Katie Hopkins (gebore in 1975) is ‘n omstrede Britse mediapersoonlikheid wat vanweë haar uitlatings oor die radio en televisie, asook in haar rubrieke in koerante, in talle dispute en hofsake betrokke geraak het. Myns insiens is sy in sommige opsigte te uitgesproke, maar die kern van die probleem is heel moontlik dat sy polities regsgesind is en nie die knie voor politieke byderwetsheid buig nie. Sy dring aan op die reg om te sê wat sy dink en wil haar nie laat intimideer deur diegene wat beheer wil uitoefen oor wat gedink en wat gesê mag word nie. Kulturele marxiste skep ‘n bedenklike situasie waarmee ons in die nuwe Suid-Afrika goed bekend geraak het.
Hopkins was in ‘n kloosterskool en het geleer om viool en klavier te speel. Aan die Akademie Sandhurst het sy militêre opleiding ondergaan. Daarna het sy ‘n graad in ekonomie behaal. Van 2004 tot 2005 was sy met haar eerste man getroud. Hulle het twee dogters. In 2010 het sy met haar tweede man getrou en hulle het ‘n seun. Sy het snags epileptiese aanvalle gekry, maar sy is in 2016 daarvan genees danksy die verwydering van ‘n gewas tydens ‘n breinoperasie. Hopkins het bekendheid verwerf vanweë haar optrede in televisiereekse soos The Apprentice (2007) en Big Brother(2015). In 2015 was sy die hoofkarakter in die video, My fat story, waarin sy binne maande haar gewig met 19 kilogram vermeerder en daarna net so vinnig verminder het. Die video het sowat 10 miljoen televisiekykers in Brittanje en Amerika gelok.
In hierdie rubriek word daar op Hopkins se politieke idees gefokus. Sy is anti-Islam, anti-Derde-Wêreld-immigrasie, anti-multikulturaliteit (bv as bron van misdaad), anti-globalisme en sy steun Israel, Brexit en Donald Trump. As op die huidige trant voorgegaan word, voorsien sy dat die blankes ‘n minderheidsgroep in Brittanje gaan word. Soos Raheem Kassam (No go zones: How Sharia law is coming to a neighborhood near you, Regnery Publishing, 2017, 302p; Amazon Kindle $13,32) beweer Hopkins dat daar reeds “no-go areas” vir blankes in Engeland is. Wat die nuwe Suid-Afrika betref, kan die plaasmoorde volgens haar op blanke volksmoord dui. Tydens haar besoek in Februarie 2018 het sy ook anti-blanke rassisme teëgekom. Haar paspoort is plaaslik by geleentheid gekonfiskeer, onder die voorwendsel dat sy rassehaat aanblaas. Na aanleiding van Black Lives Matter het sy die vraag gestel: As swartes hulle lewens so waardevol ag, waarom steek hulle dan so dikwels mekaar met messe of skiet mekaar dood? Hopkins is so omtrede in Brittanje weens die oordrewe, eensydige publisiteit wat sy in die linksgesinde massa-inligtingsmedia kry dat die United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) weier om haar as lid te aanvaar. Die voorafgaande uiteensetting is grootliks op die Wikipedia-artikel gebaseer.
Rude
Hopkins het haar kant van die saak in ‘n boek gestel: Rude (London: Biteback Publishing, 2017, 320p; Amazon Kindle $9,19). Die teks is dikwels op so ‘n platvloerse vlak, bv wat die talle verwysings na seks en geslagsorgane betref, dat ek die boek nie as aangename leesstof kan aanbeveel nie. “Nice … is one of the least exciting words in the English language” (Kindle 66). Maar ek het met die leesproses volhard omdat ek op soek na haar politieke idees was. Dit is bekend dat die Wikipedia polities links georiënteerd is,* gevolglik wou ek my nie uitsluitlik verlaat op die inligting wat daar oor Hopkins verskaf word nie. Veral in die laaste hoofstuk is my soektog uiteindelik beloon. “I see these mantras as helping to equip an entire generation with the force and tenacity to stand strong against the torrent of leftie nonsense they are obliged to withstand on an almost daily basis” (1279). Die hoofstroom-inligtingsmedia het ontaard in ‘n “echo chamber … one vast liberal hell hole” (1439). “I want this book to be a kind of handbook for life” (60). Myns insiens slaag sy in talle opsigte nie hierin nie – “I have over-shared” (3156) – maar ek bepaal my by voorkeur by haar politiek. Vir Hopkins was die skryfproses “therapy for my soul” (3156).
