Discussion:
Black Racism: The Hate Crime That Dare Not Speak It's Name
(too old to reply)
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-23 07:40:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@googlegroups.com>
George Plimpton <***@si.not> wrote:
FrontPageMagazine.com | 07/16/02 | David Horowitz
Posted on 7/16/2002 5:54:21 AM by What Is Ain't

We reported the story of the Wichita Massacre in these pages two
years ago at the time it happened. Outside the local Wichita
press, however, virtually the only media to report this hate
crime were Frontpagemagazine.com and the American Renaissance
newsletter. While the federal government rushes to Los Angeles
to investigate an incident in which a handcuffed youth was
slammed into the hood of a car and punched by an officer, a pall
of silence still blankets the horrendous racial murder of four
young people whose murderers are now on trial. The difference in
the responses to these two stories can hardly be attributed to
anything other than the skin color of the perpetrators and the
victims involved. Apparently the sexual torture and brutal
executions of four promising youngsters is of no interest to the
nation's moral guardians, because the victims happen to be white.

Stephen Webster's account of these events provides a revealing
window on the disturbing - not to say disgusting -- state of the
civil rights delusion in America. The U.S. Justice Department
has reported that 85% of all inter-racial violence in America is
committed by blacks against whites. But there are apparently no
black hate crimes; and there is certainly no white civil rights
movement to create sympathy for the victims.

Nor can there be one in the present atmosphere of racial
hypocrisy, where the mere expression of concern over attacks on
white people would itself make an individual a ripe target for
racial witch-hunters.

Because they are black, the Wichita killers have been protected
from national scrutiny and have not even been charged with a
hate crime. The entire apparatus of local government in Wichita -
abetted by the national press -- has worked overtime to keep
the public ignorant of what happened. If the truth came out, it
would threaten a national melodrama in which only blacks are
victims, only blacks are persecuted and only whites are racists.
Within the framework of this melodrama, the only acceptable
meaning of civil rights is retribution for blacks -- retribution
for any and every crime, real or imagined, ever suffered by
black people however remote in the past. "Reparations" is just
the nom de jour of the new civil rights package.

What would happen if, instead, we returned to the idea of
individual accountability, and gave up the totalitarian
fantasies of reparations and "social justice," in which
oppressed classes exact retribution from their age-old
oppressors? What if we returned to the real world in which
individuals commit indefensible misdemeanors (Los Angeles) and
monstrous crimes (Wichita)? What if we revived the idea of
making the punishment fit the actual deed? Think of all the
people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if that were
to happen.

The fact is that the Wichita horror is but one of many
spectacular lynchings of white people by black racists, which
the nation's moral watchdogs choose to ignore.

Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and
that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas
four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their
pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his
death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President
issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media
keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for
the country's future.

Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken
Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by
four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national
silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he
was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the
crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a
modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid
any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The
pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy,
whose ancestors probably owned slaves.

We make no apologies for expressing outrage over these facts or
printing the story of the Wichita slayings. We would like to see
the trial of these killers reported on Peter Jennings' World
News Tonight. We would like to see the story of the murders
retold on 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. We would like to see Spike Lee
direct a Hollywood feature or Jesse Jackson conduct a pilgrimage
to Kansas to plea for racial peace.

But we know these things won't happen. To begin with, Jesse
Jackson and Spike Lee don't have the moral intelligence to take
these steps. Nor does Peter Jennings. We're regret that this is
the case. But we are certain there will not be any bright future
for race relations in this country until silences like these are
broken.

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, these black on white hate murders are
your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-23 07:54:20 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@googlegroups.com>
Jerry Sandusky <***@universe.com> wrote:
FrontPageMagazine.com | 07/16/02 | David Horowitz
Posted on 7/16/2002 5:54:21 AM by What Is Ain't

We reported the story of the Wichita Massacre in these pages two
years ago at the time it happened. Outside the local Wichita
press, however, virtually the only media to report this hate
crime were Frontpagemagazine.com and the American Renaissance
newsletter. While the federal government rushes to Los Angeles
to investigate an incident in which a handcuffed youth was
slammed into the hood of a car and punched by an officer, a pall
of silence still blankets the horrendous racial murder of four
young people whose murderers are now on trial. The difference in
the responses to these two stories can hardly be attributed to
anything other than the skin color of the perpetrators and the
victims involved. Apparently the sexual torture and brutal
executions of four promising youngsters is of no interest to the
nation's moral guardians, because the victims happen to be white.

Stephen Webster's account of these events provides a revealing
window on the disturbing - not to say disgusting -- state of the
civil rights delusion in America. The U.S. Justice Department
has reported that 85% of all inter-racial violence in America is
committed by blacks against whites. But there are apparently no
black hate crimes; and there is certainly no white civil rights
movement to create sympathy for the victims.

Nor can there be one in the present atmosphere of racial
hypocrisy, where the mere expression of concern over attacks on
white people would itself make an individual a ripe target for
racial witch-hunters.

Because they are black, the Wichita killers have been protected
from national scrutiny and have not even been charged with a
hate crime. The entire apparatus of local government in Wichita -
abetted by the national press -- has worked overtime to keep
the public ignorant of what happened. If the truth came out, it
would threaten a national melodrama in which only blacks are
victims, only blacks are persecuted and only whites are racists.
Within the framework of this melodrama, the only acceptable
meaning of civil rights is retribution for blacks -- retribution
for any and every crime, real or imagined, ever suffered by
black people however remote in the past. "Reparations" is just
the nom de jour of the new civil rights package.

What would happen if, instead, we returned to the idea of
individual accountability, and gave up the totalitarian
fantasies of reparations and "social justice," in which
oppressed classes exact retribution from their age-old
oppressors? What if we returned to the real world in which
individuals commit indefensible misdemeanors (Los Angeles) and
monstrous crimes (Wichita)? What if we revived the idea of
making the punishment fit the actual deed? Think of all the
people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if that were
to happen.

