannopoulos is Southern se standpunt dat daar net twee geslagte is. Sy is ook teen militante feminisme gekant. In Mei 2017 het sy in die moeilikheid in Italië beland toe sy wou verhoed dat skepe onwettige immigrante of vlugtelinge uit die Middellandse See red. Sy is sterk teen veral Moslem-immigrante gekant en is om hierdie rede hertoelating tot Brittanje geweier. In Julie 2018 was sy in Australië en het sy ‘n T-temp met die bewoording “It’s OK to be white” gedra as teenvoeter vir “Black is beautiful.” In Australië het Southern sowel ondersteuning as teenstand ervaar. Na aanleiding van Southern se T-hemp: Onder die leiding van blankes is Suid-Afrika vóór 1994 tot die voorspoedigste land in Afrika ontwikkel. Ons as blankes moet dus nie toelaat dat skuldgevoelens by ons aangewakker word deur elemente wat openlik verklaar het dat hulle, ten einde die politieke mag te bekom, bereid was om die land tot in die grond af te breek nie; iets wat hulle sedert 1994 eintlik steeds doen.

In Augustus vanjaar is Southern se besoek aan Nieu-Seeland gesaboteer op ‘n manier soortgelyk aan die taktiek wat plaaslik en elders, bv in Nederland, teen Steve Hofmeyr gebruik is: Die eienaars van die lokale waarin sy sou optree, het weens politieke inmenging hulle toestemming vir die byeenkomste teruggetrek. Daar is beweer dat dit in die openbare belang gedoen is terwyl sy aanvoer dat daar geen sprake van haatspraak by haar is nie en dat vryheid van uitdrukking weens sulke optrede ondermyn word. Wat van besondere plaaslike belang is, is dat Southern in Junie vanjaar ‘n dokumentêre video oor Suid-Afrikaanse plaasmoorde en die kwessie van grondherverdeling vrygestel het. Dit is op die internet beskikbaar. Sy is onthuts oor die wrede marteling wat so kenmerkend van plaasmoorde is. Daarenteen laat sy haar positief oor Orania uit. Kort hierna, in Augustus, is Ernst Roets se boek oor dieselfde onderwerp gepubliseer: Kill the Boer: Government complicity in South Africa’s brutal farm murders (2018, 413p; Amazon Kindle $11,49).

Hierdie ronde skryf ek egter oor Southern se boek, Barbarians: How Baby Boomers, immigration, and Islam screwed my generation (Toronto: Rebel Media, 2016, 90p; Amazon Kindle $5,74). Baby Boomers is die Amerikaanse benaming vir die geslag wat ná die Tweede Wêreldoorlog gebore is. In haar erkennings bedank sy haar pa vir sy wysheid en spreek sy die hoop uit dat haar generasie ‘n skild teen barbaarsheid en globalisme sal wees en ‘n bydrae tot die behoud van (Westerse) beskawing sal lewer (Kindle 45). Oor Southern word gesê: “She is an avid reader and lover of liberty, individualism and responsibility” (1184). In sy voorwoord beskryf Ezra Levant die outeur as: “a right wing millennial with a cause” (56).

Southern was in Kanada op skool en universiteit, hoewel sy net die eerste twee jaar van haar graadstudie voltooi het. Soos in Amerika is onderwys in Kanada deurspek met linkse politieke propaganda, soos ook al hoe meer in Suid-Afrika die geval is. “I was completely equal to everyone, which is to say average and mediocre. I was taught that diversity is unity. That to regress is to progress” (114), wat herinner aan die lof vir die nuwe demokratiese Suid-Afrika. Danksy die behoudende opvoeding wat sy tuis ontvang het, kon Southern haar gesonde(r) uitkyk op die werklikheid behou; “correcting my own flawed education … I think I’m slowly gaining on reality. If the rest of my generation are going to follow suit, they’re going to have to reckon with many of the same facts” (126).

Sy lys dan hierdie vyf feite vir haar tydgenote: “[1] They’ll have to accept that they’re not all that special, and greatness is measured in hard-earned victories, not participation trophies. [2] They’ll have to accept that Western ideals have shaped our cultures into some of the greatest, freest, most generous, most decent, most egalitarian, and most peaceful on Earth. [3] They’ll have to accept that it’s not Christian terrorism to push back as hard as possible against Muslim invasion. [4] They’ll have to accept the rights guaranteed by Western ideals exist because our civilization was willing to shed blood in order to shut down its enemies, rather than provide safe spaces to savages. And [5] most importantly, they’ll have to accept that diversity is not a strength; it’s a weakness. Its legacy is not peace and love, but division and hate” (132).

“While pride in the West has been ruthlessly suppressed to the point of being forgotten altogether, the unfortunate fact is that it’s been done with the consent of those indoctrinated by the new system, very much including many millennials” (139). “Dismissing the guidance built for us over thousands and thousands of years in the form of gender roles, traditional lifestyles, hard work, objectivity, and cultural supremacy was, in fact, painfully stupid” (151). “Sure, it’ll be hard for us to dig ourselves out of the pit that the left-wing indoctrination and media machines has dug for everyone our age” (168). Die eerste hoofstuk van haar boek het as opskrif: “The West is dying”, ‘n onderwerp wat ek al dikwels bespreek het. Die Weste gaan agteruit veral weens kulturele marxisme, wat alles wat bv blank en Westers is, ondermyn: “We have experienced an utter dispossession, dilution, and disintegration of the Western soul” (81). In die nuwe dekadente opset, “you won’t find more meaning. You won’t find more belonging. You won’t find more purpose” (74). Sy het ‘n sterk afkeer van jong mense se hedonisme; hulle toegewydheid aan plesier/genot (145).

Southern is nog jonk en sy moet nog heelwat leeswerk inhaal voordat haar insig in alle opsigte sal oortuig. Byvoorbeeld: “Rather than look up to giants of history like Charlemagne, Cecil Rhodes, or John Adams, our generation turns to virtue-signaling idiots like Justin Trudeau and Deray McKesson for moral guidance” (145). Justin Trudeau (gebore in 1971), is sedert 2015 die Kanadese eerste minister. Hy is onvleiend die onderwerp van Ezra Levant se 2017-boek, waarna in die eerste paragraaf hier bo verwys is. Deray McKesson (gebore in 1985) is ‘n swart Amerikaanse Black Lives Matter-aktivis. Maar Afrikaners sal kwalik met Southern oor die historiese grootsheid van Cecil Rhodes saamstem.

Hoofstuk 2 handel oor Southern se ervaring as universiteitstudent in Toronto. In Engels I is van studente verwag om ‘n werkstuk oor die swart Amerikaner, Toni Morrison (gebore in 1931), te voltooi. Morrison het in 1993 die Nobel-prys vir Letterkunde ontvang. Die ontleding van haar Nobel-aanvaardingstoespraak is ‘n tipiese voorbeeld van die soort werk wat van studente aan Kanadese en Amerikaanse universiteite verwag word. Die dosent “started bringing up politics and with each session, his views got progressively more unhinged and radical” (184); dermate dat Southern later nie meer stil kon bly nie. Die oorwegend linksgesindheid van hierdie dosente assosieer sy met die Baby Boomers-geslag. Hulle is gebore in ‘n tyd toe voorspoed en vryheid vooropgestel is. “Which, naturally, led them being absolutely unwilling to absorb the tough-minded values of their parents … Instead, they wanted to start a new generation of love, of peace, and of no mean authoritative figures” (230).