[* Daarteenoor is die oriëntasie van die Metapedia regs, hoewel sommige van die artikels na my sin te propagandisties, bv oordrewe anti-Semitisties, is. Maar lees gerus die inskrywing oor Suid-Afrika en ook die een oor die Traditional Britain Group (TBG), waarby Katie Hopkins en bv Roger Scruton hulle skaar. Die TBG is ‘n voortsetting van die Conservative Monday Club, wat destyds die blanke bewind in Suid-Afrika ondersteun het.]
Die boek herinner in sommige opsigte aan dié van Milo Yiannopoulos (Praag 7.10.2017). Die manier waarop hy en Hopkins deur die polities byderwetses behandel word, is soortgelyk aan wat Steve Hofmeyr ervaar, bv: “A panellist or other minority [ie non-white] individual says they will pull out if I am allowed to speak or am given a platform” (92). “One thing you don’t want to do in life is fit in. The misfits are way more interesting to sit next to and won’t be looking over your shoulder to see if there is someone more fabulous to talk to. As I tell my kids, it’s good to be weird. All the best people are” (528).
“Liberals tend to hate me more than most” (22). Sy is die linkse British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) se “equivalent of Ebola” (47). Op haar beurt beskou sy die BBC as ‘n “holy hell of ineptitude, funded by the taxpayer” (1445). Oor diegene aan die hoof van die BBC skryf sy: “The bigger the arsehole, the more they get paid and the higher up the chain of authority they rise” (1451). Sommige sprekers “are booked to entertain or bemuse an audience of left-wing media types who look like they are sucking lemons in the rain at a funeral they didn’t want to attend” (47).
“One of my favourite talks is: ‘We are not all equal, some people are just not worth the effort’” (79). Hopkins vra: “Were you born an idiot or do you have to practice?” (2129). “We are born separately. Live as individuals” (368). “People are basically animals and we are not designed to be in such close proximity with one another” (2199). Die linkses verkies egter groepsdenke, “a dictatorship of thought” (1921). “Everything perpetuated by liberals or Remainers was hope, and everything else was hate” (1915). Sy noem hulle “liberal fascists” (1928). Jonah Goldberg het ‘n hele boek hieroor geskryf: Liberal fascism: The secret history of the Left from Mussolini to the politics of meaning (London: Penguin, 2009, 492p; Amazon Kindle $16,75).
Hopkins skryf: “The BBC is able to apply nonsense diversity criteria to everything first, before any consideration of its purpose and its role, to the extent that you have to employ a black guy from a sink estate brought up exclusively on free school meals before you are even allowed to consider what programme you might be making. Here’s one example. A Muslim rape squad has just been sentenced in Newcastle. Full plaudits to the police force there for doing a fabulous job. BBC Newsnight had a discussion on Muslim grooming gangs and why the problem seems to be so widespread. Five people were invited on to the show to discuss the issue. And all five were Muslims” (1413). Dieselfde soort ding word telkens by die SABC en MultiChoice aangetref. “The output is so biased – laundering news to make it palatable to the left … makes this a broadcaster of pure propaganda … Contributors are assessed for their ethnic, sexual or social diversity before their opinion” (1420).
“London and the liberals have got it so wrong. They have created an environment in which another, devastating kind of pretending has become law – in which not only must we never say certain things out loud, we must pretend we don’t even think them. They tell us which thoughts are permissible and can be spoken, and which we must hide” (3207).