The fact is that the Wichita horror is but one of many
spectacular lynchings of white people by black racists, which
the nation's moral watchdogs choose to ignore.

Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and
that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas
four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their
pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his
death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President
issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media
keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for
the country's future.

Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken
Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by
four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national
silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he
was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the
crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a
modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid
any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The
pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy,
whose ancestors probably owned slaves.

We make no apologies for expressing outrage over these facts or
printing the story of the Wichita slayings. We would like to see
the trial of these killers reported on Peter Jennings' World
News Tonight. We would like to see the story of the murders
retold on 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. We would like to see Spike Lee
direct a Hollywood feature or Jesse Jackson conduct a pilgrimage
to Kansas to plea for racial peace.

But we know these things won't happen. To begin with, Jesse
Jackson and Spike Lee don't have the moral intelligence to take
these steps. Nor does Peter Jennings. We're regret that this is
the case. But we are certain there will not be any bright future
for race relations in this country until silences like these are
broken.

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, these black on white hate murders are
your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-23 08:04:32 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@googlegroups.com>
George Plimpton <***@si.not> wrote:
FrontPageMagazine.com | 07/16/02 | David Horowitz
Posted on 7/16/2002 5:54:21 AM by What Is Ain't

We reported the story of the Wichita Massacre in these pages two
years ago at the time it happened. Outside the local Wichita
press, however, virtually the only media to report this hate
crime were Frontpagemagazine.com and the American Renaissance
newsletter. While the federal government rushes to Los Angeles
to investigate an incident in which a handcuffed youth was
slammed into the hood of a car and punched by an officer, a pall
of silence still blankets the horrendous racial murder of four
young people whose murderers are now on trial. The difference in
the responses to these two stories can hardly be attributed to
anything other than the skin color of the perpetrators and the
victims involved. Apparently the sexual torture and brutal
executions of four promising youngsters is of no interest to the
nation's moral guardians, because the victims happen to be white.

Stephen Webster's account of these events provides a revealing
window on the disturbing - not to say disgusting -- state of the
civil rights delusion in America. The U.S. Justice Department
has reported that 85% of all inter-racial violence in America is
committed by blacks against whites. But there are apparently no
black hate crimes; and there is certainly no white civil rights
movement to create sympathy for the victims.

Nor can there be one in the present atmosphere of racial
hypocrisy, where the mere expression of concern over attacks on
white people would itself make an individual a ripe target for
racial witch-hunters.

Because they are black, the Wichita killers have been protected
from national scrutiny and have not even been charged with a
hate crime. The entire apparatus of local government in Wichita -
abetted by the national press -- has worked overtime to keep
the public ignorant of what happened. If the truth came out, it
would threaten a national melodrama in which only blacks are
victims, only blacks are persecuted and only whites are racists.
Within the framework of this melodrama, the only acceptable
meaning of civil rights is retribution for blacks -- retribution
for any and every crime, real or imagined, ever suffered by
black people however remote in the past. "Reparations" is just
the nom de jour of the new civil rights package.

What would happen if, instead, we returned to the idea of
individual accountability, and gave up the totalitarian
fantasies of reparations and "social justice," in which
oppressed classes exact retribution from their age-old
oppressors? What if we returned to the real world in which
individuals commit indefensible misdemeanors (Los Angeles) and
monstrous crimes (Wichita)? What if we revived the idea of
making the punishment fit the actual deed? Think of all the
people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if that were
to happen.

The fact is that the Wichita horror is but one of many
spectacular lynchings of white people by black racists, which
the nation's moral watchdogs choose to ignore.

Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and
that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas
four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their
pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his
death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President
issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media
keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for
the country's future.

Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken
Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by
four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national
silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he
was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the
crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a
modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid
any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The
pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy,
whose ancestors probably owned slaves.

We make no apologies for expressing outrage over these facts or
printing the story of the Wichita slayings. We would like to see
the trial of these killers reported on Peter Jennings' World
News Tonight. We would like to see the story of the murders
retold on 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. We would like to see Spike Lee
direct a Hollywood feature or Jesse Jackson conduct a pilgrimage
to Kansas to plea for racial peace.

But we know these things won't happen. To begin with, Jesse
Jackson and Spike Lee don't have the moral intelligence to take
these steps. Nor does Peter Jennings. We're regret that this is
the case. But we are certain there will not be any bright future
for race relations in this country until silences like these are
broken.

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, these black on white hate murders are
your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-23 08:04:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@googlegroups.com>
GuessWho <***@universe.com> wrote:
FrontPageMagazine.com | 07/16/02 | David Horowitz
Posted on 7/16/2002 5:54:21 AM by What Is Ain't

We reported the story of the Wichita Massacre in these pages two
years ago at the time it happened. Outside the local Wichita
press, however, virtually the only media to report this hate
crime were Frontpagemagazine.com and the American Renaissance
newsletter. While the federal government rushes to Los Angeles
to investigate an incident in which a handcuffed youth was
slammed into the hood of a car and punched by an officer, a pall
of silence still blankets the horrendous racial murder of four
young people whose murderers are now on trial. The difference in
the responses to these two stories can hardly be attributed to
anything other than the skin color of the perpetrators and the
victims involved. Apparently the sexual torture and brutal
executions of four promising youngsters is of no interest to the
nation's moral guardians, because the victims happen to be white.

Stephen Webster's account of these events provides a revealing
window on the disturbing - not to say disgusting -- state of the
civil rights delusion in America. The U.S. Justice Department
has reported that 85% of all inter-racial violence in America is
committed by blacks against whites. But there are apparently no
black hate crimes; and there is certainly no white civil rights
movement to create sympathy for the victims.

Nor can there be one in the present atmosphere of racial
hypocrisy, where the mere expression of concern over attacks on
white people would itself make an individual a ripe target for
racial witch-hunters.