Die meeste van hierdie dosente “fell in love with communism and fell out with religion” (236). Hulle is vaandeldraers van “the New Left” (248). In hierdie konteks verwys sy goedkeurend na die gelowige Rooms-Katoliek, William F Buckley, jr (1925-2008), se boek, God and man at Yale: The superstitions of ‘academic freedom’ (1951/2012, 304p; Amazon Kindle $10,92). Sedertdien het die situasie in die akademie aanmerklik versleg, want die dosente in die middel van die vorige eeu “still believed in classical Western concepts like rationalism, free speech and free inquiry” (242). In Noord-Amerika, soos deesdae in Suid-Afrika, is daar aan die universiteite, asook in die hoofstroom-inligtingsmedia, “bitter and authoritarian suppression of contrary viewpoints” (266). Op universiteitskampusse ontlok behoudende, tradisionele, konserwatiewe of regse menings hewige teenstand: “The protests themselves had never been anything but cover for communist infiltration – and destruction – of Western centers of learning” (266).

Dít is deel van wat die linkse Duitse studenteleier, Rudi Dutschke (1940-1979), “the long march through the [Western] institutions” van mag, waaronder die universiteite, noem (271). Geen wonder dat Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), ‘n aanhanger van die Kritiese Teorie van die marxistiese Frankfurt-skool, van Dutschke se strategie gesê het: Dit is “‘the only effective way’ to achieve the communist domination required to achieve utopia” (278). Nelson Mandela se outobiografie, Long walk to freedom (1994), is in dieselfde liga weens sy anti-blanke en anti-Westerse ingesteldheid. ‘n Sinvolle boek oor hierdie onderwerp is Roger Kimball se The long march: How the cultural revolution of the 1960s changed America (New York: Encounter Books, 2000, 338p; Amazon Kindle $11,49). Die boektitel is ontleen aan Mao Zedong/Tse-tung (1893-1976) se kommunistiese leër wat Jiang Jie Shi/Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975) se Guamindang/Kuomintang-magte in 1934/5 oor ‘n afstand van 10 000 kilometer ontvlug het.

Kragtens Marcuse se “repressive tolerance” moet regse idees onderdruk en linkse idees ooreenkomstig “liberating tolerance” bevorder word (285). Lees bv die artikel oor die boek, A critique of pure tolerance (1965), in die Wikipedia. Southern verwys ook na die destruktiewe gevolge van Michel Foucault (1926-1984) se poststrukturele opvattings en Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) se dekonstruksie-idees (299). Volgens Foucault is geestelike gesondheid en rasionaliteit konstrukte “designed by society to keep the oppressed down” (305). “Derrida argued that language itself was a social construct designed by the powerful to keep the oppressed down” (312). Dit is hierdie soort idees wat by voorkeur deur die “Boomer academics” versprei word (317).

In Amerika word tussen allerhande soorte konserwatisme onderskei. In Suid-Afrika is linksheid egter so oorheersend dat ‘n mens geneig kan wees om enige gematigde of behoudende standpunt te ondersteun. Fynere onderskeide word dan as van mindere belang beskou. Dit sou egter ‘n fout wees, soos hier onder duidelik blyk. In hoofstuk 3 noem Southern die verkiesing in 2016 van Donald Trump (gebore in 1946) as die 45ste Amerikaanse president “exhilarating” (370). Sy skryf: “Baby Boom conservatism is definitely dead” (378). Sy verwys hier veral na die aanvanklike onwilligheid en die voortgesette traagheid in die Republikeinse Party om Trump te ondersteun. “With rare, rare exceptions, the anti-Trump ‘conservatives’ were out of touch, boring, lame, ineffective, self-righteous losers without enough flare or original thought” (399).

Southern noem twee konserwatiewes van weleer waarvoor sy respek het: William Buckley en Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) (406). Later noem sy ook die sosioloog, Daniel Bell (1919-2011), wat myns insiens nie genoeg waardering ontlok nie,* en die joernalis, Irving Kristol (1920-2009). Laasgenoemde “coined a cute little definition ..:’A neoconservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality'” (424). Die Britse joernalis, Melanie Phillips (gebore in 1951), gebruik Kristol se frase, “mugged by reality”, om haar eie oorgang van linksheid na konserwatisme te beskryf (Praag 18.08.2018). Southern het ook waardering vir Barry Goldwater (1909-1998), wat as Amerikaanse presidentskandidaat in 1964 die weg vir die presidentskap van Reagan (1981-1989) voorberei het (430). [* “Daniel Bell used to say that he was a social democrat in economics, a liberal in politics, and on social and cultural matters somewhat conservative” (David Goodhart, The road to somewhere: The new tribes shaping British politics, Penguin, 2017, 304p; Amazon Kindle $14.46, 268).]

Maar die algemene neiging by neokonserwatiewes in Amerika was al hoe meer “to sanitize the right – to make it more like the old left. In other words, they tried to make it more technocratic, more stuffy, more ‘responsible’, less rebellious, less edgy, less young, and above all, less politically incorrect” (Southern 430). “Let’s be clear: the modern generation of neoconservatives are deeply dangerous to the right because even in the context of a Trump administration, they still have the means to control how young right-wingers learn the history of their movement” (459). Dit is blykbaar veral George W Bush (gebore in 1946, die 43ste Amerikaanse president en die oudste seun van George HW Bush, gebore in 1924 en die 41ste president) wat as neokonserwatiewe nie guns in Southern se oë vind nie (471).

Hoofstuk 4 het as opskrif: “How immigration is ruining everything.” “We’re not going to pretend religious freedom or multiculturalism takes primacy over everything if it permits Jihadists to enter our country” (500). “Before his father was elected, Donald Trump, Jr [born in 1977], got into a lot of trouble for comparing immigration to a bowl of Skittles [± Smarties]. If only a few Skittles in a bowl were poisonous, Trump, Jr, asked, would you still take a handful? This set off a flood of outrage from lefties and cucked ‘conservatives,’ who complained that the metaphor was ‘dehumanizing.’ Which is another way of saying ‘too on-point for our feelings to handle'” (535). “In small numbers, it [immigration] can be fine, and even improve your country’s makeup. But take too many in, and you lose the ability to assimilate them, and everything goes to s–t ” (544). (Southern is ongelukkig geneig om te dikwels op ‘n steurende manier na mense se uitskeidings en seks te verwys.)

Die ekonoom, Milton Friedman (1912-2006), het tereg genoem: “You can’t have open borders and a welfare state” (550), maar dit is ongelukkig deel van die wrede werklikheid van die nuwe Suid-Afrika. “Even if you only consider immigration from an economic perspective, an ‘invite the world’ policy still comes out to an invitation for eventual anarchy” (567). “With the conservatives, you can argue economics and facts. Liberals have no such limitations. For them, immigration is all about playing mommy to the poor, vulnerable immigrant population, who obviously contribute so much to diversity and multiculturalism” (578). “Invite the world” is die frase wat gebruik word om die immigrasiebeleid van Pierre Trudeau (1919-2000) en sy oudste seun, Justin (gebore in 1971) te beskryf. “In 1971, during Pierre Trudeau’s reign, Canada was the first country in the world to adopt state multiculturalism as official policy. If you look [at] his son, Canada’s current prime minister Justin Trudeau, it should be obvious to you at this point that the worm-eaten apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. By now, it should be obvious how cancerous the dedication by both Trudeau’s to a ‘multicultural’ state has been throughout the West” (594).

