Ter herdenking aan die sluipmoord op Hendrik Verwoerd (1901-1966, eerste minister 1958-1966) vyftig jaar gelede het Stephen Mitford Goodson die volgende boek self gepubliseer: Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd: South Africa’s greatest prime minister (2016, 144p, R190). Voorheen het Goodson boeke oor onder andere Adolf Hitler (2009), Jan Smuts (2012) en Ian Smith (2015) gepubliseer. Van 2003 tot 2012 was Goodson ‘n direkteur van die Suid-Afrikaanse Reserwe Bank, maar hy het bedank, enersyds omdat die ANC-regering deesdae die meerderheid direkteure aanstel en andersyds omdat Jode teen Goodson se direkteurskap kapsie gemaak het. Volgens inskrywings op Wikipedia en Metapedia het Goodson lof vir Hitler en ontken hy die Holocaust. Die Mitford in sy naam dui glo op verwantskap met Diana Mitford (1910-2003). Goodson word dus ook met Diana se man, Oswald Mosley (1896-1980), die leier van die Britse fasciste, geassosieer. Goodson woon tans in Pringlebaai, naby Bettysbaai waar Verwoerd se vakansiehuis is.
Goodson se finansiële en bankagtergrond word weerspieël in twee ander boeke wat hy gepubliseer het en vind ook neerslag in sy boek oor Verwoerd. Hy skryf van “the Rockefeller-Rothschild-Oppenheimer plan to set up an economic super-government over the southern portion of the [African] continent” waarvan in die Washington Observer Newsletter op 15 Januarie 1975 gewag gemaak is (p 87). Die saak wat Ethiopië en Liberië in 1960 by die Internasionale Strafhof in Den Haag teen Suid-Afrika oor Suidwes-Afrika aanhangig gemaak het, word toegeskryf aan die ondersteuning van internasionale bankiers, die Amerikaanse Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) en die Amerikaanse Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (60-61). Die CFR is ‘n dinkskrum waarin oor die Amerikaanse buitelandse beleid en internasionale betrekkinge besin word.
Na aanleiding van Piet Hoek se 1965-verslag oor die rol van internasionale en plaaslike geldmagte in die Suid-Afrikaanse politiek, verwys Goodson na “the CIA instigated riot at Sharpeville in March 1960” (83). “On 25 January 1966 Dr Verwoerd referred to the [Hoek] report during his speech at the opening of parliament and fired another warning shot in Mr Oppenheimer’s direction when he said: ‘We shall fight the concentrations of power and monopolies which are present in our country and are a fundamental danger” (85). Die in 1968 hersiene Hoek-verslag is destyds uit Hoek se kluis gesteel (85). “Shortly after Dr Verwoerd’s assassination, his successor, Balthazar Johannes Vorster, warned Professor Hoek not to make his report public as it would cause him embarrassment, and eventually all circulation of the report was forbidden. This does not come as a surprise, as by this time Harry Oppenheimer had developed ‘cordial relations with Vorster’” (87).
Hoofstuk 6 handel oor “The international money power.” Aandag word aan bv die Anglo American Corporation, Harry Oppenheimer en Anton Rupert gegee. Aanvanklik het Oppenheimer nie polities verlinks geklink nie. In 1957 het Oppenheimer gesê: “Our growing industrial needs must make full use of Bantu labour, and we must not worry overmuch about the consequences, because the Native is, on the whole so uncivilized that the white man will remain on top for as long as we can see at the moment” (78). Oor die chaos wat in die Belgiese Kongo na onafhanklikheid in 1960 uitgebreek het, toe die mineraalryke Katanga-provinsie probeer wegbreek het, het Oppenheimer in 1961 gesê: “What the Congo does show is that primitive, uncivilised people cannot be trusted with the running of a modern state, and that independent democracy is the only possibility [rather: is only possible] if the electorate has reasonable standards of education and civilisation” (78).