Because they are black, the Wichita killers have been protected
from national scrutiny and have not even been charged with a
hate crime. The entire apparatus of local government in Wichita -
abetted by the national press -- has worked overtime to keep
the public ignorant of what happened. If the truth came out, it
would threaten a national melodrama in which only blacks are
victims, only blacks are persecuted and only whites are racists.
Within the framework of this melodrama, the only acceptable
meaning of civil rights is retribution for blacks -- retribution
for any and every crime, real or imagined, ever suffered by
black people however remote in the past. "Reparations" is just
the nom de jour of the new civil rights package.

What would happen if, instead, we returned to the idea of
individual accountability, and gave up the totalitarian
fantasies of reparations and "social justice," in which
oppressed classes exact retribution from their age-old
oppressors? What if we returned to the real world in which
individuals commit indefensible misdemeanors (Los Angeles) and
monstrous crimes (Wichita)? What if we revived the idea of
making the punishment fit the actual deed? Think of all the
people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if that were
to happen.

The fact is that the Wichita horror is but one of many
spectacular lynchings of white people by black racists, which
the nation's moral watchdogs choose to ignore.

Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and
that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas
four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their
pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his
death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President
issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media
keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for
the country's future.

Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken
Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by
four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national
silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he
was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the
crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a
modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid
any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The
pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy,
whose ancestors probably owned slaves.

We make no apologies for expressing outrage over these facts or
printing the story of the Wichita slayings. We would like to see
the trial of these killers reported on Peter Jennings' World
News Tonight. We would like to see the story of the murders
retold on 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. We would like to see Spike Lee
direct a Hollywood feature or Jesse Jackson conduct a pilgrimage
to Kansas to plea for racial peace.

But we know these things won't happen. To begin with, Jesse
Jackson and Spike Lee don't have the moral intelligence to take
these steps. Nor does Peter Jennings. We're regret that this is
the case. But we are certain there will not be any bright future
for race relations in this country until silences like these are
broken.

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, these black on white hate murders are
your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-23 08:09:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@googlegroups.com>
GuessWho <***@universe.com> wrote:
FrontPageMagazine.com | 07/16/02 | David Horowitz
Posted on 7/16/2002 5:54:21 AM by What Is Ain't

We reported the story of the Wichita Massacre in these pages two
years ago at the time it happened. Outside the local Wichita
press, however, virtually the only media to report this hate
crime were Frontpagemagazine.com and the American Renaissance
newsletter. While the federal government rushes to Los Angeles
to investigate an incident in which a handcuffed youth was
slammed into the hood of a car and punched by an officer, a pall
of silence still blankets the horrendous racial murder of four
young people whose murderers are now on trial. The difference in
the responses to these two stories can hardly be attributed to
anything other than the skin color of the perpetrators and the
victims involved. Apparently the sexual torture and brutal
executions of four promising youngsters is of no interest to the
nation's moral guardians, because the victims happen to be white.

Stephen Webster's account of these events provides a revealing
window on the disturbing - not to say disgusting -- state of the
civil rights delusion in America. The U.S. Justice Department
has reported that 85% of all inter-racial violence in America is
committed by blacks against whites. But there are apparently no
black hate crimes; and there is certainly no white civil rights
movement to create sympathy for the victims.

Nor can there be one in the present atmosphere of racial
hypocrisy, where the mere expression of concern over attacks on
white people would itself make an individual a ripe target for
racial witch-hunters.

Because they are black, the Wichita killers have been protected
from national scrutiny and have not even been charged with a
hate crime. The entire apparatus of local government in Wichita -
abetted by the national press -- has worked overtime to keep
the public ignorant of what happened. If the truth came out, it
would threaten a national melodrama in which only blacks are
victims, only blacks are persecuted and only whites are racists.
Within the framework of this melodrama, the only acceptable
meaning of civil rights is retribution for blacks -- retribution
for any and every crime, real or imagined, ever suffered by
black people however remote in the past. "Reparations" is just
the nom de jour of the new civil rights package.

What would happen if, instead, we returned to the idea of
individual accountability, and gave up the totalitarian
fantasies of reparations and "social justice," in which
oppressed classes exact retribution from their age-old
oppressors? What if we returned to the real world in which
individuals commit indefensible misdemeanors (Los Angeles) and
monstrous crimes (Wichita)? What if we revived the idea of
making the punishment fit the actual deed? Think of all the
people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if that were
to happen.

The fact is that the Wichita horror is but one of many
spectacular lynchings of white people by black racists, which
the nation's moral watchdogs choose to ignore.

Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and
that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas
four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their
pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his
death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President
issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media
keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for
the country's future.

Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken
Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by
four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national
silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he
was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the
crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a
modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid
any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The
pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy,
whose ancestors probably owned slaves.

We make no apologies for expressing outrage over these facts or
printing the story of the Wichita slayings. We would like to see
the trial of these killers reported on Peter Jennings' World
News Tonight. We would like to see the story of the murders
retold on 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. We would like to see Spike Lee
direct a Hollywood feature or Jesse Jackson conduct a pilgrimage
to Kansas to plea for racial peace.

But we know these things won't happen. To begin with, Jesse
Jackson and Spike Lee don't have the moral intelligence to take
these steps. Nor does Peter Jennings. We're regret that this is
the case. But we are certain there will not be any bright future
for race relations in this country until silences like these are
broken.