“In the end the result of mass immigration is the destruction of the economy, of our culture, and of the very moral norms that make those emotional arguments have resonance in the first place” (600). “Unchecked immigration is a moral eyesore. It asks our states to fail their most basic obligation by putting the needs of faceless, dubiously friendly strangers over the needs of the citizens they exist to protect and serve” (605). “The multicultural worldview that promotes unchecked immigration is not about fulfilling the obligation of a government toward its own people. It is instead a recklessly naïve, utopian view of the world holding hands, loving each other, and singing Kumbaya [a spiritual folk song], even though all of history, social science, and common sense militate against that actually happening. Similarly, multiculturalism is not motivated by a desire for integration or assimilation of the best of foreign cultures into Western culture: rather, it seeks to put every culture in its own ghetto-sized safe space while forcing the surrounding country to conform, rather than the other way round” (612).

“They [globalists] say it [mass immigration] means simply being a ‘citizen of the world,’ which sounds great. But behind that contentless phrase are sinister implications. Thus the more wonky defenders of globalism define it as being ‘interconnected by removing cultural and legal barriers,’ or as ‘the pooling of states’ sovereignty into supranational organizations’ … They don’t want your vote to count unless the wise men in Brussels, or on Wall Street, or in the UN building, decide to allow it to count” (669). “Individualism and unique identity is the antithesis of global government. It’s the antithesis of the European Union, of the United Nations, of the World Bank … This is why globalists hold contempt for citizenship, tradition, national culture and religion. These things promote sovereignty of nations – they create unique identities for nations. Destroying those unique identities is the key to submission” (675).

“The first goal of Marxists was to destroy the family and the church because both were foundations for one’s life. You could count on both to support you, you could count on them to give you guidance. But for Marxists and their progressive allies, it was essential that government fill both roles: both as your last line of support, and as the people with the power to set the agenda for your life. Globalism has a similar goal on a larger scale. They don’t want the family, the church or your government to set the agenda – they want to set the agenda from super-national organizations. They want to sweep nationalism, nation states, and national democracy under the rug. They want to leave local communities to pick up the tab for their agenda, and shut out any local voices complaining about the cost. Whether that be financial, criminal, or cultural” (682).

“They use the false flag of ‘diversity’ as cover to mold people into how their balance sheets and Econ 101 textbooks see you – as faceless, expendable consumers, deprived of culture, identity or thought. They’ve had a strong grip on society for the last decade, but Trump and those like him are monkey wrenches thrown into their machine of deceit. Out of nowhere, Trump and his allies spoke up for those who were disaffected by the failure of immigration and had no compunctions about naming the problem. As Trump himself said in a speech, no longer will we listen to the ‘false song of globalism'” (689).

“Whatever libertarian wonks and naïve evangelical missionaries on the right believe, mass immigration is not about the economy or about moral duty. It’s about diversity, and the dilution of what makes our countries recognizable, pure and simple. It’s about dividing the people so that politicians and corporate elites have an easier time picking their pocket” (695).

Hoofstuk 5 handel spesifiek oor Moslem-immigrante wat nie wil integreer nie en die gasheerland volgens hulle behoeftes wil verander. As bedenkinge teen hierdie Moslems uitgespreek word, word dit uit linkse geledere ‘n fobie, ‘n irrasionele vrees, genoem (725). “Western citizens might be justified in being suspicious or hostile toward non-Western culture … as the Dutch politician Geert Wilders has repeatedly stressed, while individual Muslims can no doubt be decent and noble people, just as tame wolves do exist, the fact is that Islam the religion is by its nature dangerous to the West” (737). Daar word teengewerp dat die Bybel ook barbaarse idees verkondig. “Sure, there are parts of the holy books of practically every religion that would offend our modern enlightenment-era sensibilities. But there are also centuries of theology that have been written since those holy books that have rendered the offending passages inoperable in the minds of all but the most fanatical believers … Islam has not had its enlightenment” (743). “Where are the marches on the streets against terrorism by Muslims?” (755). “Islam’s ambition has been the destruction of Christendom – which is to say, not just Christians, but Jews, European Pagans, and everyone else living under the banner of Western culture” (814). Die Moslem-einddoel is “a global caliphate” (989).

In hoofstuk 6 noem Southern dat sy verkwalik word omdat sy blanke bevoorregting ontken (836). Die uitgangspunt van linkse elemente is dat almal gelyk en wesenlik eenders is. As in die praktyk duidelik blyk dat daar ongelykheid is, dat die blankes wêreldwyd neig om welvarend te wees terwyl die nie-blankes dikwels arm is, word beweer dat dit is omdat die blankes die nie-blankes uitbuit. Die punt is dat die uitgangspunt foutief is. Mense verskil, ook binne dieselfde ras en etniese groep. Mense het verskillende talente wat meebring dat hulle in sommige opsigte uitmunt maar nie in ander nie. Sommige groepe kan oor die algemeen meer geskik wees vir prestasie in bv die hedendaagse ekonomies-finansiële werklikheid. Andersyds beleef ons plaaslik die Orwelliaanse werklikheid dat die gebruik van sekere woorde verbode is; dat blankes (anders as nie-blankes) hulle nie mag uiter nie; dat selfs tronkstraf aan blankes opgelê kan word al is geen skade bewys nie. Southern skryf: “Suppressing words doesn’t actually solve problems, and may actually make those problems worse” (896). Mense kan dan verplig voel om hulle gevoelens op te krop en hulle idees te radikaliseer. As ‘n mens teen iets gekant is en dit sê, is dit nie noodwendig haatspraak nie. Dit kan bloot die uitdrukking van meningsverskil wees.

In die laaste hoofstuk staan: “The West is withering away from cancer, and globalism is the cancer … Left-wing globalism is simply Communism Lite, where a Marxist culture replaces a Marxist economy” (971). Teenoor kulturele marxisme stel Southern nasionalisme as “a great, necessary idea … Nationalism is what builds societies” (1028). “Nationalism is more than just not-that-bad. It’s awesome. Particularly … pan-Western nationalism” (1034); dus, blanke solidariteit is nodig omdat die voortbestaan van blankes wêreldwyd bedreig word. Sy is optimisties: “This kind of nationalism has a chance at defining world politics for centuries. Why? Because it conforms to human nature … its superiority to globalism is actually based on one of the most healthy parts of human nature: the preference for a group that supports each other, like a family” (1039). “The West needs to think of itself as a family again, not as a sugar daddy for other people and their families” (1045).

“We need to re-learn that borders are good, necessary things” (1055). Dit is waarom Donald Trump ‘n muur op die Amerikaanse grens met Mexiko wil bou ten einde ongewenste inkommers uit te hou. Maar “he repeatedly talked about the ‘big, beautiful door’ he wanted to build in his wall” (1067). “We need to decide just who we do actually want to let through those doors” (1072). Die probleem is dat die tradisionele immigrasiebeleid in die Weste “simply fails to be remotely meritocratic” (1093). Trump wil dit regstel.

Nog ‘n pro-nasionalistiese ding wat ons moet doen, is “to restore a fair battle of ideas. The only way to ensure this is to ensure that complete free speech and expression triumph, and that those that try to destroy either are denied the power. Today, censorship proceeds not primarily from the government, but from the power of social sanction from a dominant culture ruled by the corporate and media left” (1105). In Suid-Afrika is dit swart mag wat sedert 1994 in beheer is en wyd deur blanke kruipsugtiges gesteun word. “Those of us on the right need to rediscover the capacity to argue against private censorship and the usage of corporate power to stifle dissent” (1105). “A free marketplace of ideas enables us to consider all options” (1110). In die nuwe Suid-Afrika neem selfsensuur en ‘n gepaardgaande gebrek aan durf ongelukkig groot afmetings aan.