“I am no raging feminist” (118). “There was a space in the media market for a woman who spoke like a bloke but understood the mysteries of women. And I filled it” (28). En sy doen dit op ‘n uiters blatante manier “as someone with no filter, for whom no subject is off limits” (368), bv op Twitter. “Twitter is like road rage” (124). Sy erken dat sy op die ingewing van die oomblik groot foute op Twitter begaan het; dat sy dalk eerder berug as beroemd is (137). Vroue wat die lewe skenk, presteer nie uitsonderlik nie. “You are fertile and you had sex. This is not award-winning stuff. There is a bit of a tendency for women to make pregnancy and especially childbirth a bit of a serial drama” (2418). “It’s misogynistic [vrouehaat deur mans] to say anything other than that women are awesome” (3213). In die resultate van wetenskaplike navorsing mag daar tot ongunstige gevolgtrekkings oor blankes gekom word, maar dieselfde geld nie vir nieblankes nie, soos onlangse gebeure aan die Universiteit Kaapstad en Stellenbosch duidelik aangetoon het.
Die volgende opmerking het my aan bv Amanda Gouws, ‘n opperste feminis, laat dink: “It must be exhausting to view all life through the goggles of an angry woman, cross at not being a man and determined that all men are arseholes” (1670). Ek vra my af: Het Gouws dan nie ‘n pa (gehad) nie? Dalk is dit die probleem; dat sy ontevrede is omdat sy is soos sy is. Sy skaar haar ongekwalifiseerd teen die helfte van die mensdom; op die gevaar af dat dit die beste helfte kan wees.
[Terloops, jare gelede, toe ek met die publikasie van hierdie rubriek begin het, was daar vroue wat gereeld gereageer en aan die besprekings deelgeneem het. Deesdae gebeur dit (feitlik) nooit meer op Praag nie. Destyds was dit Afrikanervroue wat bereid was om kaalvoet oor die Drakensberg te loop om van die Britse gesag weg te kom. Dit was Afrikanervroue wat hulle mans tydens die Anglo-Boereoorlog aangemoedig het om voort te veg en in 1902 nie wou oorgee nie. Dit kan sekerlik nie waar wees dat (alle) Afrikanervroue in die nuwe Suid-Afrika sedertdien deur kulturele marxiste soos Christi van der Westhuizen saggemaak en gebreinspoel is en hulle mantels anti-Afrikaner gedraai het nie. Maar hoe verklaar ‘n mens die feitlik algehele afwesigheid van vrouestemme op Praag? Vroue is onmisbaar deel van die Afrikanerdom.]
Een van Hopkins se groot griewe teen feministe is dat hulle geen kritiek op Moslems uitspreek nie: “the mystery of our Western feminists’ blindness towards the mistreatment of women” (1502). “If it is equality women are after, why do they only shout about equality for Western women?” (1514). “My fear of Islam is rational, based on the simple fact that most men who want to blow up my children, run down my children, or stab my children with a twelve-inch hunting knife on one of London’s bridges are, in fact, Muslims” (1571).
Suid-Afrikaanse blankes word sedert 1994 vertel hoe skaam hulle oor hulleself moet wees. Hopkins het goeie raad: “Shaming is something that is done to you. Reject it. Refuse to be shamed” (207). “Apologising never actually stops people complaining anyway. The apology is never enough – or never soon enough, or never sincere enough” (805). Hopkins bied die volgende waardevolle strategie aan: “I do not give offence. You choose to take it. You need to make better decisions” (1286).
Soos in Amerika is die dosente aan Britse universiteite uiters linksgesind. Hopkins verwys na die “liberal fascist lecturers” (1953). “I believe most university campuses are the prime instigators of liberal facist thinking in our young people. It is no coincidence that [Jeremy] Corbyn [leader of the Labour Party] and the left want to change things so that every vaguely literate person can go to university without fees and come out with a dodgy 2:1 in psychology before they hit the ranks of the unemployed” (1979). Dieselfde redenasie word by Jacob Zuma en die res van die ANC aangetref. Hulle sal nooit moeg daarvoor raak om iets gratis aan hoofsaaklik swartes aan te bied waarvoor ‘n klein groepie munisipale en inkomstebelastingbetalers moet opdok nie.
