Author: Brand Smit

TUESDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2020

To summarise what I say in pieces like “A topic I don’t really want to think about” (December 2019): A combination of factors allowed white South Africans to oppress and exploit black south Africans for over a century, despite white South Africans being in the minority, and despite centuries of sometimes successful armed resistance against white expansion into lands considered by black tribes to be in their jurisdiction.

For their exploitation of this combination of factors, white South Africans have to make peace with their consciences – or make peace with their forebears.

Here’s the controversial point: If it is true that adults are to a large extent responsible for how we experience reality, then black South Africans have to make peace with themselves – or with their forefathers and -mothers.

TUESDAY, 22 DECEMBER 2020

Am I saying that the oppression and exploitation experienced by black South Africans was their own fault? This is a highly contentious question, and I struggle with it.

If it had been impossible for black men and women since, say, 1880, to offer more successful resistance to the frequent attempts by ordinary white people to exploit and oppress them, and to the laws and regulations of a white government, despite the fact that there were seven or eight black adult men and women for every white adult man and woman, then one must conclude that white people are simply smarter than black people, or more powerful than black people, or both. I refuse to accept this. This is the argument of white supremacy.

An alternative explanation is that a majority of black people accepted their fate, and simply hoped for better days. But what does one say to such a person – who just accepts his or her fate and hopes for a better tomorrow? What would you, the reader, say if it were your brother or sister or friend? Would you encourage such an attitude?

I understand if this were people’s attitude. It’s human. It’s normal. Most people do it. But – then you shouldn’t later blame the world, society, or other people who are bigger or stronger than you – or who you consider to be bigger or stronger than you – for your experience of reality! Be honest and admit it: We were just human. We accepted our situation and hoped for better days, while we could have made a bigger difference, much earlier, if we had been more active in our resistance.

And for the record: I am not just talking about armed resistance and violence. There are numerous historical examples of the effectiveness of passive resistance. Especially if you surpass your oppressor in numbers.

* * *

Some people would want to remind me of the virtual omnipotence of the apartheid state, of how brutal the security police could be, and how laws and regulations made it difficult for ordinary black men and women to move forward in life. No reasonable person denies this.

* * *

Seeing that I have gained momentum with topics one shouldn’t touch with a 10-foot pole, here’s another: The groups of Afrikaans-speaking farmers and their families who packed their ox-wagons in the 1830s and moved from mostly the Eastern Cape towards the interior of South Africa, were they powerful? Armed black warriors confronted them in various places, attacked them, and in some cases completely wiped them out – old people, men, women, and children. Yet on their own, without any help from other powers, they established lives for themselves in Natal, the Free State, and the old Transvaal. How did they do this almost a hundred years before they could use the military might, infrastructure, and laws and regulations of a modern state?

And now that we’re on the subject, the Battle of Blood River has always been a fascinating topic. As far as I know, no historian doubts the numbers on the day – on the one hand between 400 and 500 adult Voortrekker men, older boys, and servants, and on the other hand, 10,000-15,000 hardy and trained Zulu impi’s. How did it happen that the Voortrekkers achieved such a decisive victory? Was it just the fact that they had muzzleloaders and a small cannon? Suppose thirty men with knives in their hands storm one man with a revolver. The man with the revolver has enough bullets, but he can only shoot six at a time before he must reload! How on earth can he remain standing?

[22/02/21: According to historian Victor Davis Hanson, free citizens, for a variety of reasons, make better soldiers than their enemies on the battlefield who are less free. I reckon the Boers at Blood River were freer than the warriors of the absolute monarch, Zulu king Dingane. Three other factors played a role in the Boer victory: a compact battle formation, a barricade consisting of ox-wagons from behind which the burghers could shoot, and sufficient ammunition that was readily available in the heat of battle. These factors also enabled a British contingent of about 150 troops at Rorke’s Drift in 1879 to fight off thousands of Zulu impis (stone walls from a kraal and bags of meal provided the barricade). When a British army at Isandlwana that was twenty times larger than the group at Rorke’s Drift failed to implement these measures, they were annihilated by the Zulus.]

THURSDAY, 28 JANUARY 2021

People who have been exploited or oppressed, or whose ancestors experienced exploitation and oppression in an earlier historical period, must accept that they or their ancestors were to some extent responsible for their own predicament by accepting the situation and not resisting harder. Accepting responsibility is empowering yourself because you recognise you or your ancestors had the power to do something about the situation – even if you or your ancestors failed to push back harder, for a variety of reasons. Stick to a victim narrative, and you do the exact opposite. You remind yourself and your children and their children at every opportunity that you do not have the ability to successfully put up resistance in challenging situations. In the short term, you can make political gain if people are sympathetic, but what is the long-term price you and your children and grandchildren are going to pay for this position?