‘n Ander euwel “and perhaps most crucially, entitlement culture must be destroyed. In the 60s, the UK and America had a culture that would leave one ashamed to be on the dole, to not have a job” (1110). In Suid-Afrika is daar meer mense wat staatstoelaes ontvang as wat daar betalers van inkomstebelasting is. Die absurditeit is dat hierdie meerderheid bakhandstaners met die stemreg waaroor hulle sedert 1994 beskik, kan verseker dat ‘n simpatieke, pro-welsynsregering in die kussings bly. As daar eerder ‘n kultuur van skaamte oor welsyn bestaan, “a welfare state can work as it was intended: as a safety net for those temporarily on hard times. Only when people treat welfare as an ugly necessity for the temporarily humbled, or for defeated, failed human beings with nowhere else to go, can it avoid becoming a machine for the creation of mass-entitlement” (1117).

In Suid-Afrika is daar egter nie ‘n kat se kans dat die ANC aan die afhanklikes van staatstoelaes sal sê dat hulle selfversorgend moet word nie, dat hulle toelaes afgeskaal of weggeneem sal word nie. Die ANC sal eerder voor verkiesings hoër toelaes aan meer ontvangers belowe. In hierdie opsig is Southern pessimisties. Ietwat oordrewe skryf sy: “I don’t think anyone really wants to succeed anymore, period. They want to do as little as possible … They want to cheat the system and are happy to brag about it” (1123). Die kuur hiervoor is “a cultural revival of the idea that failure should be a source of shame, that losers should be shunned and even mocked” (1123). In Suid-Afrika word ‘n omgekeerde benadering gevolg: Diegene wat suksesvol was en is, word van uitbuiting en oneerlikheid beskuldig en daar word van hulle verwag om hulle oor hulle prestasies te skaam.

Daar is nog ‘n idee wat Southern wil laat herleef: “The idea that success through the power of the human will represents humanity at its best” (1129). “We are the people who will be forced to wake up to the failure of multiculturalism, liberalism and globalism” (1151). “To be on the right today is to want to restore things that have been lost: things like merit, justice, virtue and nationhood. But we have not lost truth, and with truth, all other things can be found” (1157).

Ricardo Duchesne

Southern het dit tereg teen globalisme (‘n ideologie) en nie teen globalisering (‘n proses) nie. Dit is uiters belanglik om hierdie twee terme/begrippe duidelik te onderskei. Hou ook in gedagte dat Southern tussen neokonserwatisme (wat sy verwerp) en regsheid (wat sy onderskryf) onderskei. Robert Locke skryf: “Globalization and globalism are fundamentally different: globalization is an historical process, a fact of how things are, but globalism is an ideology, a set op opinions about how things ought to be. Globalism is the ideology that advocates the liquidation of nations. Its opposite is nationalism. Globalization, on the other hand, is not an ideology at all. Ultimately, it is just the growth of communications and trade, and it has been happening since 1492* … Globalism is a deliberate political choice, no more inevitable than socialism … Globalization can exist without globalism … Japan has based her economy on exports for 50 years without ceasing to be one of the most nationalistic and culturally distinctive nations on earth” (aangehaal deur Ricardo Duchesne, Canada in decay: Mass immigration, diversity, and the ethnocide of European Canadians, London: Black House Publishing, 2017, 374p; Amazon Kindle $7.56, 2797). [* ‘n Verwysing na Christopher Columbus se “ontdekking” van die Nuwe Wêreld/die Amerikas.]

Ricardo Duchesne is, soos Lauren Southern, ‘n Kanadees. Op grond van die duidelike onderskeid wat Robert Locke tussen globalisering en globalisme tref, skryf Duchesne tereg: “Globalization and immigration are not necessarily connected” (2780). Later brei hy hierop uit en maak Duchesne seker die duidelikste en briljantste onderskeid tussen neokonserwatiewes (hier regse genoem) en linkses, bv liberaliste, wat ek in die literatuur teëgekom het: “It has been … in their endorsement of globalism (masquerading as globalization) that the left and right [called neoconservatives by Southern] have really converged in a state of amicable reinforcement, notwithstanding their varying emphasis on different aspects of globalism. The right’s [neoconservative’s] main interest has been the promotion of policies that augment the expansion of global capitalism, deregulation, freer mobility of capital and information at low cost between borders, as well as international labour migration” (5996). “National identities are inefficient, slow moving, inconsistent with the new technologies of communications. They want humans without national identities endlessly seeking pleasures in a ‘homogenized world market’ in which every person in the globe ‘wants products and features that everybody else wants.’ Different cultural preferences, national tastes, production standards and technologies are ‘vestiges of the past'” (6005).

“The Left’s globalist narrative is more complicated and goes something like this: Humans are members of the same species; the racial differences between them are superficial, cultures should not be viewed in ‘essentialist’ terms, but as constructs in a state of continuous change. To be a true liberal, one must allow individuals to express themselves without being tied to pre-given identities, be they cultural, national, or sexual identities. With the ‘freeing’ of humans from identities ‘constructed’ by ‘White males’ and the emergence of new gender and racial identities, humans will learn to become global citizens, identifying themselves as members of an ‘international community’ devoid of hierarchies of dominance and the divisions generated by ‘exclusive’ national identities” (6012). “These new humans will be morally sensitive to the suffering of ‘strangers,’ quick in their responses to violations in the human rights of everyone, assist those threatened by famines in Africa, tsunamis in Asia, floods and earthquakes, while celebrating trans-sexuality en pan-sexuality in an orgiastic state of happiness. With the spread of transnational corporations, IGOs [International Governmental Organizations] and INGOs [International Non-Governmental Organizations], the European Union and other supranational organizations and trade blocks, power has become ‘deterritorialized’ and so there is a need for global governance and the breakdown of nationalism. As members of this increasingly transnational world, Europeans must think of their cosmopolitan responsibility rather than their national interests” (6021).

“The right [neoconservatives] may not be as keen with leftist demands for ‘global social justice,’ but corporate globalists have come to realize that the seemingly humanitarian concerns of the left serve as an excellent moral umbrella for the spread of global capitalism. Corporations love the way leftist causes adorned the narcissistic consumerist culture they promote with humanitarian concerns about transsexual rights, ‘discriminated minorities’ and ‘suffering refugees.’ The left and the right have actually reached a new consensus on the supposed economic benefits of mass immigration. The dominant pro-immigration argument today is really a combination of right and left economic concerns about how the populations of Western countries are set to decline dramatically in the next decades due to continuing below-replacement fertility rates, which is resulting in a shrinking labour force, at the same time as the population is aging, which will bring a decline, so they argue, in both economic growth and in the possibility of financing socialist programs. A decline in population, both sides say, will bring a ‘massive’ crisis which, left to its own, without mass immigration, will result in widespread labour shortages, lower tax receipts, declining welfare supports and lower consumption levels” (6030).

Die samevattende gevolgtrekking waartoe Duchesne kom, is: “Forget left and right – the new divide in politics is between nationalists and globalists” (6036). “The Left and the Right are two sides of the same coin promoting globalism and identifying nationalists as the enemy. In the language of Carl Schmitt [1888-1985], both sides believe that the friend-enemy distinction can be abolished in a world in which there is consensus on basic human rights and economic interdependency. The one obstacle standing in the way of this abolition, they hold, is the tribalism of nationalism and White identity. Mass immigration will result in the mixing of races inside White created countries, and this will result in eternal happiness and endless prosperity” (6286).