In 1960 het Oppenheimer gesê: “What the South African government was trying to do in separating the black and white races was not necessarily immoral as partition had provided the answer to problems in many parts of the world” (78). Daar was bv lord Frederick Lugard (1858-1945), die goewerneur-generaal van Nigerië (1914-1919), se beleid van afsonderlike ontwikkeling: “Lugard’s policy was that the African’s peoples own social and political institutions, the product of centuries of accumulated experience and wisdom, should be preserved, strengthened and modernised in an evolutionary manner” (27). Een van Lugard se uitsprake was: “Never try to turn the African Black into an Oxford Blue” (27). Lugard se karakterisering van swartes is kenmerkend van die Britse koloniale era: “The typical African … is a happy, thriftless, excitable person, lacking in self control, discipline and foresight, naturally courageous, and naturally courteous and polite, full of personal vanity, with little sense of veracity … in brief, the virtues and defects of this race-type are those of attractive children” (Wikipedia). Oor die kritiek op trekarbeid “Verwoerd pointed out that migrant labour in the urban and mining areas was similar to the 3 000 000 seasonal labourers from Italy who worked in France” (Goodson 28-29). Teen 1964 het Oppenheimer sy bogenoemde 1960-mening van “not necessarily immoral” radikaal verander: “Discrimination on grounds of race or colour is morally wrong and partition on grounds of race or colour is economically impossible” (83). SED Brown het Oppenheimer in 1966 beskryf as “the deadliest enemy of our national survival” (76).
Die boek word opgedra aan die nagedagtenis van SED (Sydney Eustace Denys) Brown (1910-1990), die redakteur van The South African Observer (1955-1990). Brown was bekend vir sy anti-semitisme en het gemeen dat ‘n Nuwe Wêreldorde onder Joodse beheer die denasionalisering van volke beoog. Hierdie idees word ook in Goodson se boek aangetref. “The international bankers needed to incorporate South Africa, with its treasure chest of minerals, into their planned New World Order whose principal objective is permanently to enslave mankind by means of perpetual debt and usury. Dr Verwoerd who had frequently declared that he would have nothing to do with such a satanic scheme, stood in their path and therefore had to be eliminated” (95). Die sluipmoord op Verwoerd word ingeklee as deel van ‘n staatskaping, soortgelyk aan wat deesdae oor die Guptas beweer word.
S Davidson word soos volg aangehaal: Nelson “Mandela’s entire development was guided by Jewish ‘handlers’” (63). Bewys hiervan word gevind in die feit dat naas swartes en ‘n enkele Indiër (Ahmed Kathrada) net Jode in 1963 in die klopjag op Lilliesleaf in hegtenis geneem is, naamlik Lionel Bernstein, Hilliard Festenstein, Arthur Goldreich, Denis Goldberg, Bob Hepple, James Kantor en Harold Wolpe (63). Hulle was kommuniste en wat Ivor Benson “soft-headed Western ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’” genoem het (63). Benson skryf: “Certainly, it requires no great intelligence to see and understand that the South African Communist Party (SACP) with its team of highly trained revolutionary activists, all drawing orchestrated encouragement and support from the centres of high finance in the West, is on the ‘attack’ side of the conflict, while the ANC is nothing but the mindless human medium in which the ‘alien invader’ exercises his powerful techniques” (63). Met verwysing na die Guptas kan dit steeds die toestand van die ANC wees.
Goodson skryf: “The African National Congress (ANC) is and always has been a Jewish outfit masquerading as a liberation movement” (64). Hy beweer die kommunis Bram Fischer het die drie uur lange toespraak geskryf wat Nelson Mandela in 1964 aan die einde van die Rivonia-verhoor voorgelees het . Mandela word die “premier puppet of the international bankers” genoem (64). “Unaccountably, the prosecution laid charges of the lesser offence of sabotage against the defendants, and not treason” (64). Oor die vonnis van tronkstraf pleks van die doodstraf het Verwoerd in 1964 in die parlement gesê: “These people are criminals, Communist criminals … When it is said in these circles that they are glad that Mandela received a life-long sentence and not the death penalty, because he may later, like [Jomo] Kenyatta [1894-1978, Kenia’s head of state 1963-1978], become a leader of the future, then I say, God forbid it” (64-65). FW de Klerk het later heeltemal anders as Verwoerd oor Mandela geoordeel.