I think it’s better to say: “We had the power to push back, but we didn’t do it … or we didn’t push back hard enough, or not enough of us did it. They smuggled with our heads; made us think we were too weak to resist. But we had the power and didn’t use it. This is something for which we must take responsibility.”

The day you take responsibility is the day you are no longer a victim – when you stop thinking of yourself as a weakling.

______________________

TUESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2020

My position on masks:

Point one: People who are suffering from a cold or the flu or Covid should wear masks, to avoid getting sicker, and to protect other people from infection.

Point two: There are people who argue that the government should force healthy people (under threat of arrest or fines) to wear masks because some sick people do not wear masks. If everyone has to wear masks, so they argue, there is a greater chance that sick people will wear masks.

Point three: Some people (specifically on Twitter, in Taiwan) are grateful that the government is being strict, forcing people to wear masks. My opinion is that adults are not children – and the government is not their father or mother. Most adults are quite capable of deciding for themselves when it is necessary and reasonable for them to wear masks – and to instruct their children to do the same. A so-called strict government that wants to arrest healthy people or fine them for not wearing masks? Problematic, to say the least.

FRIDAY, 11 DECEMBER 2020

It’s Monday morning. Everyone receives a notification from the government on their phones. TV news and social media repeat the same message: There’s a giant flying saucer in the sky above the capital. “Don’t bother looking because it’s invisible,” people are told. “But believe us – it’s there!”

Citizens are commanded to leave their homes without delay with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Everyone should flee to the nearest forest or mountainous area and stay there for three to six weeks. The government, so they are assured, will throw food parcels out of planes.

“Come on everyone! Start running! Now!” the message comes again and again.

Would people believe it? Would they just leave everything as it is, grab the kids and maybe the dog and cat and flee to the nearest forest?

A small percentage of the population has such blind faith in their governments that they would immediately run down the street, screaming as they do. There is also a high probability that they would later, in the forest, around a small fire, claim that they have indeed seen the saucer.

Most people would stare at the sky for at least a few minutes, despite the announcement saying the saucer is invisible. A percentage of these people would argue that, although they could see with their own eyes nothing that looked like a craft from outer space, it was after all the government that had made the announcement. And later in the day the government brought in all sorts of people who looked very official and serious, and these people agreed that the saucer was indeed real, and that people who had not yet fled should do so as soon as possible. That’s enough for them, these people would say. “Let’s go!”

A smaller group would be sceptical from the start. These people would be accused of endangering everyone with their defiant and irresponsible attitude. “Whatever’s in the saucer is going to see you, and then we’re all in trouble!” they’ll shout from the edge of the forest. “Stop being so stubborn and think of other people, for once!”

Some of the people who fled on the first day would become restless within a few days or weeks. “Shouldn’t we be seeing the flying saucer by now?” they would start asking each other. People who took a little longer to initially believe the story would ask in hushed tones: “What if the government lied to us? Is there something sneaky going on here? Why did we believe the government if none of us had ever seen the flying saucer?”

My question: At what point would even the group that blindly believed from day one start drifting back to their now neglected homes? And how would the government handle this civil protest?

______________________

THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2020

Not exactly an advanced political analysis, and I don’t think it would qualify me as a “Deep State Alt-right conspiracy nut”, but here is a thought nonetheless:

Concentric circles, with figures in the middle who may or may not be familiar to the public. These include political leaders who have reached the pinnacle of official power: Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, the Bush family.

Amongst the people in the following circle are those who walk the corridors of the White House on a daily basis: National Security Advisers, some cabinet members, Chiefs of Staff, heads of intelligence services, and so on.

Professional bureaucrats and agents from the FBI, CIA, and other agencies and organisations fill up the third circle.

Then you get super wealthy and influential figures from the world of money and big business.

The circle thereafter sees presidents of top universities, and other respected and influential academics.

And then, after maybe one or two more circles, the spaces that are populated by the general public begin: dentists and teachers, plumbers and small business owners, truck drivers and cooks.

The ruling elite gets the necessary support from the first few circles – the people who usually know what’s really going on, and who decide which direction economic policy, and foreign policy, and so on, will develop.

The ruling elite also has considerable support among the figures of the world of money and big business, and among the most influential academic leaders.

And then comes the support of millions of “ordinary” people – who usually give a Clinton or an Obama or a Bush the feeling that they can legitimately claim to be leaders of the nation.

However, US presidents are not necessarily part of the inner circle of power. Trump is the best example of this. That he became president in 2016 was pure accident, because the inner circles were so stupid as to believe polls and predictions. Because the pressure was great in the first hours after the election results had come out in November 2016, Hillary conceded. But she probably did it because the inner circle – the people who really hold the reins of power in Washington DC – promised her that they had Plans B and C and perhaps even D. Trump won’t rule for long, they probably comforted her, and if he is not ousted within months, he will be severely hampered. And if he manages to survive repeated attacks and conspiracies against him for four years, he will certainly not get a second term in the White House.

FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2020

Twenty-twenty brought lockdowns; closed schools with pupils who had to attend classes at home; businesses that were forced to close by the thousands and which may never open again; national borders closed to most international tourists, with the expected negative consequences for local economies; people who are forced to wear masks, who are even advised to pull the masks over their mouths between bites of food.

Data that is accepted across the spectrum as accurate indicate that more than 99% of people who get COVID-19 survive the disease. Compared to that, the death rate with SARS in 2003 was 9.5%.

There are people who argue that the reaction to COVID-19 has been totally and utterly exaggerated.

My question is, what happens when the next pandemic hit? Are people just going to be obedient again and submit to every decree their governments issue? What percentage of parents who cannot make alternative arrangements for their children who should be in school, of small business owners, of ordinary people who, unlike politicians, won’t continue to draw a salary when they don’t work, will refuse to follow guidelines from governments and international organisations with dubious loyalties?

SATURDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2020

I saw a video on Twitter last night that simply took the cake. It honestly filled me with hope.

Imagine, somewhere in a parallel universe, there is also a Joe Biden and a Donald Trump. But these two old geezers are not political opponents involved in a bitter struggle for political power. “Joe Biden” sits on a park bench and beats a drum, and “Donald Trump”, in a business suit with a red tie, stands next to his partner and dances while occasionally uttering sounds that might be construed to be a song. This while people in the background enjoy the cooler air of the early evening with a walk along the promenade.

And naturally the picture wouldn’t be complete without the white cat in the foreground jiving along with his nose against the camera.

https://twitter.com/ryan_the_gray1/status/1329014363085299712

______________________

FRIDAY, 17 JANUARY 2020

In my early twenties I had to choose:

Honesty and intellectual integrity, with “permission” to consider results of falsifiable theories exposed to tests and experiments,

OR

continued membership in a community of fundamentalist religious people.

The socio-political community of which I was more or less accepted as a member in my late twenties and thirties, and whose opinions and terminology I found acceptable and promoted myself, could be described as Left-Liberal.

By my early forties, the suspicion had struck me that I was once again approaching a crossroads. I would have to choose again:

Honesty and intellectual integrity, with “permission” to consider the results of falsifiable theories exposed to tests and experiments,

OR

to continue to use terminology and hold political views that are acceptable to a community of people who consider themselves liberal and progressive, but who pursue policies and trends that are the opposite of liberal, and certainly do not improve society nor make it more tolerant.

SATURDAY, 25 JULY 2020

As a student, and after graduation, I thought critical thinking meant you don’t accept an allegation on face value – you examine it as objectively as you can, and only come to a conclusion after proper consideration.

What Critical Social Justice (CSJ) means by critical thinking is something completely different. A CSJ disciple looks at data, or at a situation, or at something that happened in the past, and apply their “critical theory” to work out how the conclusion they have already decided on can be reached.

How would a Critical Social Justice detective solve a murder?

The usual way is to look at all the possible clues like DNA and fingerprints, and then see what suspects they lead to. Then the suspects are investigated. Then, after a thorough investigation, it is determined that one suspect is more likely to be the perpetrator of the act than any other person.

A Critical Social Justice detective will “know” who the culprit is from the start, namely the closest person who is part of a group that is historically guilty of criminal acts, regardless of whether that particular individual has an alibi, and despite the absence of fingerprints or genetic material that might connect the person to the case. Facts are therefore less important than the historical “guilt” of the group to which the suspect belongs. If actual clues substantiate the person’s guilt, great. If clues do not substantiate the person’s guilt, they are simply ignored. What’s more, if clues indicate the possible involvement of someone belonging to a protected group of historical victims, it would be considered the correct and appropriate action to reject these clues.

FRIDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2020

I wonder why I’m no longer so eager to argue these days. The following thought came to me as a reason:

Unless you can quote from memory passages from authoritative peer-reviewed books, and quote – again, from memory – numbers, dates, names, places and statistics, the confidence you display in argument is merely performance.

How do you argue if you can’t do the above, but you’re still convinced of what your position is? One way is to ask questions, and force the other person to quote from memory passages from authoritative books, as well as numbers, dates, names, places, and statistics. If they cannot, there is no reason to accept their argument, just as there is no reason for them to accept your argument if you cannot do so.

(The only exception is if you can make a logical argument, and can show how a certain conclusion is the only logical one.)

SUNDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2020

01:31

At 24, I wanted to be free and independent – which meant enough money to be able to do what I wanted every day, with no serious responsibilities. And what I wanted to do was write, travel, read, and learn things.