Duchesne haal soos volg aan uit ‘n berig in die New York Times (4.03.2017): “Being mixed makes it harder to fall back on the tribal identities that have guided so much of human history, and that are now resurgent. Your background pushes you to construct a worldview that transcends the tribal … President Trump has answered this challenge by reaching backward – vowing to wall off America and invoking a whiter, more homogeneous country … The point is that diversity – of one’s own makeup, one’s experience, of groups of people solving problems, of cities and nations – is linked to economic prosperity, greater scientific prowess and a fairer judicial process” (6286).

Duchesne lewer die volgende kommentaar op hierdie berig: “This article … suffers from a sequence of monumental contradictions. First, it argues against the racist ‘homogeneity’ of whiter America, while insisting that race-mixed individuals are superior in intelligence and overall ability to create better nations. Secondly, it says that increasing racial diversification in the United States has been behind its prosperity, while informing us that ‘multiracials’ today make up only ‘an estimated 7 percent of Americans.’ What about the making of the United States into the wealthiest and most innovative nation in the world by the 1950s when the nation was whiter, and when non-whites were not partaking in the nation’s creative genius? Thirdly, the studies it cites about the superiority of mixed individuals amount to nothing more than ‘demonstrating’ that race mixed individuals tend to be stronger believers in ‘diversity’ and since diversity is good, and thus they are better for the nation’s wellbeing. This is the trashy reasoning they teach at American Ivy Leagues [universities]” (8915).

Duchesne skryf verder: “What the globalists fail to realize is that only Europeans are relinquishing the political, their tribal identity, whereas non-European nations and ethnic groups inside the West are globalizing and playing up to cosmopolitan values while maintaining their ethno-national identities. In the end, non-Europeans, if current trends continue, will win since the political ultimately exists in the context of a national community, and can never become universal. The US versus Them distinction cannot be abolished, for it is part of human nature, human creativity, the very energy that makes life meaningful, gives it colour and real diversity” (6294).

Slegs ‘n enkele aspek van Duchesne se jongste boek is hier bo bespreek. Ek het by ‘n vorige geleentheid oor ‘n ander boek van Duchesne geskryf: “Die kreatiewe, dinamiese ondermeningsgees van Europeërs” (Praag 24.02.2018). Daarin redeneer hy onder meer dat die blanke bevolking in Kanada eerder Europees as Amerikaans is. Die boek van Southern wat hier bo bespreek is sowel as dié van Duchesne toon egter in hoe ‘n groot mate die Kanadese en Amerikaanse werklikheid verstrengel is.

Leon Lemmer: Milo Yiannopoulos as ‘n problematiese regse verskynsel

Milo Yiannopoulos (gebore in 1984) se boek, Dangerous (Boca Raton, Florida: Dangerous Books, 2017, 288p; Amazon Kindle $11,39) sou aanvanklik, volgens ‘n aankondiging op Amazon se webwerf, op 14 Maart vrygestel word. Dit is eers op 4 Julie gedoen. Die uitgewer was nie meer Simon & Schuster nie, maar Dangerous Books. In plaas daarvan dat ‘n bekende uitgewer die boek gepubliseer het, was Milo verplig om dit self te doen (Kindle 3541). Simon & Schuster het sy kontrak met Milo gekanselleer (69).

“The tremendous outcry among social, online, and print media to this book being announced” het veroorsaak dat “Simon & Schuster was paralyzed by it” (182). “Even I was surprised by the onslaught. The Chicago Review of Books announced to great fanfare that they would not review another book published by Simon & Schuster, in response to Dangerous. The establishment’s real fear is that this book will deeply affect readers, especially young people. In particular, they fear that young people at the epicenter of political correctness in America’s universities will begin to question the ideologies foisted upon them, thanks to [this] book” (188). Elders is daar beweer dat Simon & Schuster die kontrak gekanselleer het omdat Milo pedofilie goedgepraat het.

JH du Toit het reeds oor die Milo-manie op Praag (11 Februarie) geskryf. Milo lyk en is in vele opsigte anders as die stereotiepe beeld wat aan regses gegee word. Dit maak dit moeilik om hom sonder meer te ondersteun. Lees bv die omvattende Wikipedia-artikel. Maar Milo het veral op Amerikaanse universiteitskampusse ‘n oorwegend heilsame invloed, waar – soos deesdae in Suid-Afrika – regse standpunte feitlik nooit gehoor word nie. In hierdie konteks word Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) soos volg deur Milo aangehaal: “The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any” (2955).

‘n Mens moet maar geestelik sterk wees wanneer jy Milo se boek lees. Hy gebruik in oorvloed wat hy noem “flippant language” (100). “I use exaggeration and bombast, often outrageously” (313). Milo “delights in causing outrage” (1999). In daardie sin is dit eerder ‘n Amerikaanse as ‘n Britse boek. Ann Coulter is een van die regses wat hy om haar vriendskap bedank (3561), maar die aanslag in haar boeke, hoewel makliker verteerbaar as dié van Milo, staan my ook nie aan nie. Ek beveel eerder die meer wetenskaplik-akademiese boeke van David Horowitz, wat ook deur Milo bedank word (3561), aan.

Van die groot voordele wat die lees van die boek inhou, is dat ‘n mens kennis maak met die huidige geestesklimaat in Amerika; veral hoedanig die alledaagse politieke ingesteldheid is. Die National Review, eens die fontein van behoudende politiek (Praag 4 Desember), word beskryf as “home of anti-Trump establishment conservatism” (120). Milo is ‘n sterk ondersteuner van Donald Trump, bv “We’ll put a lid on Muslim immigration” (140). Sommige van die Moslem-inkommers word “rapefugees” genoem (2570). “There is a real rape culture in the West. And there is real homophobia in the West. And there is real out-group intolerance in the West. It all comes from Islam” (2588). “Here is a religion that sanctions forcing women into submission, a religion that sanctions the execution of gays, a religion that sanctions the killing of non-believers. And they’re spreading” (2582).

Hy noem Trump “Daddy” (bv 1920, 1992). “I coined the nickname “Daddy” for him, which annoyed just about everyone” (2081). Wat deesdae regstelling, korrektheid en byderwetsheid genoem word, is eintlik almal polities oordraagbare siekte; tentakels van dieselfde sindroom. Sowel Trump as Milo is gekant teen verslawing aan hierdie soort politieke ingesteldheid (169). Sodanige teenkanting word deur die liberaliste as “hate speech” geëtiketteer (201). “‘Hate speech’ means anything they disagree with” (2971). Die liberaliste verkies die eufemistiese frase “undocumented American” pleks van “illegal alien” (201). In Suid-Afrika het dit ook mode geword om onwettige inkommers nie as misdadigers te beskou nie.

Milo tref ‘n duidelike onderskeid tussen liberaliste (hulle word veral in die Demokratiese Party aangetref) en libertyne (wat meesal in die Republikeinse Party is). Hierdie twee groepe het verskillende opvattings van vryheid. “Libertarians and conservatism are the new counter-culture” (182; ook 3179). Later skryf Milo: “I’m no libertarian” (1595). Elders noem hy homself ‘n “cultural libertarian.” Hy haal ‘n universiteitsrektor, Robert Bachi, soos volg aan: “Freedom is fundamental to our [Rutgers] University, our society, and our nation” (3248).

