That’s right! We are racists. If you did not understand this from us so far, here it is. We are unabashedly, unashamedly, proudly and formally racists. If there would be a racist association we would be members. If there would be a standard racist philosophy, we would adopt it. If there would be a standard racist religion we would probably be members of it. That’s right! We are racists to the core and don’t you ever forget it.
What’s that?
What do we mean by “racist’?
It so happens that we like all races all the same even if you are quite weird. What did you think we were talking about? Oh… we see… you believed we were the “other” type of racists… well no. Sorry.
PEOPLE FORGET OR REMEMBERS
A few days back we were reading the online newspaper News24 when we came across an article titled “Racial trust deficit worrying, says Ramaphosa” which caught our attention. It did so because it came from South Africa which, as you know, has had quite a bit of experience with the “other” type of racism. Hence we though they would actually have something important (or at least interesting) to say about it. Well… no. Politicians never disappoint n’est- ce pas?
The point of the issue is that “racism” is bad, we must never forget (or always remember) and strive for tolerance, kind words and an overall good vibe towards all people of earth. Hummm… not exactly revolutionary, isn’t? More like a canned version of an expired BS sandwich.
THE WORDS
When we mount our white horse and head towards the moral high ground (we call it rambling with a purpose), we have the tendency to be as accurate as possible (or at least as accurate as our time and energy permits). And so, let’s go directly to the words of so-called wisdom that were spoken during the “Gauteng social cohesion summit” by the deputy president of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa.
"We must address the attitudes, the practices, and the prejudices that undermine our efforts [towards social cohesion],"
Great! Fantastic! Excellent! Just one question. What exactly is “social cohesion”? We don’t know and we sincerely doubt anybody else does and this includes Cyril. The term “social cohesion” makes no physical sense whatsoever, of course. It is simply a catch-all sound bit that seems to imply that South Africa is striving to overcome its racist past through some magic process where all South African (of any race) may live together in harmony. Well… not exactly harmony… more like tolerance… not exactly… it would be approximately lack of xenophobia but not really… is more like… do you see the problem?
"Now more than ever we need to direct our energies to united action... we need to make sure the discourse of the past does not define our future."
United Action…. United Action… isn’t there a soccer team called United Action? What exactly is “united action”. What is it implied in it? And isn’t South Africa a democracy where many voices are being heard and taken into consideration? And if it is so, doesn’t “united action” imply one action all together? As in no dissent? As in somebody commands and everybody else obeys? It would certainly seem so. And then we have this bizarre bit about the past discourse defining South African future. Hummm… correct us if we are wrong, but wasn’t South Africa white-racist in the past? It would seem that Cyril is implying that the future of South Africa will become white-racist again? Or is it the classic word mash-up politicians so love to spew? Yes, that it is. Either this or Cyril is in urgent need of psychiatric examination.
"If we are to be a socially cohesive nation, it is important that we learn each other's languages. We should make an attempt."
What a stupid concept! There are countries of the size of post stamps that have literally 100+ officially recognized dialects. Nobody gives a damn yet they all communicate just fine by adopting a standard language of convenience. What that language is depends of the country we are talking about but it works. There is no need whatsoever to “learn each other’s languages”. This would be a monumental waste of time. Only a bureaucratic apparatchik or a politician could suggest something that stupid. Why would anybody spend countless hours learning other languages for no practical purpose other than to feed the delusions of a politician under a fuzzy slogan of “social cohesion”? Furthermore, would this learning process progress the goal of anti-xenophobia? No. During armed conflicts (aka wars) one of the most sought skill is to speak the language of your adversary to understand him better in order to destroy him more efficiently!
He said there also needed to be respect for different cultures, and people needed to be tolerant of those who had different views.
Horse dung! People are what people are. Why do people need to be tolerant for other people with different views? Again, this issue is only important if there is a government with the power to act on it. The fear is that intolerant people may rise in government power and through the enabling force of government act intolerantly. But what happens if there is no government? Well… nothing. Intolerant people can go on being intolerant while tolerant people can go on being tolerant. As there is no enabling power, one point of view has no impact on the other. Both can coexist in the same time and location. However, should one group act on the other, then normal, standard contractual rules apply as described in a Master Contract or similar arrangement. There is no need to subjugate people’s views or to ascribe some sort of moral high ground to one over the other.
"Communities must fight crime and corruption... our communities must be united,"
Well… no. Crime, as we have pointed out in many articles but particularly in Justice in the Austro Libertarian System, In-Justice In The Democratic System is an obsolete concept. There is only property interaction and/or damage without a contractual arrangement. In this equation there is no room for “communities” because “communities” do not own property. The term “community” means a bunch of people living in a common domain which could be cultural, geographical or something else. It is plain and simply idiotic to ask “communities” to fight “crime and corruption” moreover considering that the very definition of “crime and corruption” comes from the government which is itself criminal and corrupted (see for example Social Contracts Are A Scam).
"We must revere human life and protect the vulnerable."
Well… no. As we explained clearly in our article The Value of a Life, there is always an economic value that can and currently is assigned to a life. The concept of reverence is stupid, means nothing and has no practical application. For example, do we still revere the life of a person threatening to kill us with a gun? What about a knife? A rock? Bare hands? Toothpicks? Where do we draw the “reverence” line? It is only because of the existence of governments that these kinds of nonsense and stupidity can be uttered and still carry some degree of acceptance.
“Ramaphosa said the province, which had the largest number of immigrants, had to lead the country in combating xenophobia.”
Not really. No. Actually, no. Immigration has nothing to do with xenophobia. It is only the fact that governments enable xenophobes to act with impunity that this is a problem. If there is no government then any act against any property of any person of any race without a contract will be automatically compensated by free market agents. In a world without governments xenophobia disappears rather quickly because it is not in our best economic and financial interest to be xenophobes. Yet, if after this true you should choose to be a xenophobe, then you are most welcomed to do so. In other words, xenophobia is not and it never was the issue, the issue is acting upon xenophobic views through force imposed through the state. If there is no state then xenophobia is simply a state of mind without real implications for non-xenophobes or other races.
If you are a xenophobe and wish to create a xenophobic town or city with your own xenophobic rules, there is nothing to stop you. People will simply avoid you. Freedom for you and freedom for everybody else. Hate away if you like, if this is your true desire. It has no impact on anybody else… unless there is an enabling government.
"Our people need to share a common identity and a common destiny."
Sure. Just one question: who exactly is “our people”? As far as we can tell there are myriads of tribes in South Africa, then we have all manners of white races and on top of that mixed ones. Again, who exactly is “our people”? Of course and to be fair, this is the very same question that plagues all countries. Why is that a piece of colored cloth determines “our” people versus “their” people. This is not only nonsense, it is downright crazy! People associate with other people for numerous reasons and the least of those reasons are colored cloths hanged on tall poles. There is no such thing as “our” versus “their” people. This artificial discrimination only exists as the basic necessity of politicians to justify their jobs. Remove governments, remove politicians and suddenly “our” people becomes “their” people or simply people, cultures, points of view and languages. Even within a country, if there is justice (however flawed it may be), these artificial barriers can be dismissed. There is no need whatsoever of “us” versus “them”. Geee…. It shouldn’t be so hard to explain plain reality!
CONCLUSION
It is clear that South African politicians are first and foremost politicians even when dealing with the so-called “racial” issue. This is truly a shame because it is obvious that they have forgotten the lessons of history. But then again, they are politicians and their trade is lies. We should not have forgotten this lesson either.
But then again, you may subscribe to their point of view. That’s alright. You are entitled to all the obsolete points of view you may want to believe.
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