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, these black on white hate murders are
your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-23 08:36:54 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@googlegroups.com>
GuessWho <***@universe.com> wrote:
FrontPageMagazine.com | 07/16/02 | David Horowitz
Posted on 7/16/2002 5:54:21 AM by What Is Ain't

We reported the story of the Wichita Massacre in these pages two
years ago at the time it happened. Outside the local Wichita
press, however, virtually the only media to report this hate
crime were Frontpagemagazine.com and the American Renaissance
newsletter. While the federal government rushes to Los Angeles
to investigate an incident in which a handcuffed youth was
slammed into the hood of a car and punched by an officer, a pall
of silence still blankets the horrendous racial murder of four
young people whose murderers are now on trial. The difference in
the responses to these two stories can hardly be attributed to
anything other than the skin color of the perpetrators and the
victims involved. Apparently the sexual torture and brutal
executions of four promising youngsters is of no interest to the
nation's moral guardians, because the victims happen to be white.

Stephen Webster's account of these events provides a revealing
window on the disturbing - not to say disgusting -- state of the
civil rights delusion in America. The U.S. Justice Department
has reported that 85% of all inter-racial violence in America is
committed by blacks against whites. But there are apparently no
black hate crimes; and there is certainly no white civil rights
movement to create sympathy for the victims.

Nor can there be one in the present atmosphere of racial
hypocrisy, where the mere expression of concern over attacks on
white people would itself make an individual a ripe target for
racial witch-hunters.

Because they are black, the Wichita killers have been protected
from national scrutiny and have not even been charged with a
hate crime. The entire apparatus of local government in Wichita -
abetted by the national press -- has worked overtime to keep
the public ignorant of what happened. If the truth came out, it
would threaten a national melodrama in which only blacks are
victims, only blacks are persecuted and only whites are racists.
Within the framework of this melodrama, the only acceptable
meaning of civil rights is retribution for blacks -- retribution
for any and every crime, real or imagined, ever suffered by
black people however remote in the past. "Reparations" is just
the nom de jour of the new civil rights package.

What would happen if, instead, we returned to the idea of
individual accountability, and gave up the totalitarian
fantasies of reparations and "social justice," in which
oppressed classes exact retribution from their age-old
oppressors? What if we returned to the real world in which
individuals commit indefensible misdemeanors (Los Angeles) and
monstrous crimes (Wichita)? What if we revived the idea of
making the punishment fit the actual deed? Think of all the
people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if that were
to happen.

The fact is that the Wichita horror is but one of many
spectacular lynchings of white people by black racists, which
the nation's moral watchdogs choose to ignore.

Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and
that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas
four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their
pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his
death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President
issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media
keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for
the country's future.

Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken
Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by
four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national
silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he
was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the
crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a
modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid
any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The
pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy,
whose ancestors probably owned slaves.

We make no apologies for expressing outrage over these facts or
printing the story of the Wichita slayings. We would like to see
the trial of these killers reported on Peter Jennings' World
News Tonight. We would like to see the story of the murders
retold on 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. We would like to see Spike Lee
direct a Hollywood feature or Jesse Jackson conduct a pilgrimage
to Kansas to plea for racial peace.

But we know these things won't happen. To begin with, Jesse
Jackson and Spike Lee don't have the moral intelligence to take
these steps. Nor does Peter Jennings. We're regret that this is
the case. But we are certain there will not be any bright future
for race relations in this country until silences like these are
broken.

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, these black on white hate murders are
your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-24 00:42:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <f8104e40-65a1-4047-94e7-
***@googlegroups.com>
roger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
UNITED NATIONS, April 17 (Reuters) - In her first seven months
as U.N. envoy on sexual violence in conflict, Zainab Hawa
Bangura has visited a Congolese district where rebels raped
babies, and Somalia where a woman was paid $150 restitution for
the rape of her 4-year-old daughter.

She met a refugee at a camp in Kenya who had been raped at
gunpoint when she was eight-months-pregnant while gathering
firewood and a Somali father who was fighting for justice for
his daughters, aged 4 and 6, who had both been raped.

"The stories are horrific and heartbreaking and when these
survivors tell you what they endured, and continue to endure,
you know that one person raped in war is one too many," said
Bangura, who briefed the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.

She told the 15-member council it was still largely "cost-free"
to rape a woman, child or man in conflict and that this must be
reversed to make it a "massive liability to commit, command or
condone sexual violence in conflict."

Any future peace and ceasefire deals in conflicts like Syria and
Mali must include sexual violence prevention, Bangura said.
Bangura, a former health minister of Sierra Leone, said she
plans to visit Syria, Mali and South Sudan as soon as possible.

"I visited a community where last year 11 babies, between 6 and
12 months old, were raped by elements of Mai Mai Morgan," she
said, referring to a rebel group in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. "It is unimaginable that anyone could have committed such
an atrocity."

Bangura also told reporters that in the same community - the
Ituri district in turbulent eastern Congo on its border with
Uganda - 59 children aged between 1 and 3, and 182 children
between 5 and 15 years old had been raped last year.

"Under the cold light of strategy and tactics, the rationale and
purpose is clear. What more effective way can there be to
destroy a community than to target and devastate its children?"
she told the Security Council.

WAR'S 'LEAST CONDEMNED CRIME'

Bangura said Congolese President Joseph Kabila had pledged to
prosecute crimes of sexual violence more effectively and that
the country's parliament had said it would establish a working
group on the issue.

A written report to the Security Council from U.N. Secretary-
General Ban Ki-moon, based on Bangura's work, named 14 armed
groups along with the Congolese army and police that it said
used sexual violence in conflict.

The report also lists groups in Central African Republic and
groups and government forces in Ivory Coast, Syria and Mali.

Since January 2012, there have been 211 cases of sexual violence
reported in Mali, including rape, sexual slavery, forced
marriage and gang rape, according to the report.

"The majority of women and girls refused to report for fear of
retribution and banishment by their spouses and the community,"
Ban's report said. "In rebel-controlled zones, rape was used as
a tactic of war."

Bangura told reporters the insecurity and lack of access in
Syria meant it was hard to determine the scale of the problem.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin and Syrian U.N.
Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari criticized the report for not
reporting accusations of sexual violence by opposition groups
during Syria's two-year-old civil war.