Hopkins is sterk teen vet mense gekant. Sy noem hulle “chubsters” (2682), afgelei van “chubby” (dik, mollig). Twee hoofstukke handel daaroor. “Fat is the new normal” (2670) – kyk maar gerus na die parlementslede van ons jong demokrasie; die olifante in die kamer (2741). “This is obesity-acceptance” (2741). Eintlik mag dit nie gesê word nie: “It is fattist to say anything” (2741). “It offends sensitivities” (2760). Volgens Hopkins is selfbeheer elkeen se persoonlike verantwoordelikheid (2766); “the body you have eaten yourself into” (2816). Ouers kan verantwoordelik vir die dikgattigheid van hulle kinders gehou word. “In the shadow of every fat kid is a fat parent” (2802). “Being morbidly obese is a hard place to be” (2823). Wat nodig is, is “a functional relationship with food” (2837, 2866). “My relationship with food is purely practical” (2879). Hopkins se hipotese is: “Fat people are lazy” (2886). Haar raad is tweeledig: “Moving more and eating less” (3122; ook 2837, 2893). “Everyone has it within them to exercise control over their weight, at no cost, if they make the effort” (2893).
Daar is baie dinge wat die afgelope dekades verbode geraak het. Vir elkeen van hierdie oortredings is daar ‘n benaming. Hulle hang saam en ondersteun mekaar. Dit word “interseksionaliteit” genoem: “the ways in which oppressive institutions (racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, xenophobic, classist, etc) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another” (3265).
“It’s Islamophobic to say Muslims really aren’t that creative when it comes to naming their children, despite the fact that if I stand in a playground in Leicester [‘n erg vermoslemde stad] and shout Mohammed, 4 562 children will come running” (3213).
“It is now sexist to say women and men are not equal and should not all be paid the same. That no two people are equal; that no two people put the same effort into the same job or achieve the same outcome, and that gender usually isn’t the differentiator” (3213).
“It is officially fattist to say that it’s not healthy to shove half the fridge in your face, become morbidly obese and then think it’s OK to ask the taxpayer to pay for the new hip you now need, or for your type 2 diabetes treatment” (3213).
“It’s fascist to say that Trump was democratically elected as the 45th President. Or that Brexiteers won with 52 per cent of the vote” (3219).
“It’s racist to say that Caster Semenya should not be allowed to compete in the female 800-metre race because she has internal testes and hormone levels three times that of a normal female” (3219).
“It’s homophobic to say that … I cannot abide the way that even in these tolerant processionals [in Gay Pride] certain individuals are excluded – viz the 2017 march at which the Israeli Pride flag in a rainbow was deemed offensive and those marching with it were asked to remove themselves from the event” (3219).
“It’s transphobic to say I agree entirely with Donald Trump that trans individuals should not serve in the military … the idea that this is something we need in our military, when there are other individuals who will not need the same level of cost to recruit and retain, then, for me, the simple economic argument wins every time” (3219).
“The Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] has just issued new guidance as to what constitutes hate. Now it’s enough that you perceive someone to deserve the label, even if you have no proof. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the CPS have agreed [on] a common definition of hate crime: ‘Any criminal offence which is perceived [!] by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.’ What madness is this? Perception and hurty feelings” (3226).
“So if you identify as black, you’ve got ‘racist’ in your armoury, to fling at anyone who crosses you. If you identify as a Muslim, you’ve got ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobe’. If you are a black Muslim lesbian, you have ‘racist’, Islamophobe’ and ‘homophobe’. The one with the most identities gets the most weapons in their personal arsenal. It’s like a weird game of Top Trumps for victims” (3233). “If I speak out with my belief that Black Lives Matter is a nonsense organisation that needs to stop what it’s doing because it fuels civil unrest – an opinion supported by the niece of Martin Luther King, whom I met in a hotel lobby – then I am not critising your politics, I am criticising you as a black women, giving you the legitimacy to label me a racist” (3246).