“The Rothschild’s local representative, Harry Oppenheimer, was an implacable foe of Dr Verwoerd and as far back as 1955 in a parliamentary debate had asserted that ‘when you have a man prepared to slow down his nation’s economic welfare on account of political theories, then you are dealing with an impractical fanatic” (95-96). John Vorster word as ‘n Vrymesselaar beskryf en sy vennoot in hulle Brakpanse prokureursfirma as die kommunis Julius Furst, die skoonpa van Joe Slovo (97). Die CIA het glo aan Vorster die eerste ministerskap belowe. Die Britse geheimediens, M16, was glo ook betrokke. “In the meantime the liberal press built up an entirely false image of Vorster as a hardened right winger” (98).
“While [Anton] Rupert was the driving force behind Dr Verwoerd’s assassination, it was Rothschild who was the architect” (100). Ter ondersteuning van hierdie stelling word na PJ Pretorius se boek, Volksverraad, 1996, p 161, verwys. Die “chain of command for the assassination of Dr Verwoerd” word soos volg weergegee: Rothschild, Oppenheimer, Rupert, Vorster, Tsafendas. “These conspirators were assisted by the CIA, M16, M-Apparatus of the Soviet Naval Espionage Service and rogue elements in the South African Department of Justice and the security police” (107).
“The principal beneficiaries of Dr Verwoerd’s assassination were the International Money Power, and in particular the Rothschild bankers, although they would have to wait 28 years before they could collect their prize” (113); dus, hulle moes wag tot 1994, toe die ANC aan die bewind gekom het. “Locally, Anton Rupert had carte blanche with which to expand his business empire as he desired, with far less hindrance from government interference” (113-114). “With his puppet, BJ Vorster, in the premiership, he [Harry Oppenheimer] was strategically well placed to oversee the dismantling of apartheid and South Africa’s incorporation into the plutocrats’ New World Order” (114).
“On 18 January 1989 President PW Botha suffered a ‘stroke,’ whereas it was in fact an attempted assassination caused by his tea being poisoned. Information provided to the author by his widow, Barbara Botha” (108). Dit is dalk onnodig om te skryf dat ek teleurgesteld met Goodson se boek is, want ek het dit gekoop onder die indruk dat dit ‘n nuwe biografie oor Verwoerd is terwyl dit vir die outeur blykbaar veeleerder gaan om sy hipoteses oor internasionale geldmagte en die sluipmoord op Verwoerd te publiseer. Daarmee gee ek nie te kenne dat daar geen waarheid in sommige van Goodson se bewerings steek nie.
Die voorwoord by die boek is deur Marthinus van Bart, ‘n joernalis en kenner van Afrikanerkultuur, geskryf. Ek vestig die aandag op ‘n enkele sin in die voorwoord. Manfred Nathan het in sy biografie oor Paul Kruger (1944) geskryf: Kruger “gave his people a soul” (8). Die vraag het by my opgekom: Kan dit nie dalk met reg gesê word dat FW de Klerk se onbesonne dade die teenoorgestelde gedoen het nie , naamlik om die Afrikaner se siel te (probeer) vernietig? De Klerk se jongste uitlatings toon dat daar by hom hoegenaamd geen berou is oor wat hy aangevang het nie (Netwerk 24, 19 November; Die Burger, 21 November, p 6). Hy het nie gelewer wat hy belowe het nie: ‘n voorspoedige, nie-kommunistiese, vreedsame land waarin daar nie rassediskriminasie is nie, geen blanke sy werk verloor nie en eiendomsreg, bv van plase, veilig is.