"Responsibility for sexual crimes in Syria is placed only on
government forces and their supporters. Similar crimes committed
by the opposition are only obliquely referenced in spite of the
presence of many such claims of them," Churkin told the council.

Bangura described sexual violence in conflict as "war's oldest
and least condemned crime."

"Sexual violence has been used throughout the ages because it's
such a cheap and devastating weapon," she told the Security
Council. "The perpetrators must understand that there can be no
hiding place, no amnesty, no safe harbour."

The U.N. report can be seen here:
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2013/149 (Editing by
Mohammad Zargham)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/africa-child-rape-
crisis_n_3103558.html

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black ignorance is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black crime against
humanity the American liberal biased media has attempted to
obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-24 00:53:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@googlegroups.com>
Jerry Sandusky <***@universe.com> wrote:

South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-24 01:09:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <l6q1ae$52e$***@dont-email.me>
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
 
UNITED NATIONS, April 17 (Reuters) - In her first seven months
as U.N. envoy on sexual violence in conflict, Zainab Hawa
Bangura has visited a Congolese district where rebels raped
babies, and Somalia where a woman was paid $150 restitution for
the rape of her 4-year-old daughter.

She met a refugee at a camp in Kenya who had been raped at
gunpoint when she was eight-months-pregnant while gathering
firewood and a Somali father who was fighting for justice for
his daughters, aged 4 and 6, who had both been raped.

"The stories are horrific and heartbreaking and when these
survivors tell you what they endured, and continue to endure,
you know that one person raped in war is one too many," said
Bangura, who briefed the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.

She told the 15-member council it was still largely "cost-free"
to rape a woman, child or man in conflict and that this must be
reversed to make it a "massive liability to commit, command or
condone sexual violence in conflict."

Any future peace and ceasefire deals in conflicts like Syria and
Mali must include sexual violence prevention, Bangura said.
Bangura, a former health minister of Sierra Leone, said she
plans to visit Syria, Mali and South Sudan as soon as possible.

"I visited a community where last year 11 babies, between 6 and
12 months old, were raped by elements of Mai Mai Morgan," she
said, referring to a rebel group in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. "It is unimaginable that anyone could have committed such
an atrocity."

Bangura also told reporters that in the same community - the
Ituri district in turbulent eastern Congo on its border with
Uganda - 59 children aged between 1 and 3, and 182 children
between 5 and 15 years old had been raped last year.

"Under the cold light of strategy and tactics, the rationale and
purpose is clear. What more effective way can there be to
destroy a community than to target and devastate its children?"
she told the Security Council.

WAR'S 'LEAST CONDEMNED CRIME'

Bangura said Congolese President Joseph Kabila had pledged to
prosecute crimes of sexual violence more effectively and that
the country's parliament had said it would establish a working
group on the issue.

A written report to the Security Council from U.N. Secretary-
General Ban Ki-moon, based on Bangura's work, named 14 armed
groups along with the Congolese army and police that it said
used sexual violence in conflict.

The report also lists groups in Central African Republic and
groups and government forces in Ivory Coast, Syria and Mali.

Since January 2012, there have been 211 cases of sexual violence
reported in Mali, including rape, sexual slavery, forced
marriage and gang rape, according to the report.

"The majority of women and girls refused to report for fear of
retribution and banishment by their spouses and the community,"
Ban's report said. "In rebel-controlled zones, rape was used as
a tactic of war."

Bangura told reporters the insecurity and lack of access in
Syria meant it was hard to determine the scale of the problem.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin and Syrian U.N.
Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari criticized the report for not
reporting accusations of sexual violence by opposition groups
during Syria's two-year-old civil war.

"Responsibility for sexual crimes in Syria is placed only on
government forces and their supporters. Similar crimes committed
by the opposition are only obliquely referenced in spite of the
presence of many such claims of them," Churkin told the council.

Bangura described sexual violence in conflict as "war's oldest
and least condemned crime."

"Sexual violence has been used throughout the ages because it's
such a cheap and devastating weapon," she told the Security
Council. "The perpetrators must understand that there can be no
hiding place, no amnesty, no safe harbour."

The U.N. report can be seen here:
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2013/149 (Editing by
Mohammad Zargham)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/africa-child-rape-
crisis_n_3103558.html

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black ignorance is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black crime against
humanity the American liberal biased media has attempted to
obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-24 03:26:55 UTC
Permalink
In article <l6ri7a$m1v$***@dont-email.me>
"David 1950" <***@eternalsep.net> wrote:
 
UNITED NATIONS, April 17 (Reuters) - In her first seven months
as U.N. envoy on sexual violence in conflict, Zainab Hawa
Bangura has visited a Congolese district where rebels raped
babies, and Somalia where a woman was paid $150 restitution for
the rape of her 4-year-old daughter.

She met a refugee at a camp in Kenya who had been raped at
gunpoint when she was eight-months-pregnant while gathering
firewood and a Somali father who was fighting for justice for
his daughters, aged 4 and 6, who had both been raped.

"The stories are horrific and heartbreaking and when these
survivors tell you what they endured, and continue to endure,
you know that one person raped in war is one too many," said
Bangura, who briefed the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.

She told the 15-member council it was still largely "cost-free"
to rape a woman, child or man in conflict and that this must be
reversed to make it a "massive liability to commit, command or
condone sexual violence in conflict."

Any future peace and ceasefire deals in conflicts like Syria and
Mali must include sexual violence prevention, Bangura said.
Bangura, a former health minister of Sierra Leone, said she
plans to visit Syria, Mali and South Sudan as soon as possible.

"I visited a community where last year 11 babies, between 6 and
12 months old, were raped by elements of Mai Mai Morgan," she
said, referring to a rebel group in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. "It is unimaginable that anyone could have committed such
an atrocity."