“In this climate, any attack on the things you believe is an attack on your very humanity, which explains why men are so isolated from the feminist debate; appearing to attack womankind is dangerous. I, on the other hand, can say what I like about women; I might be called a misogynist (I frequently am), but I won’t be prosecuted for it, because I am a woman. That’s why I carefully referenced Martin Luther King’s niece above. I need the voice of a black women to say that Black Lives Matter needs to stop because if I say it, as a white woman, I will be labelled a racist. Plus, it’s hard to argue with someone called Luther King” (3246). Dit is waarom plaaslike linkse blankes so dikwels noem dat “meneer Nelson Mandela” of “aartsbiskop Desmond Tutu” dit of dat gesê het ten einde hulle eie standpunt te regverdig.
“Place all that in a climate of paranoia and fear and it quickly becomes apparent that this is not a good time to be a journalist fighting from the right. It’s a time in which labels are incendiary and entire legions of lawyers and litigators exist to pounce on the smallest perceived misdemeanours. Not to mention the appetite of the CPS and police for a Conservative scalp” (3284). In Suid-Afrika sit ons opgeskeep met die Menseregtekommissie en enige ANC-oorheerste parlementêre komitee matig hom die reg aan om enigeen te dagvaar om voor hom te verskyn. Die blankes, veral die Afrikaners, word tot stilswye geïntimideer. Dit is die soort vryheid waarvoor daar geveg is totdat die bloed gevloei het, soos ons so dikwels moet aanhoor.
“There is no rationalising with these people. I see that the world is changing. I see that the ability to speak out is being lost. That the platform from which to speak has shrunk down to its smallest size yet. And the direction of travel is still toward an ever-increasingly identity-bound form of politics. It is a great pity and a great shame. Sometimes I feel like a polar bear on a little island of ice where a whole polar ice-cap used to be, watching the land under my feet melt away. The old industry has changed; the media is controlled by those who think like [Hillary] Clinton, and socialism rules” (3297). ‘We need new ways, new platforms, new opportunities to speak out more freely and to keep standing up for the people in this country who feel like they have lost their voice. And I am committed to doing that” (3303).
“There are too many people out there who feel utterly dejected at the state of the country and a capital city [London] that increasingly looks and sounds like a foreign country. And I don’t mean anything to do with colour or background; I mean foreign in its true sense, as in a place where the natives [whites] have become the outsiders. A place where our own customs, rituals, language or behaviours take second place. A place [where] we no longer feel at home. I feel responsible for standing up against all that” (3309). “Right now, voices are needed more than ever before. This is no time to quit. It is time to find a way to keep speaking … to keep writing stuff that is honest and true and find a platform on which to post it” (3316).
Plaasmoorde
Ernst Roets se boek, Kill the boer: Government’s complicity in South Africa’s brutal farm murders (2019, 439p; Amazon Kindle $11,49), het ‘n mate van sleepvoetende kommentaar in die plaaslike hoofstroom-inligtingsmedia ontlok. Die outeur se standvastigheid tydens ‘n verhoor deur ‘n parlementêre komitee het hom eerder kritiek as waardering op die hals gehaal. Kort voor Roets se boek is twee boeke oor plaasmoorde gepubliseer: Alice VL se My turn: Waiting to be murdered in South Africa (2018, 200p; Amazon Kindle $5,16) en Katie Hopkins se Plaasmoorde: The killing fields – A first hand, emotional account of the farm atrocities in South Africa (Toronto: Rebel Media, 2018, 70p; Amazon Kindle $4,59). Die verskyning van hierdie twee boeke is plaaslik doodgeswyg. Vervolgens bespreek ek slegs Hopkins se boek. Dit is gepubliseer deur Rebel Media, waarna ek voorheen in die konteks van Lauren Southern verwys het (Praag 25.11.2018).
Hopkins het Suid-Afrika aan die begin van 2018 besoek. Sy was net drie weke hier en het twee van daardie weke gebruik om 3 000 kilometers in die land rond te reis. Sy was te kort hier om werklik ‘n diepgaande begip te ontwikkel van wat in hierdie droewe land aan die gebeur is. Maar haar boek kan help om mense in te lig wat deur die hoofstroom-inligtingsmedia doelbewus in onkunde gehou word. Soos die gebruik by Britte is, word apartheid sonder meer verdoem, asof rasseskeiding in geen opsig sy ontstaan in die Britse koloniale geskiedenis gehad het nie. “When people talk about apartheid and how dreadful it was, of course I agree. It was a horrible time and a horrible thing” (Kindle 450). Wat verblydend is, is dat Hopkins by plaasmoorde nie vaagweg na die aanvallers verwys nie, maar spesifiseer dat dit aan die misdadige boosheid van sommige swartes, bv “black gangs”, te wyte is (73; ook 111, 321, 462). “In South Africa the monsters are real. And they do come in the night” (243).