Die boek is glad nie ‘n volwaardige biografie oor Verwoerd nie. ‘n Mens sou graag meer fundamentele besinning en evaluering van Verwoerd se politieke idees wou hê, soos dié van Hermann Giliomee. In die bibliografie word Giliomee se werke glad nie genoem nie, bv Die Afrikaners (2004) en Die laaste Afrikanerleiers (2012). Volgens Verwoerd was daar net twee staatkundige moontlikhede vir Suid-Afrika: enersyds afsonderlike nasiestate vir gelyke etniese groepe en andersyds swart oorheersing in ‘n eenheidstaat. In sy 2012-boek verwys Giliomee na ‘n profetiese uitspraak van Verwoerd in 1963: “In ‘n gemeenskap waar die swart mense oorheers, sal dit die wit man wees teen wie gediskrimineer word” (p 85).
Dit is vir my duidelik dat Giliomee baie groter waardering vir Verwoerd met sy akademiese ingesteldheid het as vir prokureurs soos Hans Strijdom, John Vorster en FW de Klerk. Giliomee se 2012-boek was vir liberaliste te pro-Verwoerd om te verteer. Giliomee het ‘n verdere boekie gepubliseer: Die enigma van Hendrik Verwoerd (2012). Daarin skryf hy: “Myns insiens was hy [Piet Cillié] saam met HF Verwoerd en Van Wyk Louw die heel belangrikste Afrikaanse meningsvormers van die laaste helfte van die twintigste eeu” (Kindle 26). Onmiddelik na Verwoerd se dood het die verlinkse koerant, die Rand Daily Mail, Verwoerd beskryf as “the man who had refined the crude ideology of white supremacy into a sophisticated and rationalized philosophy of separate development” (1142).
Dat rasse-segregasie lank voor 1948 bestaan het, blyk uit wat Jan Smuts in 1917 gesê het: “We have realised that political ideas which apply to our white civilisation largely do not apply to the administration of native affairs. To apply the same institutions on an equal basis to white and black alike does not lead to the best results, and so a practice had grown up in South Africa of creating parallel institutions – giving the natives their own separate institutions on parallel lines with institutions for whites. It may be that on those parallel lines we may yet be able to solve a problem which may otherwise be insoluble … We have felt more and more that if we are to solve our native question it is useless to try and govern black and white in the same system, to subject them to the same institutions of government and legislation. They are different not only in colour but in mind and in political capacity and their political institutions should be different, while always proceeding on the basis of self-government … We have now legislation before the Parliament of the Union in which an attempt is made … to create all over South Africa, wherever there are any considerable native communities, independent self-governing institutions for them. Thus in South Africa you will have in the long run large areas cultivated by blacks, where they will look after themselves in all their forms of living and development, while in the rest of the country you will have white communities, which will govern themselves separately according to accepted European principles” (Goodson, 25-26).
Al het Smuts soms ver gedwaal, blyk uit hierdie aanhaling dat daar reste van ‘n egte Boer in hom behoue gebly het. Die eie gebiede en selfregering wat blankes tradisioneel vir swartes toegelaat het, word sedert 1994 egter glad nie deur swartes aan blankes gegun nie. By die Voortrekkers het Verwoerd ook ingesteldheid op rasse-segregasie gevind: “The Bantu were realising more and more that the old Voortrekker policy of granting their own areas to the different races was the right and best policy” (38). Daar is ook Theophilus Shepstone se Britse naturellebeleid in Natal (1853-1875): “The main focus of his policy was on maintaining tribal customs and not to enforce white civilisation … Separate racial development had been standard practice since the inception of Britian’s colonial era” (26-27).
In die res van hierdie rubriek wil ek eerder die politieke idees van Verwoerd belig pleks van oor Goodson se twyfelagtige spekulasies te skryf. In die inleiding staan daar bv: Verwoerd “viewed separate development as a temporary phase, whose aim was neither to dominate nor to discriminate, and stated on numerous occasions that human dignity is achieved by coexistence and not by living together” (12). Wanneer die beleid van afsonderlike ontwikkeling volvoer is, sal daar ‘n reeks gelyke, onafhanklike state bestaan.
In 1950 het Verwoerd gesê: “In a multi-racial society where power must eventually be transferred into the hands of the numerically stronger Bantu, not only the White, but also the Coloured and Indian will go under. Over time even the Bantu masses will not benefit because on the strength of what happened elsewhere in Africa, it must be taken into consideration that South Africa will develop into an autocracy or dictatorship. On account of their lack of ability to manage a complicated administration, the country will moreover administratively and economically be destroyed and for everyone – White and Coloured – end in chaos” (4).