Bangura also told reporters that in the same community - the
Ituri district in turbulent eastern Congo on its border with
Uganda - 59 children aged between 1 and 3, and 182 children
between 5 and 15 years old had been raped last year.

"Under the cold light of strategy and tactics, the rationale and
purpose is clear. What more effective way can there be to
destroy a community than to target and devastate its children?"
she told the Security Council.

WAR'S 'LEAST CONDEMNED CRIME'

Bangura said Congolese President Joseph Kabila had pledged to
prosecute crimes of sexual violence more effectively and that
the country's parliament had said it would establish a working
group on the issue.

A written report to the Security Council from U.N. Secretary-
General Ban Ki-moon, based on Bangura's work, named 14 armed
groups along with the Congolese army and police that it said
used sexual violence in conflict.

The report also lists groups in Central African Republic and
groups and government forces in Ivory Coast, Syria and Mali.

Since January 2012, there have been 211 cases of sexual violence
reported in Mali, including rape, sexual slavery, forced
marriage and gang rape, according to the report.

"The majority of women and girls refused to report for fear of
retribution and banishment by their spouses and the community,"
Ban's report said. "In rebel-controlled zones, rape was used as
a tactic of war."

Bangura told reporters the insecurity and lack of access in
Syria meant it was hard to determine the scale of the problem.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin and Syrian U.N.
Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari criticized the report for not
reporting accusations of sexual violence by opposition groups
during Syria's two-year-old civil war.

"Responsibility for sexual crimes in Syria is placed only on
government forces and their supporters. Similar crimes committed
by the opposition are only obliquely referenced in spite of the
presence of many such claims of them," Churkin told the council.

Bangura described sexual violence in conflict as "war's oldest
and least condemned crime."

"Sexual violence has been used throughout the ages because it's
such a cheap and devastating weapon," she told the Security
Council. "The perpetrators must understand that there can be no
hiding place, no amnesty, no safe harbour."

The U.N. report can be seen here:
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2013/149 (Editing by
Mohammad Zargham)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/africa-child-rape-
crisis_n_3103558.html

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black ignorance is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black crime against
humanity the American liberal biased media has attempted to
obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-24 03:45:50 UTC
Permalink
In article <l6ri50$lna$***@dont-email.me>
"David 1950" <***@eternalsep.net> wrote:
 
UNITED NATIONS, April 17 (Reuters) - In her first seven months
as U.N. envoy on sexual violence in conflict, Zainab Hawa
Bangura has visited a Congolese district where rebels raped
babies, and Somalia where a woman was paid $150 restitution for
the rape of her 4-year-old daughter.

She met a refugee at a camp in Kenya who had been raped at
gunpoint when she was eight-months-pregnant while gathering
firewood and a Somali father who was fighting for justice for
his daughters, aged 4 and 6, who had both been raped.

"The stories are horrific and heartbreaking and when these
survivors tell you what they endured, and continue to endure,
you know that one person raped in war is one too many," said
Bangura, who briefed the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.

She told the 15-member council it was still largely "cost-free"
to rape a woman, child or man in conflict and that this must be
reversed to make it a "massive liability to commit, command or
condone sexual violence in conflict."

Any future peace and ceasefire deals in conflicts like Syria and
Mali must include sexual violence prevention, Bangura said.
Bangura, a former health minister of Sierra Leone, said she
plans to visit Syria, Mali and South Sudan as soon as possible.

"I visited a community where last year 11 babies, between 6 and
12 months old, were raped by elements of Mai Mai Morgan," she
said, referring to a rebel group in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. "It is unimaginable that anyone could have committed such
an atrocity."

Bangura also told reporters that in the same community - the
Ituri district in turbulent eastern Congo on its border with
Uganda - 59 children aged between 1 and 3, and 182 children
between 5 and 15 years old had been raped last year.

"Under the cold light of strategy and tactics, the rationale and
purpose is clear. What more effective way can there be to
destroy a community than to target and devastate its children?"
she told the Security Council.

WAR'S 'LEAST CONDEMNED CRIME'

Bangura said Congolese President Joseph Kabila had pledged to
prosecute crimes of sexual violence more effectively and that
the country's parliament had said it would establish a working
group on the issue.

A written report to the Security Council from U.N. Secretary-
General Ban Ki-moon, based on Bangura's work, named 14 armed
groups along with the Congolese army and police that it said
used sexual violence in conflict.

The report also lists groups in Central African Republic and
groups and government forces in Ivory Coast, Syria and Mali.

Since January 2012, there have been 211 cases of sexual violence
reported in Mali, including rape, sexual slavery, forced
marriage and gang rape, according to the report.

"The majority of women and girls refused to report for fear of
retribution and banishment by their spouses and the community,"
Ban's report said. "In rebel-controlled zones, rape was used as
a tactic of war."

Bangura told reporters the insecurity and lack of access in
Syria meant it was hard to determine the scale of the problem.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin and Syrian U.N.
Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari criticized the report for not
reporting accusations of sexual violence by opposition groups
during Syria's two-year-old civil war.

"Responsibility for sexual crimes in Syria is placed only on
government forces and their supporters. Similar crimes committed
by the opposition are only obliquely referenced in spite of the
presence of many such claims of them," Churkin told the council.

Bangura described sexual violence in conflict as "war's oldest
and least condemned crime."

"Sexual violence has been used throughout the ages because it's
such a cheap and devastating weapon," she told the Security
Council. "The perpetrators must understand that there can be no
hiding place, no amnesty, no safe harbour."

