Eduan Liebenberg Naude:
South African Liberalism (Our total downfall)
Looking at South Africa retrospectively, looking at what initially existed, as opposed to what we have today, you find what would be the best practical example of the case about apartheid and so called racism. South Africa is unique in the sense that we have changed from Apartheid to total integration and equality very recently. The South African changeover is in fact the most recent in history. We have made a total changeover to a system about which the rest of the world are now arguing – that of which they have no experience at all. A subject that the rest of the world can give no evidence about.
This brings me to the subject of Liberalism. Forget American liberalism, or for that matter the liberalism the world over, because as I have already said, about this they have no clue. The Negro issue in America serves as more than ample proof of the ignorance with which the world addresses the racial issue. After hundreds of years of equal rights and opportunities and even total westernization, the statistics empirically indicates that the Negro of America, even though they are not even 15% of the population, are by far the most illiterate, find themselves as more than 80% inclined to violent crimes, the most pregnant out of wedlock, vastly commit the most rapes, robberies, assaults, and are by far more HIV infested than the whites could ever be. The rest of the world cannot dream to judge South Africa, or voice an opinion about apartheid or racism. Their opinion come from a milieu where they are the majority, expressing their concerns about the rights of people who are by no means any threat to them – they are practicing an easy liberalism.
But the liberalism in South Africa, as practiced by its white population is a different case… The liberalism in South Africa is like the hen running into the foxhole, believing that the fox would fall in love with her and copulate with her peacefully.
In practice, liberalism is a recent thing of life. It is an otherness. Liberalism is an attempt to oppose nature. Creation did not come from politics, and the order in nature is the blueprint of the will of the power from which the formation thereof is programmed. If creation had been about liberalism, or compassion and pity, the sickly, skinny and weak ram would have had equal rights to breed with the ewes in the herd. Or, the sow could have wooed a racehorse. I have never seen a thoroughbred stallion chase a sow around! Who and what determined this discrimination?
The older liberalists, like those from the Helen Suzman era – the old PFP – can argue their case, because they opposed the white man of South Africa that time. But how in the world could anybody who has not personally experienced the Verwoerd, and to a lesser extent, the Vorster era; ever voice an opinion? On what would such a person base their statement or opinion? From which practical comparisons could they derive any opinion other than that they judge a past era on the basis of the judgments against the old era, made the popular media? Is it not ironic that those who make the most noise today – judged by their age – come from the group that never experienced the previous era! Therefore, the credibility of the arguments of suchlike, due to their lack of experience, should be judged and measured by the basic characteristics of liberalism! They are actually a people, carried away by the flood of third party decision making and principles. They do not have a real principle, and side with the winner of a fight in which they had not taken part. Because they had not experienced the harmony, comfort and peace of impeccable, undefiled and spotless parks and public places, they vote for the new ghetto, where under an undefined identity, people can coquette and assimilate with other flavors and colors… They propagate a new integration, but lack the insight to realize that the integration implies the disintegration of something much better, incessant and trustworthy.
They show an odd zeal to estrange themselves from responsibility, fleeing to safe corners from where they can make seemingly brave remarks, as if their opinions are valid. Like a scared dog, they yelp and run, and then bark from a safe distance! When we refer to what we had before, or to the struggle our forefathers had faced for our preservation and racial identity, we actually throw the bread onto the water, because, like a cork they pop from their grotto’s to the surface, and yell that it is improper to possess what our forefathers had died for. It is easy to recognize these liberals. The sounds they make are clearly definable. The neo-liberals are quick and eager to ridicule their own race, folk and language, making constant mockery of patriotism. This they do from the miserable position of not having had any part in strife that built the security they don’t know.
They don’t believe that boundaries should be maintained between superior and inferior communities, as determined by nature. No, you must embrace everybody lovingly and thereby spread the misery evenly and widely. What you and your ancestors created through exclusive initiative, must be equally shared by those who never lifted a finger. These Johnny- come-lately rookies, that glide along in the slimy drag of liberalism, promote the incompetence of the inferior peoples, on the pathetic basis that fairness postulates it. They think that a person will reach his best potential if not discriminated against. We may compliment the liberal that his heart is switched on, but immediately warn him that his brain is switched off!
The terms mostly heard among liberals is “feelings” and “compassion”. The word “character” does not form part of their vocabulary, because it requires continence.
Likewise “Good” and “evil” are also not liberal words, because these principles imply that a moral standard, stretching further than your personal feelings should exist. When these liberals have to make a decision about a moral aspect, they merely ask themselves “How do I feel about it?” or, “How can I portray the most compassion in this?” They don’t as the question “What is right” or “What is wrong”. For the liberal there is no standard right or wrong, each person chooses by the way he feels or wishes.
The liberal is infected with piousness. They are so broadminded and generosity-obsessed, to qualify to fit in everywhere, that they cannot even take their own side in an argument. The liberalist will be quick to explain to you that it is immoral to spend your money on your money on the children of your own nation. You must spread your money among the children from other nations, who’s parents never had any part in creating the system or funds.
I read an excellent comparison:
“Liberals are the flying saucers of politics. Nobody can make out heads or tails of them, and they appear twice at the same place”
Looking at all these elements you can make no other conclusion than, that the liberals of South Africa are more dangerous than our enemies…
And, these liberals today form the core of the DA! (Devils,I mean Democratic Alliance) ….
South Africa Today – South Africa News
