Today in the Afrikaans newspaper, Beeld, there was an online poll. The question was “Should the British Police use violence against the rioters?”
A choice of two answers were given, “Yes, They are asking for it”, or “No, violence won’t solve anything”.
Out of almost 10,000 voters 93% voted Yes and 7% No.
This tells me that the vast majority of Afrikaners are unified on this point, that sometimes violence is necessary. When and under which conditions exactly that “Sometimes” is for Afrikaners is unclear, because when it comes to obtaining their freedom from Marxist oppression there seems to be a natural inhibition towards violence and its use.
Even when it comes to the universally accepted right to self defence, there seems to be a common reluctance amongst Afrikaners to exercise that right.
The reasons are not all that clear. It could be, because of their strict Calvinistic upbringing that they prefer to “love their enemies” or “turn the other cheek”. Maybe it is, because of their fear off criminal prosecution and loss of possessions that they rather cower in front of the people murdering, torturing and raping them every day. It could even be that they still harbour feelings of guilt over Apartheid, because someone who feels guilty accepts his punishment like a man and do not fight back.
Be that as it may, the moment you mention “Freedom for the Afrikaners” and “Violence” in the same breath, people run for cover.
The superficial peace-mongers, whip out the clichés of, “Violence begets more violence”, “Two wrongs do not make a right” and “Violence does not solve anything.”
The more religious start quoting from the Bible about how wrong violence is and the more philosophical quotes Isaac Asimov who said, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent"…
Yet these same people have no problem with the British police using violence to suppress the terrible riots in the UK.
Is violence ever “just” or only sometimes “necessary”? If so then how much violence should be used?
Was it wrong to oppose the Nazis with violence? Was it “just” for the ANC to use violence in their “Freedom struggle”?
Many liberal Afrikaners today will say that the ANC was indeed justified to use violence and that the government of the time was not justified to oppose them with equal violence, but how can violence be justified in one group’s freedom struggle against oppression and not in that of another ?
When it came to the crunch, the ANC had no qualms to use the most abhorrent violent methods, including rape, torture and murder against their own supporters, in order to gain their freedom.
Yet when it comes to the Afrikaners and their struggle for freedom, the option of violence is not even put on the table, despite their enemies violently wiping them out in a silent genocide.
Despite what the pacifist peace-mongers say, history has shown that nobody has ever gained their freedom from Communist or any totalitarian oppression by any peaceful means. Whatever makes some Afrikaners believe that they will accomplish it in South Africa boggles the mind
Pacifism says that when you are being attacked you should not defend yourself. When someone steals from you, you should let them be, if someone murders your loved ones, you should not do anything.
Pacifism disarms its proponents; leaves them helpless and at the mercy of the aggressors. Pacifism leads to self destruction and therefore cannot be justified, ever.
In the end pacifism leads to a choice between being “Good” and being “Alive” and when faced with such a choice, one should always choose the latter.
It is the age old question popularized by Shakespeare in his tragedy Hamlet, “To be, or not to be…”
If the Afrikaners are serious about their future... If they still want to be here in 200 years from now or a 1000 years from now…if they choose “To Be”…then they will soon have to face the choice of being “Good” or being “Alive”.
And if they want to be “Alive”, they will very fast have to start shedding their inhibitions on the use of violence.
