South Africa Blind-Sided

While the hordes of misinformed and ignorant statists called out for the burning of Gareth Cliff and Chris Hart over what can in no stretch of the imagination be called racism, the national government was able to distract us from two major events. First, a...

1558 24
1558 24

While the hordes of misinformed and ignorant statists called out for the burning of Gareth Cliff and Chris Hart over what can in no stretch of the imagination be called racism, the national government was able to distract us from two major events. First, a controversial nuclear deal with Russia has practically been greenlit by the cabinet as the procurement process begins, and second, it seems everyone has forgotten that Jacob Zuma’s stupidity with the finance minister debacle is continuing to devalue our economy to junk status.

It is a common practice among all governments to latch onto, even orchestrate, events to distract the populace from what really matters. We call these Red Herrings. As an example, the Pistorius trial was by no means orchestrated by the state, but it was used to good effect to distract us from corruption and ill-thought out legislation. This row against racism is no different.

We live in South Africa, a country only 25 years out of one of the most racist systems on the planet. We’re bound to still have racists. We have affirmative action and a myriad of brutal racist policies to try “right the wrongs of the past”. Racists from the old days aren’t converted or gone yet, and the ANC aren’t helping by perpetuating blatant racism in the form of BEE and a myriad of verbal and regulatory attacks on whites, all of which only anger current racists and turn more whites into racists.

Racism has always been in post-1994 South Africa. Only the most optimistic fool would think otherwise. It’s nothing new. Social media is rife with racist comments way more brutal than Penny’s stupidity or Khumalo’s hate speech. The only difference now is that the state made a good show of using it to distract us from what really matters – that the ANC is singlehandedly raping our economy through corruption, stupidity and a blatantly detrimental nuclear deal.

The sad thing is that we all fell for it. Idiots clung onto the “Ban Racism” mantra and Libertarians tried to point out how stupid that was, when we all should have been sticking to the #ZumaMustFall, #ANCmustFall and any other anti-government ideals. Instead, we let the ANC distract us like moths to the light. We fell for it and now we’re sinking into an abyss that does not only mean the continued destruction of the economy, but now the destruction of our freedoms.

As a competitor, I have to congratulate the ANC on their prowess. They were able to keep us in the dark. Able to not only distract us long enough to forget about their fuck-ups, but also so they could get some nice kick-backs from their ex-Soviet pals. Above that, they may actually be able to start declaring anything racist to shut up their detractors. Even if their ban on racism doesn’t go through, the current witch hunt shows they won’t need it. All they need to do is use the R-Word and the populace will gather their pitchforks and torches and march on whatever company is spineless enough to listen.

Due to our blindness, we have more problems to deal with. We have to continue to defend the economy in whatever way we can (or just run for it), we have to continue to condemn the nuclear deal (for all the good that will do) and we have to fight not only legislators but the idiotic masses who are baying for blood.

It may not be as professional as the other articles on this site, but I feel it succinct to say that we fucked up big, South Africa – and now we have to pick up the pieces.

Disclaimer: If you think this is racist, you’re an idiot.

In this article

Leave a Reply


  1. Jays Reply

    Nicholas, I think you sound very clever, now please, if I’m correct, give (me) us your (the proper) definition of racism. I would like to check your, in my opinion, clever statements against this definition to see if it holds water (cuts both ways). I’m sure you won’t prove me wrong – on bring clever, that is…… You see, I’m not that clever, but I think that we well not make any progress until we have a watertight definition……

    1. Nicholas Woode-Smith Reply

      I define racism by prejudice based on race. This can be anything from refusing to sit next to someone of a particular race to affirmative action, which gives preference to certain race groups. I reject new academic notions that race = power + prejudice as irrelevant and filled with agenda.

      1. Jays Reply

        Thanks, I like the fact that you do have a definition, but I don’t think it holds water. Racism must be manifested by an act, or omission to act. Prejudice is what you think and Stephen Covey said ” you are not what you think, you are what you do”. I think you got the refusing right – but only if it gives offence. Should a definition not contain “insult” AND “based on race” and not only that, but also exclude certain laws (you name some like BEE,etc) – like apartheid which was institutionalised racism. Once we ring fence these ” racist laws” we can attack them as apartheid was. By memory alone, I think, article will qualify as racist per your definition. If anyone could feel insulted and because it was based on their race, it will qualify by mine as well. I also have a definition. Thanks

        1. Nicholas Woode-Smith Reply

          My article, however, makes no mention of race. Racism is a term founded in the conception of race, so any statement or situation that has nothing to do with race cannot be seen as racist – such as this article.

          1. Jays

            It is not always necessary, like referring to non swimmers and stating that non swimmers are baboons, I think you mentioned examples of failing to act, just so race can be implying. We still require a watertight definition for racism that can cover everything. White men can’t jump, refers to my race, but, we as a race won’t find it insulting (not nice to admit that blacks are better than us) do it not racist. Only a proper definition will clarify this…..

      2. Renée Reply

        I thing ZUMA sing the kill die boere song is a great example of racism!!!

        1. Jays Reply

          I thank that should rather be classified as hate crime….or inciting hate crime.

        2. Mervyn Wynick Reply


          1. Jays

            Kill the Boer rather sounds more like inciting a hate crime (hate speech) to me, “kill” is not an insult (can be much more but not an insult) even though Boer can refer to a race, racism, to me, is an insult (or an act that makes one person feel inferior or superior to another) based on race. Until we identify racism precisely and easily, we, I think, can make no progress…..