Sy het met twee voertuie en vyf sekuriteitswagte, asook ‘n kameraman, in die land gereis en ‘n dokumentêre video, Plaasmoorde: The killing fields (738), gemaak en hierdie boek na aanleiding van haar wedervaringe geskryf. Baie van die feite oor plaasmoorde, wat aan ingeligte Suid-Afrikaners oorbekend is, word verstrek, bv dat sagte teikens, bv bejaardes, by voorkeur uitgesoek word; dat die slagoffers nie bloot gedood en beroof word nie, maar brutaal gemartel word; dat die oorlewende kinders erg getraumatiseer is; dat baie plaaswerkers op hierdie manier hulle werk en verblyfplek verloor, maar dat hulle soms die swak skakel in die boer se veiligheidsmondering blyk te wees. Dit alles is “part of the reality of being white farmers in South Africa in 2018” (65), “where murder is seen as a solution rather than a crime” (283).
Sy het die Ysterberg besoek waar daar ‘n wit metaalkruis geplant is vir iedere blanke boer wat vermoor is. “When the number of murders is so high and the number of dead is so great, each death becomes less newsworthy” (104). Byvoorbeeld, in Die Burger haal plaasmoorde selde die voorbladsy. Normaalweg word slegs oor plaasaanvalle berig as hulle in die Wes-Kaap plaasgevind het en dan onprominent op ‘n binnebladsy. Oor die hoewemoord op Annette Kennealy is glad nie in Die Burger berig nie terwyl dit op dieselfde dag (22.05.2019) die hoofberig op die voorbladsy van Beeld was. Die Burger se eind- en mederedakteur, Johann Maarman, is ‘n ANC-ondersteuner wat (soos Jakes Gerwel) as koerier boodskappe aan ANC-terroriste gesmokkel het. In Media24-geledere behoort daar ernstig besin te word oor die nuutgevonde ideologiese grondslag van hulle publikasies, by uitstek die toestand waarin Die Burger verval het. Die koerant is nie ‘n skaduwee van die (redelik) betroubare inligtingsbron wat hy eens was nie.
“The country’s latest crime statistics revealed that 20 336 people were murdered between April 2017 and March 2018, compared to 19 016 in the previous year. Police minister Bheki Cele said this number rate, ‘borders close to the war zone’. (Based on 2016 figures, South Africa ranks #10 in the world for intentional homicides per 100 000 inhabitants, out of 219 nations” (546).
Sy noem hoe sleg die blanke slagoffers van plaasaanvalle deur die swart personeel in hospitale behandel word weens die anti-blanke sentiment wat deur die ANC en EFF gestook word (131). Ook dat die polisie om dieselfde rede traag is om plaasmoorde te ondersoek en selfs nie eens opdaag nie (158). Hopkins het respek vir die dapper blankes wat op hulle plase aanbly en hulle nie deur misdadigers laat intimideer nie. “A survivalist group called the Suidlanders, among others, are training white South Africans to make a last stand. They are preparing for some great final showdown between black and white” (335). In die Wikipedia word die Suidlanders beskryf as “a South African ethnonationalist racist white Afrikaner survival group whose ideology is based on the prophecies of Boer Siener van Rensburg [1864-1926].”