Die saak waaroor Milo die sterkste voel, is vryheid van uitdrukking; dat ons so vry moontlik moet wees om te praat, skryf en publiseer wat ons wil, gebaseer op vryheid van denke; uiteraard verkieslik kritiese denke (214): “Your right to speak freely, honestly, and rudely, no matter who doesn’t like it” (140). Milo noem homself “a free-speech fundamentalist” (169, 2479). “The only cause I represent is that of free speech, where I consider myself part of a long list of boundary-pushers who shocked the mainstream” (1180).

Ek dink valse stellings en laster moet vermy word en daar moet nie onnodig aanstoot gegee word nie. Maar in polities byderwetse geledere is daar oordrewe sensitiwiteit vir die moontlike gee van aanstoot aan enigeen wat nie wit is nie. Daarvolgens moet alle uitdrukkings “inoffensive” wees (221), wat meebring dat diegene wat die samelewing skade aandoen, nie die waarheid vertel en aangemoedig word om te verbeter nie. “The Left … seeks to patronize [American] minorities by preventing them from coming into contact with anything that might offend them” (1653). Kritiekvrye ruimtes, “safe spaces,” word vir diesulkes geskep.

Die linkses redeneer “‘free speech should not trump safety’ … These students truly believe that open discourse is a form of violence” (2995). “I was freely romping into their cherished safe spaces” (3014). “Well-educated people are generally unshockable … progressive students … have no intellectual hinterland and no curiosity about the world around them or about anything that has preceded their own lives. Centuries of history, culture and wisdom are dismissed as the products of ‘dead white men'” (3051). Dieselfde misleide geestesingesteldheid het die plaaslike studente-opstand van 2015/16 gekenmerk.

“Progressive intolerance had gone too far on college campuses” (3279). ‘n Kultuuroorlog (of “cultural lunacy” – 554) woed waarin Westerse/Europese waardes ondergeploeg gaan word as daar nie openlik en daadwerklik ‘n veldtog ter behoud van daardie beskaafde waardes gevoer word nie. “It’s culture that matters. ‘Politics is downstream from culture,’ as Andrew Breitbart [1969-2012] used to say. Politics is just a symptom” (401).

Selfs Barack Obama het hom uitgespreek ten gunste van die blootstelling van studente aan idees wat vir hulle vreemd en moeilik verteerbaar is. Dit klink asof hy ten gunste van akademiese vryheid is, maar dalk is dit omdat hy weet hoe oorweldigend linksgesind die klimaat op Amerikaanse universiteitskampusse is: “I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. Anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ’em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, ‘You can’t come because I’am too sensitive to hear what you have to say.’ That’s not the way we learn either” (3273).

Nicholas Kristof, ‘n linkse joernalis, het in 2016 met ‘n uitsonderlike erkenning vorendag gekom: “Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological [political] and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us” (3279). Wanneer ‘n universiteit soos Stellenbosch deesdae diversiteit propageer, gaan dit om die obsessie om ‘n verskeidenheid rasse en kulture op die kampus te hê; nie om die studente ook aan nie-linkse, bv regse, idees bloot te stel nie.

Jay Ellison se benadering is meer aanvaarbaar: “Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community [the University of Chicago]. The members of our comunity must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas” (3292). Met ander woorde, ‘n universiteit “is not a ‘day care'” (3372).

Milo verwys na “Facebook’s policy of discrimination against conservatives … ‘We choose what’s trending'” (741), dus wát polities byderwets is. “The #BlackLivesMatter [BLM] movement originated on Facebook” (754). Milo bestempel BLM as “one of the most destructive movements in the country’s history” (1633). Hy noem Twitter “a sharia-compliant conservative-free zone” (811). “If conservatives thought mainstream media bias was bad, just wait until they see the effects of search engine bias” (992). Google “display[ed] negative search terms for [Hillary] Clinton’s primary opponent, Bernie Sanders … and for Donald Trump” (972). Google het ‘n intieme verhouding met die Obama-administrasie gehandhaaf (978).

In Suid-Afrika laat die gedrukte hoofstroomkoerante en elektroniese media skynbaar ruimte vir meningswisseling. My ondervinding is dat dit meesal slegs toegelaat word in soverre dit polities byderwets is. Soos Milo dit stel: “It’s okay to laugh at white people but no one else” (271). “White men can’t dance, jump or sexually satisfy their partners. These are all socially acceptable jokes” (459).”Leftists are the cultural elites, censoring dissident conservatives” (296). Hy haal George Orwell (1903-1950), vir wie ek groot waardering het, soos volg aan: “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” (277).

‘n Ander ding waaroor Milo sterk voel, is om nie slagofferstatus te aanvaar nie. Hy verwys na die “victim-centric doctrine of Cultural Marxism. The Left is committed to defending a worldview which arranges women, [American] minorities, and gays in a league table of oppression, with straight white men as the eternal oppressors at the top of the list” (428). Daarvolgens word “a fat black disabled [homosexual] Muslim woman” (434) een van die uitnemendste voorbeelde van slagofferskap. “[American] minorities, both real and imagined, engage in an endless competition for supreme victimhood status” (490). “In an America where victimhood is a currency, it’s highly profitable to be oppressed” (1495); ook in Suid-Afrika, as jy die status van ‘n voorheen benadeelde, dus tans bevoordeelde, het.

“I never saw myself as a victim” (76). “Even though it seems like victim status is the best way to earn a living right now … I assure you, it’s not … No matter how bad your experiences, victimhood and self-pity are … We must challenge the forces of oppression in society, and we can’t do so from a therapy session” (82). “We’re going to do so without self-pity, without a cult of victimhood, and certainly without safe spaces” (140). Milo noem “safe spaces” ‘n vorm van ‘n “return of segregation on campuses” (1167). Hy rebelleer teen die establishment. Terwyl hy in Wes-Europa gereis het, “I developed my love for all things anti-establishment” (94).

Naas die Nuwe Regses, waaroor dikwels afkeurend berig word, is daar die Nuwe Linkses. Let op hoe knap Milo omgaan met ‘n hele reeks hedendaagse Amerikaanse politieke verskynsels: “The New Left, as they came to be called, were responsible for the early stages of the Left’s pivot away from the traditional class politics and towards the divisive, politically-correct world of gender, racial, and sexual politics we know today. They were the ones responsible for making issues like abortion, the reversal of gender roles, ‘racial justice,’ pacifism, and multiculturalism into major platforms of the Left. If they could keep their ‘rainbow coalition’ acting and voting as a bloc, and focus all their hatred on the weary white male working class, then political dominance would soon be assured. Thus began the reign of identity politics” (365).

“Identity politics is universally attractive because it enables failures and weaknesses to be spun as the products of oppression and historical injustice. Personal responsibility is removed from the equation” (484). “Another byproduct of the 1960s leftism is the unabashed hatred of white males, who are (correctly) identified as the architects of western culture” (395). Die linkses is gepreokkupeer met ras- en geslagsake. “I joked that after transgender people, the next frontier of left-wing identity politics would be transracial. I didn’t expect to be proven right so soon (1495).

Milo is teen hedendaagse of derdegolf-feminisme gekant; nie teen tradisionele feminisme nie. “The fight for women’s rights started in the late 19th century, and focused almost completely on women’s suffrage … This is known as the first wave of feminism. The second wave, starting in the middle of the twentieth century, was broader, but also grounded in laudable goals: ending sexual harassment in the workplace, ending discrimination, repealing archaic laws enabling marital rape, and, above all, establishing full equality of opportunity for women” (1039). “Third wave feminism reared its fishy head in the 1990s … Look at what they spend their time on now. Manspreading: a term used to describe the practice of spreading your legs apart on public transport” (1045). “Mansplaining: the grievous sin of explaining something to a woman whilst being male. Manthreading: doing the same, on social media … Eggplant emojis* … [are] ‘the next frontier in online harassment.’ Eggplants look too similar to purple penisses … Instagram banned the eggplant … Air conditioning is also sexist. Men can deal with the cold better” (1050). [* Emojis: Small digital images or icons used to express ideas, emotions, etc, in electronic communication.]