      3. Piet Grobler Reply

        Nicolas, I think that you are going to be very frustrated by the end of, say 2017. This government will be contentiously adapting and changing your definition of racism. What you will not learn in the study field that you are pursuing is that the racism card is the most powerfull social weapon this Government have. More forcefull than any other. They will use it against anyone who will voice an opinion against the Gov/state.For instance; Yesterday M Maimane was projected as a flower in front of a group of stinking racists(DA). In South Africa, Racist!!! will be a word you could sweep the floor with for a long time to come and it will only change after a huge sweeping catastrophe that will leave tens of thousands dead. The government do not care and do not have the social responsibility to address this problem with haste. To busy filling their pockets to be worried about citizens

        1. Jays Reply

          I think the priority is a definition and one that excludes certain acts that qualify in terms of the definition because they are allowed by a law, like BEE, affirmative action, etc. Then the exclusions can change but the definition remains the same, suggestion , it must be an act that insults and based on race, that simple. If you say I hate/love white/black people, I don’t think it is an insult, even if it is based on race. Thus we need a simple test. Only then can we start to tackle the exclusions……

          1. Chris

            BEE and all its by-products are about destroying the white nation ….. Got it
            however your eyes and ears do not see or hear as you are blind that the ANC has brought a great Wealthy and Africa’s most advanced infrastructure paid for that was handed over with hope of making a great nation was plundered and used to en-rich only a few and those Gravy Train passengers, the rest have no chance when the ANC Totally Breaks the economy. Which makes them KINGS with slave labour to do there bidding just for survival. It appears quite close now.

          2. Tanya

            Hi Jays

            I have been reading and mulling over the above comments, and now find myself confused. You say that if I say “I hate white people” it is not an insult. What then, by your definition, is it? Hate speech? If you refer to someone’s race in a derogatory manner, like when I say I hate a white/black person, surely you are characterising that person according to traits known to that group and thereby insulting not only the person but the entire race group. And then I will deem the comment as racist (not hate speech) even though it was not an act, as you mentioned above. The definition of racism refers to any derogatory inference to someones race, whereas hate speech incites violence, or theatens violence. If I specifically say I hate “white” people, I am referring to a group of people, otherwise I could just say “I hate you”. This does not refer to your race, but only to you. Racism is defined by one person or group regarding their race a superior to another. So when I say I hate you and refer to your race, I obviously deem myself superior, because hate is by definition a passionate feeling. Synonyms include loathe, despise, find intolerable etc.

          3. Jays

            Thanks, this is work in progress after all. Firstly, hate is not an insult, you might hate people, certain foods, Facebook, religion or sport so if it is ok to hate all people, I say, go ahead and hate white people, or any color, as long as you don’t incite other people to do so. Secondly, my full definition will state, inter alia, an act that makes a person feel inferior or superior too another person. So, if I love white people, and you say hate is racist, love will also be racist, which it can’t be. It has to include both poles, as, ” white people are superior to any other” could make white people feel superior, based on race, that is wrong. Black people also get sunburned is not racist as sunburn is not an insult, simple?

  2. Hendrik van Rooyen Reply

    Very well put, not just another rant.

  3. Ncembu Centre for Strategic Engagement and Development Reply

    These types of “Above-Board” Philosophers are increasing since 2009 and I sometimes want to check if they have been hiding somewhere only to come up now to vent their distractive intellectual anger as if we are destined for eternal perpetuity and suffering. The period 1980-85 was characterized by Total Onslaught strategy which brought the darkest era in both apartheid and the liberation struggle history as if nothing was ever going to come right. The same goes with democracy and when it came it was certainly going to go through some bleak and dark days of oblivion before the next phase. Democracy is a system and not an event characterized by stints of racism, fraud, corruption etc etc but a system which positions one to have a six-dimensional view into issues. We cannot build a nation on “Reminder Cards” as if we are driving a car without blind spots. Laat ons saam gaan toot die nasie bou and stop this reckless intellectualism of PDI Philosophers.

  4. Martin Reply

    Racism is world wide & will always be with us. Particularly when people confuse it with class distinction.

  5. Jays Reply

    No,I don’t think those laws are good or acceptable, but we have to start somewhere. My idea is to ring fence these new apartheid laws and then the definition of racism must apply in all other instances. Then we attack the ring fenced laws just as the apartheid laws, or institutionalised racism, was used to sink our apartheid the moment, there are only accusations and counter accusations….

  6. Polluto Reply

    Food for thought to the deluded individual that wrote this article!!!

    1. Nicholas Woode-Smith Reply

      Collective guilt and collective punishment are what Apartheid was about. Perpetuating it is an extension, not a defeat of the system. Regardless, while interesting (in a case study sort of way) your comment is not really that relevant to the article.

  7. Sipho Reply

    We will neva be mislead by ur propaganda,u want us 2 believe ur nonsense.u have become activist where were u when white govt was killing black people.

    1. Nicholas Woode-Smith Reply

      Would have been pretty hard to be an activist pre-1995 for me as I wasn’t alive then.

      1. Jays Reply

        Sipho, don’t you think it is crucial to define exactly what a racist is? People, white and black, are calling every opposition racist. I think, if we , the man in the street, can identify, the real racists, we can make progress, nothing less will help…

  8. Why Be Proudly South African? - Rational Standard Reply

    […] Zuma was the source of all wrong in this country. This is a letter to those who have read my other rage-filled articles and are still not convinced. And, most of all, this is a letter to people who are proud of a […]

Rational Standard