Leon Lemmer: Madeleine Albright oor fascisme – praag.co.za
Madeleine Albright (gebore in 1937) was die Amerikaanse minister van buitelandse sake (1997-2001). In ‘n vorige rubliek het ek geskryf oor haar skandalige inmenging in die sake van Bosnië, Kosovo en Serwië, wat bombardering deur NAVO ingesluit het (Praag 12 Mei). Vandag skryf ek na aanleiding van haar jongste boek, Fascism: A warning (London: William Collins, 2017, 283p; Amazon Kindle $17,24).
“Fascisme” word graag as ‘n skelwoord teen konserwatiewes en regses gebruik. In werklikheid is die betekenis van die term so plooibaar dat dit ook op linkses, insluitende ANC-lede, van toepassing gemaak kan word en in selfs groter mate op die EFF. Albright gaan nie verhelderend met haar gebruik van die term om nie, gevolglik skenk ek eers aandag aan die betekenisse wat aan fascisme geheg word.
In my jeug was William Ebenstein* se boek, Today’s isms: communism, fascism, capitalism, socialism (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1954/1965, 248p) een van die aanbevole handboeke. Wat opval, is dat die teks oor fascisme baie korter as dié oor die ander drie ismes is omdat dit moeiliker is om fascisme in duidelik eiesoortige besonderhede te karakteriseer. Ebenstein skryf: “Stripped to its essentials, fascism is the totalitarian organization of government and society by a single-party dictatorship, intensely nationalist, racialist, militarist, and imperialist” (p 100). Hy noem dan vier lande wat fascisties geword het: Italië in 1922, Duitsland in 1933, Japan paaiementsgewys in die 1930’s en Argentinië in 1943. Hierby kan Portugal (in 1933) en Spanje (in 1939) gevoeg word.
[* Ebenstein beïndruk nie deurgaans met sy kennis of insig nie. Oor die voor-1994 Suid-Afrika skryf hy: “Democracy as known before no longer exists in South Africa, for example: racialism and democracy just do not mix. The racialism that started out in South Africa to be directed solely against the Negroes later turned against the Indians, and finally took in the whole English-speaking part, nearly one-half, of the white population” (125). Die ANC-bewind is egter ‘n sprekende voorbeeld van die vermenging van rasbeheptheid en demokrasie. Verder, tydens die blanke bewind het die blanke kiesers in groter mate die voordele van demokrasie geniet as tydens ons huidige sogenaamde “jong demokrasie”, waarmee daar deesdae geïmpliseer word dat daar voor 1994 plaaslik geen demokrasie was nie. Apartheid is ook nie ten koste van Engelssprekende blankes bedryf soos Ebenstein te kenne gee nie.]
Ebenstein klassifiseer “communism and fascism on the totalitarian side, capitalism and socialism on the democratic” (v). In die praktyk kan sosialisme egter baie van die kenmerke van kommunisme aanneem, soos tans in Suid-Afrika. In sowel Italië as Duitsland het fascisme uit sosialisme ontwikkel. Kommunisme word dikwels as uiters links en fascisme as uiters regs gekarakteriseer, maar dit volg nie dat hulle heeltemal verskillend is nie omdat talle ooreenkomste uitgewys kan word: “The fascist theory and practice … are not so different from those of communism” (117). Daardie vier ismes van Ebenstein is vloeibare begrippe, soos bv Jonah Goldberg aantoon in sy boek, Liberal Fascism: The secret history of the Left from Mussolini to the politics of meaning (Penguin, 2009, 492p; Amazon Kindle $15,69): “It is modern progressivism – and not conservatism – that shares the same intellectual roots as fascism.”
Wat plaaslik nodig is, is dat ons nie net bedag moet wees op die ANC-regering se sosialisme wat neig om kommunisme te wees nie, maar dat ons ook die fascistiese kenmerke van die ANC moet waarneem. Let bv op na die rol wat “the personal magic of one man” (Ebenstein 101) – Mussolini, Hitler, Mandela – kan speel. Hiervoor is “mass support (not necessarily majority support)” (101) nodig. Die meerderheid kiesers se stemme kan met propaganda, intimidasie en geweld verkry word, dus: “A small minority … is capable of understanding what is best for the whole community” (112). “The objective of the corporate [fascist] state is the power of the state rather than the welfare of the individual” (118). “The very existence of an authoritarian mass movement like fascism depends on the desire of many persons to submit and obey” (106).