Hedendaagse (veral Amerikaanse) feminisme gee uitdrukking aan “a vindictive, spiteful, mean-spirited festival of man-hating” (1058). “The lynchpin of the feminist argument that women are made, not born, is the claim that girls are socialized into their female roles during their early childhood” (1303). Volgens Milo toon navorsing egter “gender roles are largely governed by nature, not nurture, as feminists would have you believe” (1296). Milo som sy standpunt oor hedendaagse feminisme soos volg op: “Feminism in the West serves little purpose other than hating men, making absurd demands, lying about inequality and obsessing over trivial issues. It has poisoned relations between the sexes, nearly destroyed due process, and constantly saddles businesses with pointless gender diversity requirements based on bogus economics” (1429). “Everywhere feminism exists it is a threat to happiness and freedom” (1455). Ter bevestiging van die waarheid hiervan, lees gerus Amanda Gouws se rubrieke in Die Burger of Christi van der Westhuizen se periodieke uitbarstings. Ek vermoed dat mans iets het wat hulle nie het nie en dat hulle jaloers daaroor is; iets waaroor Sigmund Freud reeds in 1908 geskryf het.

Aansluitend by sy besware teen hedendaagse feminisme is Milo se teenkanting teen aborsie. “Abortion is obviously bad for the future women it murders (sex selective abortion is becoming common in the UK and other countries with growing Muslim populations), and also has disastrous effects on the lives of the women that kill their children. It doesn’t surprise me that feminism promotes abortion, because feminism seems to always go against the actual interests of women” (1251). Dít kan deels verklaar word met verwysing na die prominente rol wat lesbiërs in die feministiese beweging speel. “Abortion is particularly horrifying given the widespread availability of contraception” (1251).

Om oor lewe en dood te beslis, is ‘n gewigtige saak. Dit is dalk relatief maklik om ten gunste van aborsie te wees by groepe wat geneig is om meer kinders te hê as waarvoor hulle kan sorg. Maar die tragiese gevolge van ongebreidelde aborsies is by my tuisgebring toe ek gelees het oor die huidige situasie in Duitsland. Die invloei van miljoene moeilik integreerbare inkommers word deur sommige goedgepraat omdat die ekonomie glo jong werkers nodig het. Terselfdetyd word erken dat hierdie inkommers die plekke inneem van Duitsers wat weens aborsie nie die kans op lewe gegun is nie. Hierdie situasie geld eintlik die hele Wes-Europa, insluitende Brittanje.

[“Europe’s future depends first and foremost on whether it bears and raises its children or kills them in the womb and then throws them into the garbage bin” (Jürgen Graf, White world awake! Stopping the planned extermination of our volk, Marlboro, Maryland: Barnes Review, 2016, 540p; Amazon Kindle $4.55, 4342). Dít is ‘n “shameful crime against humanity” (4329). “A people which within 38 years kills off over 7 million of its children for ‘social reasons’ but, at the same time, entices millions of people of other religions, cultures and race to their country, is guilty of a sin, whose payment is their death” (595).”Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe” (5726). “Europe runs the risk of turning black from illegal immigration, it could turn into Africa” (4763). “Those who are fleeing the African countries are needed most [in Africa] to help overcome their underdevelopment” (545).]

Daar is so baie dinge wat deesdae skeefgetrek aangebied word en dan aanvaar pleks van gekritiseer word. Uitsluitlik blankes word oor slawerny verwyt. “There are no movies about Ottoman or Middle Eastern slave-owners. I suppose we’ll have to wait for Muslim guilt to become a thing” (459). “A conservative in Hollywood is like a gazelle in a pack of lions” (2202). Uitsluitlik blankes word as rassiste uitgekryt. “There are some people who argue that racism against white people doesn’t exist” (1673). In ‘n artikel in The Huffington Post word geredeneer rassisme by nie-wittes is onmoontlik “because racism is ‘prejudice plus power’ and whites ‘control the system and economic structure in society'” (1673). Maar in Suid-Afrika is die blankes deesdae polities magteloos. Die oorweldigende swart massa is (ondoeltreffend, chaoties) in beheer. Is swart rassisme in sulke omstandighede steeds onmoontlik?

In Suid-Afrika voel dit deesdae (soms) asof die Menseregtekommissie en die howe as die “culture police” (3396) en as Orwell se denkpolisie funksioneer, met blankes feitlik deurgaans die enigste slagoffers: “About how we should shut up if we knew what’s good for us, about how we need to make up for a history of racism, sexism, and every ‘phobia’ under the sun, about how entertaining this dangerous thought or making this dangerous joke [comparison, proverb, etc] would be the end of our careers” (3427).

Dan Roodt: Apple, PayPal en die res van die Goolag moet geboikot word

Die situasie wat hom tans in die VSA afspeel, hou ook vir ons verreikende gevolge in. Soos enige nugter mens reeds besef het, lui die huidige alliansie tussen polities korrekte globale maatskappye en maatskaplikegeregtigheidskrygers (MGK’s) ‘n nuwe tydvak van sensuur en sentrale beheer in, die tyd van die “Goolag”. Laasgenoemde woordspel met Google se naam is gemunt of ten minste beroemd gemaak deur die programmeerder James Damore wat dit gewaag het om ‘n memorandum te skryf waarin hy portuurbeoordeelde feite oor die verskillende loopbaanbelangstellings en gedragspatrone van die geslagte aangehaal het. In vandag se hiper- polities korrekte omgewing was die suggestie dat die geslagte mag verskil, genoeg om Damore afgedank te kry.

James Damore, die IT-ingenieur wat afgedank is omdat hy wou aantoon dat mans en vrouens nie noodwendig dieselfde loopbaankeuses maak nie.

Dit het doodmaklik vir MGK’s of linkse aktiviste geword om gewoon klagtes by globale internetreuse soos Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, PayPal, ens., aanhangig te maak teen organisasies of individue aan die dissidente regterkant van die spektrum wie se rekeninge dan eenvoudig opgeskort of gesluit word sonder enige bohaai in die vorm van appèlprosedures of feitelike ondersoeke. Ná alles is Amerikaners veronderstel om ‘n wye mate van spraakvryheid te geniet, ten minste in teorie, danksy die Eerste Wysiging aan die Amerikaanse Grondwet, sonder dat die wet deur sodanige spraak oortree word.

Oor die laaste paar dae het tegnologiemaatskappye egter op altregse webblaaie toegeslaan en hulle van die internet verwyder. ‘n Hele paar huishoudelike name in Amerika en in Suid-Afrika, waaronder Apple wat die wêreld se waardevolste maatskappy na sy markkapitalisering is, het hul eens met Links verklaar in die huidige “kultuuroorlog” wat tans in die VSA en die meeste Westerse lande woed. Geen van die topvyf globale tegnologiereuse (Apple, Alphabet/Google, Microsoft, Amazon en Facebook), kan van regse politieke voorkeure verdink word nie. Google en Facebook ondersteun sensuur en die onderdrukking van pro-blanke, pro-manlike en sogenaamde “sisgender”-standpunte, terwyl Amazon die Washington Post besit en Bill Gates verkies om sy enorme rykdom in Afrika uit te gee.