Blanke plaasbewoners (eintlik alle blanke inwoners) is grootliks op hulleself vir hulle veiligheid aangewese. Daarom is daar bv geëlektrifiseerde heinings, diefwering en kameras en kan die plaasbewoners hulleself met wapens verdedig. Groot honde word ter beveiliging aangehou. Dit lyk asof die plase in ‘n oorlogsone is, wat verstaanbaar is omdat die regering aan ‘n terroristies-kommunistiese bewind toevertrou is. It’s a constant and ongoing feeling of being a target and knowing you must prepare for an attack” (554) “I don’t think we can really understand what that’s like” (229). “This is normal life in South Africa” (236). “I think about the way I live my life [in England], sometimes leaving my front door wide-open whilst I potter about the house; often sleeping with windows open; letting my children walk to school alone; popping out to do the school run with my front door unlocked. It’s different trying to be a mum here … Trying to be a white mother in South Africa with white children is an endurence event in itself” (554). Maar die ANC en sy meelopers gee valslik voor dat die land in 1994 op ‘n positiewe manier genormaliseer is.
Hopkins het ‘n onderhoud met ‘n polisieman gevoer. “With certainty he sets out instances where police weapons have been used in the farm attacks, in exchange for a cut of the money (whether paid by the syndicate bosses or stolen from the white families)” (283). “There is something soul destroying about hearing that the very people who are supposed to protect and safeguard them are the ones who are perpetuating the slaughter of whites on the ground. And there is something deeply troubling about listening to him tell me that the police are equipping farm attackers, especially when I have sat with victims who tell me that as soon as the attackers left, they phoned the police for help” (299).
Die ANC-regering maak geen geheim daarvan dat blanke boere nie op hulle plase hoort nie; dat hulle daar ongewens is. Vandaar die beleid van onteiening sonder vergoeding, wat met oorgawe deur Cyril Ramaphosa gedryf word, of die blankes, in sy woorde, “daarvan hou of nie.” Die land het in ‘n netto invoeder van kos ontaard (306); voedsel sekerheid bestaan nie meer nie. “I wonder just how much more damage the ANC is going to be allowed to do to this country” (314). Met verwysing na wat in Zimbabwe met die eiendom van blanke boere gebeur het, skryf Hopkins: “History is set to repeat itself in South Africa … [the politicians] sat on their hands and watched as farmers were butchered from the land” (314).
“Black gangs feel they can attack white farmers with impunity – because the political leadership have created a climate where removing whites from the land is seen as accepted policy, and police can curry favour by facilitating attacks on the ground. One thing has become very clear: Politicians and corrupt police officers are in bed with the farm attackers on the ground. At best, they are creating the environment where they feel they have support for their murderous actions; at worst, providing weapons and stashing stolen cash” (321). Sy onderskryf dus die standpunt van Ernst Roets, soos hierbo uit die titel van sy boek blyk, dat die ANC-regering medepligtig aan die moorde op blanke boere is.
Hopkins gaan selfs verder. “In my opinion, the EFF are effectively the ANC’s terrorist arm. It is ANC political policy to pursue land expropriation without compensation, but the incitement of hate-fueled violence, retribution, and revenge on the ground is delivered by the dancing, singing [“Kill the Boer; kill the white man” – 328] leaders of the EFF” (335). “There is a sense that for whites to survive in South Africa, they will need to withdraw to territory they can defend. Instead of building endless fences and gates and shutters around their homes, they will build an almighty wall, a defendable fortress, behind which white South Africans will endeavour to endure” (343) – die ideaal van ‘n blanke tuisland.
Hopkins het arm blankes in ‘n plakkerskamp buite Pretoria besoek. “These are the outsiders, the people cast out by the system” (450); die uitgeworpenes. “Because of the new rules in South Africa, it is not possible for a white person to be employed if a black person could be employed to do the same task. Companies are penalized if they do not have a [demographic] representation of workers, and cannot secure government contracts unless black workers make up the majority of their business and their senior team” (450). Dít is die nie-rassige nuwe Suid-Afrika waarin daar na bewering nie meer rassediskriminasie bestaan nie. “The only difference is that now it’s black South Africans who wield the privilege and power. White South Africans are outcasts … I sense this is all about revenge. And it is particularly cruel” (457).