The U.N. report can be seen here:
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2013/149 (Editing by
Mohammad Zargham)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/africa-child-rape-
crisis_n_3103558.html

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black ignorance is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black crime against
humanity the American liberal biased media has attempted to
obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-24 04:27:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@googlegroups.com>
GuessWho <***@universe.com> wrote:
 
FrontPageMagazine.com | 07/16/02 | David Horowitz
Posted on 7/16/2002 5:54:21 AM by What Is Ain't

We reported the story of the Wichita Massacre in these pages two
years ago at the time it happened. Outside the local Wichita
press, however, virtually the only media to report this hate
crime were Frontpagemagazine.com and the American Renaissance
newsletter. While the federal government rushes to Los Angeles
to investigate an incident in which a handcuffed youth was
slammed into the hood of a car and punched by an officer, a pall
of silence still blankets the horrendous racial murder of four
young people whose murderers are now on trial. The difference in
the responses to these two stories can hardly be attributed to
anything other than the skin color of the perpetrators and the
victims involved. Apparently the sexual torture and brutal
executions of four promising youngsters is of no interest to the
nation's moral guardians, because the victims happen to be white.

Stephen Webster's account of these events provides a revealing
window on the disturbing - not to say disgusting -- state of the
civil rights delusion in America. The U.S. Justice Department
has reported that 85% of all inter-racial violence in America is
committed by blacks against whites. But there are apparently no
black hate crimes; and there is certainly no white civil rights
movement to create sympathy for the victims.

Nor can there be one in the present atmosphere of racial
hypocrisy, where the mere expression of concern over attacks on
white people would itself make an individual a ripe target for
racial witch-hunters.

Because they are black, the Wichita killers have been protected
from national scrutiny and have not even been charged with a
hate crime. The entire apparatus of local government in Wichita -
abetted by the national press -- has worked overtime to keep
the public ignorant of what happened. If the truth came out, it
would threaten a national melodrama in which only blacks are
victims, only blacks are persecuted and only whites are racists.
Within the framework of this melodrama, the only acceptable
meaning of civil rights is retribution for blacks -- retribution
for any and every crime, real or imagined, ever suffered by
black people however remote in the past. "Reparations" is just
the nom de jour of the new civil rights package.

What would happen if, instead, we returned to the idea of
individual accountability, and gave up the totalitarian
fantasies of reparations and "social justice," in which
oppressed classes exact retribution from their age-old
oppressors? What if we returned to the real world in which
individuals commit indefensible misdemeanors (Los Angeles) and
monstrous crimes (Wichita)? What if we revived the idea of
making the punishment fit the actual deed? Think of all the
people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if that were
to happen.

The fact is that the Wichita horror is but one of many
spectacular lynchings of white people by black racists, which
the nation's moral watchdogs choose to ignore.

Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and
that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas
four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their
pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his
death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President
issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media
keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for
the country's future.

Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken
Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by
four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national
silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he
was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the
crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a
modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid
any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The
pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy,
whose ancestors probably owned slaves.

We make no apologies for expressing outrage over these facts or
printing the story of the Wichita slayings. We would like to see
the trial of these killers reported on Peter Jennings' World
News Tonight. We would like to see the story of the murders
retold on 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. We would like to see Spike Lee
direct a Hollywood feature or Jesse Jackson conduct a pilgrimage
to Kansas to plea for racial peace.

But we know these things won't happen. To begin with, Jesse
Jackson and Spike Lee don't have the moral intelligence to take
these steps. Nor does Peter Jennings. We're regret that this is
the case. But we are certain there will not be any bright future
for race relations in this country until silences like these are
broken.

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, these black on white hate murders are
your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-24 04:45:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <f7351bab-4d39-4f2d-8201-
***@googlegroups.com>
wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
 
UNITED NATIONS, April 17 (Reuters) - In her first seven months
as U.N. envoy on sexual violence in conflict, Zainab Hawa
Bangura has visited a Congolese district where rebels raped
babies, and Somalia where a woman was paid $150 restitution for
the rape of her 4-year-old daughter.

She met a refugee at a camp in Kenya who had been raped at
gunpoint when she was eight-months-pregnant while gathering
firewood and a Somali father who was fighting for justice for
his daughters, aged 4 and 6, who had both been raped.

"The stories are horrific and heartbreaking and when these
survivors tell you what they endured, and continue to endure,
you know that one person raped in war is one too many," said
Bangura, who briefed the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.

She told the 15-member council it was still largely "cost-free"
to rape a woman, child or man in conflict and that this must be
reversed to make it a "massive liability to commit, command or
condone sexual violence in conflict."

Any future peace and ceasefire deals in conflicts like Syria and
Mali must include sexual violence prevention, Bangura said.
Bangura, a former health minister of Sierra Leone, said she
plans to visit Syria, Mali and South Sudan as soon as possible.

"I visited a community where last year 11 babies, between 6 and
12 months old, were raped by elements of Mai Mai Morgan," she
said, referring to a rebel group in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. "It is unimaginable that anyone could have committed such
an atrocity."

Bangura also told reporters that in the same community - the
Ituri district in turbulent eastern Congo on its border with
Uganda - 59 children aged between 1 and 3, and 182 children
between 5 and 15 years old had been raped last year.

"Under the cold light of strategy and tactics, the rationale and
purpose is clear. What more effective way can there be to
destroy a community than to target and devastate its children?"
she told the Security Council.

WAR'S 'LEAST CONDEMNED CRIME'

Bangura said Congolese President Joseph Kabila had pledged to
prosecute crimes of sexual violence more effectively and that
the country's parliament had said it would establish a working
group on the issue.

A written report to the Security Council from U.N. Secretary-
General Ban Ki-moon, based on Bangura's work, named 14 armed
groups along with the Congolese army and police that it said
used sexual violence in conflict.

The report also lists groups in Central African Republic and
groups and government forces in Ivory Coast, Syria and Mali.

Since January 2012, there have been 211 cases of sexual violence
reported in Mali, including rape, sexual slavery, forced
marriage and gang rape, according to the report.

"The majority of women and girls refused to report for fear of
retribution and banishment by their spouses and the community,"
Ban's report said. "In rebel-controlled zones, rape was used as
a tactic of war."