Dog die HUB van Apple, Tim Cook, het ‘n nuwe hoogtepunt, of eerder laagtepunt, bereik toe hy selfs die matige intellektuele debat oor die probleme van multikulturalisme as kriminele “haatspraak” gestigmatiseer het en besluit het om self as mega-maatskappy by politieke spraak in te meng.

Apple se produkte verkeer gewoonlik op die lys van GWWH (“goed waarvan witmense hou”) en, soos Mercedes of BMW, is die hoofmarkte vir sy produkte in die ontwikkelde, hoë-inkomstewêreld te vinde. Hoewel Cook “nie sy opgewondenheid oor Indië kan beteuel nie”, soos hy verlede jaar verklaar het, beskik Apple slegs oor drie persent markaandeel in daardie hoogs bevolkte Suid-Asiese land.

Ironies genoeg besit vele altregse ondersteuners iPhones. Persoonlik gebruik ek ook een maar slegs omdat ek ‘n gebruikte model verniet gekry het en omdat ek as deel van ‘n spesiale pakket onbeperkte oproepe in Suid-Afrika teen R149 per maand kan maak. Andersins sou ek tevrede gewees het met enige ou nie-Apple-foon, waaronder ‘n paar puik Sjinese fone soos Xiaomi wat veel beter waarde vir geld en hoër spesifikasies as die jongste iPhone bied. Om nie te vergeet van Apple se aartsmededinger, die Suid-Koreaanse Samsung nie, wat meer slimfone as enige ander maatskappy verkoop.

Die punt is: soos met die Spurboikot, kan ons almal sonder iPhones, MacBooks of enige van Apple se ander veel geadverteerde produkte klaarkom. Daar moet ten minste 100 miljoen Europeërs of Europese Amerikaners wees, indien nie 200 of 300 miljoen nie, wat dalk bekommerd mag raak oor die koms van ‘n hoe-tegnologies Goolag wat die hele planeet in ‘n weergawe van George Orwell se 1984 mag verander waarin niemand dit waag om denkmisdaad (thoughtcrime) of spraakmisdaad (speechcrime) te pleeg nie. Dis nog ‘n ironie: Apple het aanvanklik verwysings na 1984 in sy advertensies gebruik met die loodsing van sy MacIntosh-rekenaar in die middeltagtigerjare teen “Grootbroer” IBM. Hoe is die rolle nie omgekeer nie! In Orwelliaanse terme, het Apple so pas aangemeld om die grootste globale lid van die Denkpolisie (Thought Police) te word.

Waarom dan nie maar Apple, PayPal, Google en ander teg-maatskappye boikot nie? Oënskynlik het hulle ‘n nuwe vorm van ontwerpersowjetisme omhels, waar ‘n pragtige uiterlike en demokratiese clichés ‘n sinistere geneigdheid tot totalitêre beheer en die onderdrukking van afwykende menings verdoesel. Dit sou tragies wees indien die spraakvryheid en alternatiewe media wat deur die internet losgelaat is deur enkele “arbitrêre besluite” deur tegnologie-amptenare onderdruk mag word, om nou ‘n frase te gebruik wat vandeesweek deur die HUB van Cloudflare gebesig is toe hy gesê het: “Ek het vanoggend in ‘n slegte bui wakker geword en het besluit om hulle (die Daily Stormer-webblad) van die internet af te skop. Dit was ‘n besluit wat ek kon neem omdat ek die HUB van ‘n groot internetinfrastruktuurmaatskappy is.”

Dit spreek vanself dat ‘n blad soos Andrew Anglin se Daily Stormer met sy positiewe toespelings op nazisme hoogs omstrede is, maar gegewe die linkse kultus van revolusionêre geweld wat dekades lank al toegelaat word om te gedy, waarmee Ché Guevara en lede van die Italiaanse Rooi Brigade-terroristegroep as hoofstroomhelde voorgestel word, behoort daar tog effens “ruimte” aan die regterkant ook te wees, vir mense om ideologiese eksperimente of stilistiese oortredings te pleeg… nie waar nie? As student het ek ‘n nagraadse verhandeling oor die teorie van “oortreding” in die Franse erotiese letterkunde geskryf, en dis ‘n gegewe dat die internet ook pornografie in elke huis ingebring het. Dus, waarom nie ook politieke pornografie, tussen instemmende volwassenes, verdra nie? Ná alles word niemand gedwing om Andrew Anglin te lees, of Milo Yiannopoulos of Richard Spencer of enige van die meer gewaagde stemme wat die afgelope paar jaar met Altregs verbind word nie.

Maar daar is twee probleme wat ons nou in die gesig staar, danksy die totalitarisme van Groot Tegnologie: betalings en huisvesting. Albei kan myns insiens taamlik maklik opgelos word, en kan tot opwindende nuwe sake-ondernemings lei soos wat pro-Westerse groepe regoor die wêreld besef dat die PK maatskappye, banke en betaalstelsels nie langer ons ondersteuning verdien nie.

Hier in Suid-Afrika is ons dalk steeds vryer, want aangesien die rand nie altyd as ‘n geldeenheid deur PayPal en ander globale stelsels aanvaar word nie, bestaan daar plaaslike oplossings en alternatiewe betaalstelsels. Ook ondervind die privaat sektor in ons land ander probleme met ons regering en sou dus onwillig wees om nuwe politieke kwessies te ontketen deur dienste te weier aan blankes wat ietwat regs van die politieke sentrum verkeer. Dus as ‘n korttermynmaatreël, is dit selfs moontlik om Amerikaanse of Europese betalings op die web of met kredietkaarte via Suid-Afrika te kanaliseer terwyl nuwe betaalstelsels ontwikkel word.

Wat die huisvesting van webblaaie betref, lyk al die groot maatskappye verdag en sou dit daarom riskant te wees om steeds hul dienste te gebruik. Maar weereens, kan enige kragtige rekenaar wat vir so R15 000 of so uit onderdele gebou kan word, tesame met ‘n vinnige internetkoppeling, en met gratis programmatuur soos Linux en Apache, opgestel word as ‘n webbediener wat miljoene bladsyonttrekkings sou kon hanteer. Ideaal behoort daar ‘n nuwe huisvestingsmaatskappy met ‘n wolk rekenaars in verskeie Westerse lande met geheime liggings opgerig te word sodat vyandige regerings of Groot Teg ons nie meer kan stilmaak nie. Uiteindelik sou alle reg(s)denkende mense van so ‘n diens gebruik maak omdat spraakvryheid en betroubaarheid die grondbeginsels daarvan sou uitmaak.

Sogenaamde “torrent”-dienste soos die berugte The Pirate Bay waarmee gratis musiek en films afgelaai kan word, het reeds opspraakwekkende hofsake en regeringsklopjagte oorleef, sonder om gesluit te word. Hulle metodes behoort bestudeer te word; nie omdat ons enigiets onwettigs wil aanvang nie, maar as jy jou bediener vir regerings en Hollywood-ateljees kan wegsteek, kan dit sekerlik minder toeganklik vir linkse MGK’s ook gemaak word.

Dit klink na ‘n gemeenplaas deur een van daardie ellendige “sakeskole” waar mense soos Willie Esterhuyse vegeteer, maar kom ons “maak van teëspoed ‘n geleentheid”!

En sit maar daardie iPhones weg. As Apple die handelsmerk vir onwettige immigrante en die AntiFa wil wees, grawe die maatskappy sy eie ondergang.