At 32, I wanted to earn a steady income in a stable job. I wanted to get married and raise children. I wanted to live in a three bedroom house in a quiet suburb with my wife and children, and our dog and cat.

Then I started writing with an unprecedented earnestness.

The result is that, at the age of 49, I am closer to the type of life I wanted to lead at 24 than to the one I had been craving for a while in my early thirties.

14:08

(Put differently…)

How did I end up at 49 with the life I dreamed of at 24, despite wanting a very different life at the age of 32? To a very large extent, the writing I produced in 2003 – coincidentally the year I turned 32.

THURSDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2020

Critical Race Theory: Because you’re white, you’re racist. Your individual life story and what you’ve done or have not done doesn’t matter.

Also: Because you’re black, you’re a victim. That means your tests at school and at university should be easier than those of people of other races. It also means you get the job because you’re black, not because you’re competent.

TUESDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2020

A guy on a scooter almost forces me (on a bicycle) off the road – almost as if it’s intentional. Then he blocks the gap where I’m supposed to squeeze past a car around a corner.

I’m instantly pissed. I want to yell at him. I want to confront him and ask him if he’s stupid.

Then I think: Stay in the moment. Don’t go into programmed mode for how to behave in this type of situation.

I ask myself: If I don’t have to act as my programming dictates – or perform my programming as if I’m a character in a play, how then?

Answer: As you choose to respond.

How is that? Shrug my shoulders, and continue the conversation I was having with myself in my head.

______________________

SUNDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2020

What follows is a set of sometimes loaded questions*, but at the very least it should help clarify your positions on a number of issues. I specifically didn’t want to insert a bunch of definitions and explanations. I think the reader knows what is meant by certain phrases in general. Plus, readers can answer, “Yes” or “No”, or they can qualify their answers on their own.

* For the sake of honesty, here is Wikipedia’s definition of a loaded question: “A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda.”

Question 1. Do you believe long-term lockdowns to be an appropriate countermeasure against SARS-CoV-2, or do you believe lockdowns to be governmental overreach and the start of a slippery slope to long-term authoritarian control of populations?

Question 2. Do you believe lockdowns will save more lives that would otherwise be ended by Covid-19 than would be ended because of economic costs, increased mental stress, increased domestic abuse, increased substance abuse, and postponed or cancelled medical tests, procedures, or treatment? In other words, do you believe lockdowns will save more people than they would kill?

Question 3. Do you believe climate change to be a natural occurrence, or an unnatural phenomenon driven by human activity?

Question 4. Do you believe unmitigated climate change will end human life on Earth in the next hundred years?

Question 5. Which solution do you believe would be cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient at solving our energy needs in the future: a) renewable energy like wind and solar, or b) Generation IV nuclear?

Question 6. Which country do you consider to be a greater threat to Western-style democracy (for example, political leaders who can be voted in and out of office or be recalled, and media that are responsible to the public for exposing the misdeeds of political leaders): 1) China, b) Russia, c) the USA, or d) the European Union?

Question 7. Do you believe Donald Trump to be a) a fascist tyrant that aims to turn America into a white supremacist stronghold, or b) a political outsider that fundamentally threatens the political and bureaucratic establishment in Washington DC?

Question 8. Do you believe the organisation Back Lives Matter (BLM) to be a) truly concerned for all black people and the quality of their lives (at least in the US), or b) a radical political organisation that aims at disrupting a free-market economy and altering the basic principles of liberal democracy (at least in the US)?

Question 9. Do you believe NATO to be a) a necessary counterweight against Vladimir Putin’s expansionist ambitions, or b) an organisation that provides military muscle for the expansionist aims of the European Union?

Question 10. Do you believe actions launched by the Democratic Party in the United States and by affiliated officials in the intelligence community since 2016, and especially since 2017, amounted to a) an attempted coup against the Trump administration, with the goal of protecting the political and bureaucratic establishment in Washington DC, or b) honest and legitimate attempts at protecting the United States against foreign forces, or c) “black ops”, including the deliberate spread of false and misleading information, aimed at protecting the United States?

Question 11. Do you believe that a) it is appropriate treatment to give certain children (younger than twelve) puberty blockers to prevent them from developing into a gender they feel is not correct for them, or that b) it is irresponsible and even cruel to subject children to such treatment if the children are not mature enough to make decisions about their own bodies (or their identity) that could adversely affect their health for decades to come?

Question 12. Do you believe racism to mean a) prejudice plus power, or b) when someone makes assumptions – often negative – about another person purely based on their skin colour or ethnicity?

Question 13. Is it appropriate in a country with a tradition of free speech and freedom or thought for someone to be prevented from expressing their ideas or arguing their positions, or having their views challenged on a public platform because other people or groups do not condone their ideas or views, or are offended by them?

______________________