Bangura told reporters the insecurity and lack of access in
Syria meant it was hard to determine the scale of the problem.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin and Syrian U.N.
Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari criticized the report for not
reporting accusations of sexual violence by opposition groups
during Syria's two-year-old civil war.

"Responsibility for sexual crimes in Syria is placed only on
government forces and their supporters. Similar crimes committed
by the opposition are only obliquely referenced in spite of the
presence of many such claims of them," Churkin told the council.

Bangura described sexual violence in conflict as "war's oldest
and least condemned crime."

"Sexual violence has been used throughout the ages because it's
such a cheap and devastating weapon," she told the Security
Council. "The perpetrators must understand that there can be no
hiding place, no amnesty, no safe harbour."

The U.N. report can be seen here:
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2013/149 (Editing by
Mohammad Zargham)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/africa-child-rape-
crisis_n_3103558.html

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black ignorance is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black crime against
humanity the American liberal biased media has attempted to
obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 08:02:47 UTC
Permalink
In article <l6tbus$upm$***@dont-email.me>
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 08:07:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <737fd34e-c2fd-49d9-952e-
***@googlegroups.com>
wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 08:07:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <11f3a3fb-8daf-4ea5-b526-
***@googlegroups.com>
***@hotmail.com wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 08:12:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <ws21-***@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net>
Bill Steele <***@cornel.edu> wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 08:29:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <42bf042b-48c9-4a97-ab4f-
***@googlegroups.com>
"Tom Sr." <***@gmail.com> wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 09:43:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <ws21-***@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net>
Bill Steele <***@cornel.edu> wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 21:39:41 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
***@Jurgis.net wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 21:50:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <96997f0f-4ef5-4b09-afcb-
***@googlegroups.com>
wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 21:56:28 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
***@Jurgis.net wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 22:01:53 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
***@Jurgis.net wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 22:01:53 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
***@Jurgis.net wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-28 22:22:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>
***@Jurgis.net wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-30 22:04:57 UTC
Permalink
In article <bf5678a1-9f1f-4ce8-bead-
***@googlegroups.com>
wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-30 22:09:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <ws21-***@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net>
Bill Steele <***@cornel.edu> wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.
Traycon Martin's Rotting Corpse
2013-11-30 22:10:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <ws21-***@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net>
Bill Steele <***@cornel.edu> wrote:
 
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is
exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style
culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading
intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone,
figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine
farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept
up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police
had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them.
Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-
racists.

Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In
another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation
from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr
Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused
her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an
Afrikaans column:

“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting
in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly
for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in
South Africa.”

This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr
Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of
the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers
had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up
charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was
convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries
had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse
farmers of heinous crimes.

Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured
child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven.
Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of
Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the
case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had
lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had
rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his
hands.”

In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround
Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of
medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a
“swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a
tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems.
The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced
by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had
committed suicide after his life and his business had been
ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media,
both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-
hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney
after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.

So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to
histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists
whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish
Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism.
Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have
been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white
victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post
and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further
persecuted.

Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-
politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds
that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.

Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial,
anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of
South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious.
What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with
nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial
street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a
Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago,
twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang
activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape,
was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.

Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-
intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring
criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse
is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of
civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant
zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever
religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.

Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take
Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter
campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening
and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with
the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus
is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics
of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any
mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by
hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have
studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no
intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the
whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC
member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.

Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two
zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman
philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp
is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political
science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and
on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte
writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also
avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more
than twenty universities.

Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do
white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public
sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am
obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by
actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she
has presented a shining example of how whites should not
participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr
Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European
descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in
public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-
censorship, public silence.

Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat
pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-
deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s
degree in creative writing from the University of the
Witwatersrand.

The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the
Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed
in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and
gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one
could still call it communication.

Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however.
Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of
“There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in
the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay,
pillaging, South Africa.

It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a
“post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what
she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is
the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty,
indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten
years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private
seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at
the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the
boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest,
soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single
visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me
that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full
of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the
Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.

Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a
terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or
Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting
about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of
the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the
better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the
charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery,
being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul.
Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another
kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.

I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common
with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and
decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children
are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word.
Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to
silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves.
Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise
Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of
Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two
things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in
others.

There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German
loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and
Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few
more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown
in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the
effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South
Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of
others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and
vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg,
either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria
University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media
machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.

Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are
becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how
ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar
Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings
elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt
as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp
antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or
Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of
bikini-clad ladies.

South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical
code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would
say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a
need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.

This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the
simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the
objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained
references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking
the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the
latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that
characterises the new South Africa.

In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently
defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary
concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her
“feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for
the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-
called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-
identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape
and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures
are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant
Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to
forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be
cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and
which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.

Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which,
according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse.
As she puts it,

“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full
potential will be released and women will repossess their
collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and
patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”

Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South
Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely:
pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the
slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now
turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.

But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living
according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers
Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’
Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically
the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to
remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.

Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-
morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our
sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine
that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe,
lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word
“Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that
society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-
letter words.

The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette.
That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which
is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual:
denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the
TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-
power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell
called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including
the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and
documented phenomenon in this country.

Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save
his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist
passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system,
Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a
fair trial.

His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin
author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being
sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking
wine and having musicians perform for him.

Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever
drink Burger’s wine again.

Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and
resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among
the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are
outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the
gallery.

However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways
of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of
the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end,
against all odds.

Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that
we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can
thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our
blood?

http://praag.org/?p=10067

--
For all you assbags who think blindly voting Democrat just
because you always have, this black on white hate is your legacy.

Remind the racists at the DOJ about this black on white crime
the American liberal biased media has attempted to obfuscate.

Email the Eric Holder ("report Zimmerman for racism" DOJ email
address) racist club at: ***@usdoj.gov.

Loading...