Let op hierdie profetiese woorde van Verwoerd: “Britain should be careful about the immigration of non-Whites on such a large scale; Britain was a proud nation who had rendered great services to the world, but if Britain wanted to remain proud of its nationhood it should stop allowing non-Whites in by the thousand; they were making a bastard race of themselves and this would one day be the source of many difficulties for the British people” (44).
Oor Ian Smith se rassebeleid van “partnership” in Rhodesië het Verwoerd tereg gewaarsku dat dit op ‘n tragedie afstuur: “I say unequivocally that we believe that majority rule there, which means a Black government ruling over the Whites, will lead to destruction and chaos” (69).
In 1960 het Verwoerd gesê: “May the white man, may the White nations of the world, also Britain, not lose their intellectual hold or in any other way. If they abdicate on our behalf and surrender, then in the long run the flood of coloured people will not only overwhelm us, but in the years to come will reach their lands, and eventually overwhelm them too” (115).
In 1961 het Verwoerd aan bruin raadslede gesê: “What happens if the whites lose their hold on a unitary state? Who runs the country? Not the Coloureds, but the Bantu. I do not wish to insult the Bantu as a group, because I must also seek justice for them. The fact is that the experience in Africa proves that if the Bantu obtains authority over a country, it will lead necessarily to a dictatorship of a small group of politically interested parties amongst them. The Bantu masses will be subject to them and will perhaps suffer far more than the suffering that they are alleged to experience under a white government.
“As far as the other groups are concerned they will without a doubt be pushed backwards, perhaps quickly, perhaps step by step. The Coloureds should not think that they will be the last to be excluded from the rule of, participation in and benefits of such a mixed society. They can easily be the first. Which group will be respected the least by a Bantu dictatorship and be the least needed? Will it not be the Coloureds? The Whites’ prestige and help might still be retained because of the usefulness of his knowledge” (115-116).
In 1966 by geleentheid van sy laaste Republiekdagviering het Verwoerd gesê: “As far as the Bantu are concerned will it be to their advantage if they become the dominant group, but in that process lose their separate national identities, and probably their languages and customs and suffer as a result of their incapacity – which we know is the case – to lead, manage and develop the phase of western civilisation which this country has reached in respect of industrialisation and other things?
“Would it be right in respect of their own masses? The few who obtain power might be satisfied, but for all we know they may be prodigals. For a large extent the masses would become unemployed and experience difficulty as we have seen in the rest of Africa. Would it be morally right to create the appearance of freedom, but in reality to cause living conditions similar to slavery [?]” (116).
In die nuwe Suid-Afrika is die naam van die Verwoerd-gebou op die kampus van die Universiteit Stellenbosch (US) verander omdat die neo-US eerder mense soos Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki en Desmond Tutu met akademies waardelose eredoktorsgrade vereer en geboue eerder na ANC-aktiviste soos Russel Botman vernoem. Seker die aanstootlikste gebeurtenis in Wim de Villiers se minagting van die nalatenskap van die oud-Matie Verwoerd was die openbare skouspel wat hy gemaak het van die verwydering van die gedenkplaat in die voorportaal van wat eens die HF Verwoerd-gebou was.
Goodson skryf: “On 27 May 2015 the plaque in the foyer dedicated to Dr Verwoerd was removed, without consulting the alumni, in an act of cultural vandalism. The author protested to the rector, Prof Wim de Villiers, who replied in a letter that the plaque was ‘a symbol of institutionalised oppression and suffering’ and that the objective was to create ‘a welcoming campus culture for all our students’” (117). Die verbanning van Verwoerd van die US-kampus was een van Wim de Villiers se eerste projekte nadat hy op 1 April 2015 die US-rektor geword het. Blykbaar wou hy demonstreer hoe verlinks sy politiek is en daarmee die guns van swartes wen.