Naas wraak gee afguns/jaloesie en gierigheid aanleiding tot plaasmoorde. Die werkers kan begeer wat die boer het omdat aan hulle verkondig word dat alle mense gelyk en wesenlik eenders is, terwyl die boer en sy werkers in werklikheid op heeltemal verskillende vlakke van verdienstelikheid is. Werkers kan griewe hê of afgedreig en geïntimideer word om plaasmoorde uit te voer. ‘n Boervrou sê prontuit: “I can’t trust any of them” (487). Hopkins glo sindidate speel ‘n groot rol. Leiers word gewerf om plaasmoorde te orkestreer. “His syndicate boss dresses him up with a nice watch, gives him money for his wallet, lends him a car, and sends him to lure other farm workers to become informants” (516). “Farm attacks are not the random events they might appear. They are coordinated and equipped from the outside. But many, it seems, are set up from within” (524).
“Farmers aren’t taking farm attacks lying down. They aren’t simply waiting. Not only is there a strong personal resilience that accompanies the decision to die in ones boots – the farmers are also working together to defend themselves as a community, forming patrols on foot and by radio to provide a first level of security and safety checks within their own community” (576). ‘n Boer het tydens sy beurt op nagpatrollie gesê: “I do this tonight, so that tomorrow night I can sleep safely” (590). “The South Africans’ right to bear arms is being tested. Licensing laws have become more stringent, and many farmers are finding it difficult to secure them … Under the new [2001] law licence[d] gun owners had to renew their licence every five years, within 90 days of the expiration date. If they fail to do so, the licence will be considered cancelled, and the gun owner would be in possession of an illegal firearm. Most recently the highest South African court ruled that anyone possessing a gun for which the licence had expired must surrender the weapon to police for destruction” (627).
“This is not a message I expect farmers to heed. Right now in South Africa, it is no time to be handing over your weapons. At this stage the police have not announced what they intend to do, but there is a certain feeling that, despite the government’s denial, they are becoming more oppressive in its management of white South Africans. That this is just another attempt to disarm civilians” (634). Dit is bekend dat die polisiediens ondoeltreffend en korrup is; dat hulle nie vertrou kan word met die veilige bewaring en vernietiging van vuurwapens nie; dat vuurwapens uit polisiebewaring gesteel word en dat sulke wapens soms vir eie gewin verkoop word en in die hande van misdadigers beland.
Dit is ‘n bedenklike situasie. Die polisie kan nie met die beveiliging van blankes se lewens en belange, bv eiendom, vertrou word nie. Die polisiediens faal dus in die doel waarvoor hy bestaan en waarom hy van owerheidsweë met die belastingbetalers se geld befonds word. Die ANC-regering kan allermins met die beveiliging van die blanke se belange vertrou word, soos duidelik blyk uit die beleid van onteiening sonder vergoeding. Die ANC-regering het van 2003 tot 2008 die kommando-stelsel, wat plase en hulle bewoners sedert die 1770’s doeltreffend beveilig het – dus ook tydens die terroristiese aanslae – uitgefaseer. Sedert 2008 het plaasaanvalle eksponensieel toegeneem. Deesdae is die polisie veronderstel om die werk te doen wat eens deur die kommando’s gedoen is. Oor die vyandiggesindheid van die ANC en die EFF jeens die blankes, veral die Afrikaners, kan daar myns insiens geen twyfel wees nie.
Ná die onlangse algemene verkiesing het Pieter Groenewald, die leier van die Vryheidsfront Plus (VF+), aan boere gesê: “Vergeet van die kommandostelsel; dit sal nooit terugkom nie” (Netwerk24, 16 Mei). Groenewald plaas sy vertroue in die nuwe polisiestrukture wat glo intussen ontstaan het. Die VF+ het meer stemme in die afgelope verkiesing as voorheen getrek, maar boere het rede om teleurgesteld te wees insoverre hulle vertroue in die VF+ gestel het. Die VF+ streef deesdae daarna om die belange van alle minderhede op die hart te dra en hom nie meer eksklusief vir die blankes, veral die Afrikaners, se belange te beywer nie. In werklikheid het die VF+ ‘n enkele bestaansrede, naamlik om die blankes te dien. As nisparty kan die VF+ slegs as sodanige sinvol voortbestaan. As hy probeer om sy voetspoor te vergroot, sy fokus te verbreed en sy pro-Afrikaner-missie te verwater, is hy tot mislukking gedoem.