“The totalitarian fascist state either denies that there are divergent social interests (abhorring as it does the notion of variety, especially in the form of departures from state-imposed uniformity), or, if it half-heartedly concedes the existence of divergent social interests, it resolves such differences by force … communism is the totalitarian way of industrializing a backward society; fascism is the totalitarian method of solving conflicts within an industrially more advanced society” (102). Suid-Afrika huisves sowel onontwikkelde as ontwikkelde sektore. Wesenlike verskille by mense word deur die ANC ontken. Daar is sensitiwiteit uitsluitlik vir die belange van swartes, gevolglik moet bv onderrig feitlik uitsluitlik in hulle voorkeurtaal, Engels, aangebied word. Welvaart moet (sonder teenprestasie) gedeel word, gevolglik kan blankes se eiendom sonder vergoeding gekonfiskeer word, ens. “The fascist economy is … state-controlled” (117); dink aan bv swart ekonomiese bemagtiging. Fascisme (en die ANC) “is totalitarian in its objective: to control all phases of human life” (114). In hierdie sin was daar geen bevryding in 1994 nie.
Ebenstein noem dat “the absence of a universally recognized authoritative statement of fascist principles is not total” (109). Daar is bv Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) se wydlopige Mein Kampf (1925-1927) en Mussolini se bondige The doctrine of fascism (1932). Soos uit die boektitel blyk, is Hitler, soos die ANC, gepreokkupeer met die “struggle”. Nêrens in Hitler se boek word ‘n definisie of kortbegrip van fascisme of naziïsme gegee nie, onder meer omdat sulke begrippe toe nog nie bestaan het nie, hoewel hy reeds in 1919 lid van die Nazi-party geword het. In sy boek blyk Hitler se oordele en vooroordele duidelik en dit skep ‘n bepaalde ideologiese klimaat, wat later al hoe duideliker in sy gedrag neerslag gevind het. Hy was bv sterk teen kommuniste en Jode gekant. Ek het destyds my eksemplaar van Mein Kampf (London: Hutchinson, 1933/1977, xlviii, 629p) van voor tot agter gelees en dit nou weer deurgegaan, maar daar is nie ruimte om hierdie teks hier in besonderhede te bespreek nie. In ander lande is Mussolini se meer gematigde weergawe van fascisme eerder nagevolg. Van belang vir Praaglesers is wat Hitler (“I am no ‘pacifist'”, p 144) van die Anglo-Boere-oorlog skryf: “The Boer War was like summer lightning to me. Every day I waited impatiently for the newspapers and devoured dispatches and news reports, happy at the privilege of witnessing this heroic struggle even at a distance” (145).
Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) word gewoonlik as die grondlegger van fascisme beskou. “Units called fasci di combattimento (combat groups), from the Latin fasces, were originally established to oppose communism. The fascist party, the Partitio Nazionale Fascista, controlled Italy 1922-1943″ (Collins World Encyclopedia, 2003, p 332). Soos kenmerkend van die ANC skryf Mussolini: “Fascism … conceives of life as a struggle” (The doctrine of fascism, 1935/2014, 72p; Amazon Kindle $1.14, 62). In sy boek klits Mussolini Ebenstein se vier ismes heeltemal deurmekaar en daar is baie teenstrydighede. Maar let vervolgens op hoe hy soms dieselfde leerstellings as die ANC aanhang en ander kere die teenoorgestelde. “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State … It is opposed to classical liberalism” (Kindle 93). “Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State” (99).
“Fascism is totalitarian and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people. No individuals or groups … [are] outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon” (105). Mussolini raak soms liries-idealisties: “Fascism is … opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number, but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation. Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality” (116).
“It is the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity” (125) – dink aan hoe die ANC ‘n nasie probeer bou op grond van gewaande hoë moraliteit, gebaseer op sogenaamde onreg in die verlede, met net swartes in die gedagte. Fascisme “is evidence of a fighting spirit which accepts all risks” (225). “Fascism carries [an] anti-pacifistic attitude” (221). “War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it” (218) – vandaar struggle-helde, ikone en talle volksvaders en -moeders. “Peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism” (218).
“Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society … it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage” (251). “In rejecting democracy Fascism rejects the absurd conventional lie of political equalitarianism, the habit of collective irresponsibility” (273). Fascism word vervolgens gedefinieer as “an organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy” (278). “Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism” (278).
“We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State” (319). “For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative” (331). “The Fascist State is … not reactionary but revolutionary” (360). “The individual exists only in so far as he is within the State and subjected to the requirements of the State and … as civilization assumes aspects which grow more and more complicated, individual freedom becomes more and more restricted” (543).
In American conservatism: An encyclopedia (edited by Bruce Frohnen and others, Wilmington: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006, 1000p; Amazon Kindle $11,49) is daar ‘n artikel oor fascisme geskryf deur Gleaves Whitney. “The word ‘fascism’ was coined by Mussolini. It derives from the Latin fasces, referring to the bundle of rods and projecting ax-head that in antiquity was carried before Roman consuls as a sign of state authority. The rods symbolized social unity; the executioner’s ax, firm political leadership” (Kindle 8592). “Fascism is characterized more by a common ethos than a consistent political philosophy … Fascist parties showed implacable hostility toward parliamentary democracy, egalitarianism, and the values of the liberal Enlightenment … To secure control of a people, fascists advocated one-party rule by an elite, the use of secret police to eliminate dissent, strict control over the media and unquestioning obedience to a charismatic leader. To incite enthusiasm for their rule they made appeals to youth and promoted a cult of violence” (8597). Dink aan die rol van bv die ANC-jeugliga en die EFF.
“Scholars have long debated the extent to which fascism was the outgrowth of the Left or Right … [Leon] Trotsky [1879-1940] himself recognized that ‘Stalinism and fascism, in spite of a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity'” (8613). “Indeed, many scholars see not just Stalinism but Marxist-Leninism as a totalitarian cousin to fascism. It would thus be misleading to place Marxism and fascism at opposite ends of the Left-Right political spectrum. Mussolini, after all, began his political career as a socialist, and his mature fascist doctrines bear the unmistakable stamp of Marx, [Georges] Sorel [1847-1922], and Lenin” (8618). “‘Nationalism plus Socialism equals Fascism,’ a formula that reveals fascism’s affinity with the Left. Even the word ‘Nazi’ has a leftist connotation, derived as it is from the full party title, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)” (8623).
“Communism would exit the world stage revealed for what it truly was: fascism, without fascism’s ability to make the trains run on time” (Robert D Kaplan, Balkan ghosts: A journey through history, London: Papermac, 1994, p 76).
Albright het reeds ses boeke gepubliseer, maar nie sonder uitgebreide hulp van haar navorsers nie. In haar jongste boek (genoem in die eerste paragraaf hier bo) is dit vir die kritiese leser gou duidelik dat hierdie linkse Jodin die vloeibaarheid van die begrip fascisme misbruik om by uitstek een van haar politieke vyande, Donald Trump, te diskrediteer. “‘Fascist’ was the most versatile of insults” (Kindle 1128). Die waarskuwing in die newetitel van die boek is dus veral teen Trumpisme gemik. “The herd is moving in a Fascist direction” (3408). Fascisme word deur Albright as veral ‘n regse verskynsel vertolk, wat doelbewus eensydig is. Maar dit help haar om die aansien van Trump en ander mense wat sy as polities regs beskou, skade aan te doen deur hulle oortuigings en optrede verdag te maak. “To use the term ‘Fascist’ is to reveal oneself. For those on the far left, virtually any corporate bigwig fits the bill. To some on the not-so-far right, Barack Obama is a Fascist – in addition to being a Socialist and a closet Muslim” (153).
“Why, this far into the twenty-first century, are we once again talking about Fascism? One reason, frankly, is Donald Trump. If we think of Fascism as a wound from the past that had almost healed, putting Trump in the White House was like ripping off the bandage and picking at the scab … we [Americans] have not had a chief executive in the modern era whose statements and actions are so at odds with democratic ideals” (110). “The shadow looming over these pages is, of course, that of Donald Trump … Trump is the first anti-democratic president in modern US history” (3403). “What separates Trump from every president since the dismal [Republican Party] trio of [Warren] Harding [1921-1923], [Calvin] Coolidge [1923-1929], and [Herbert] Hoover [1929-1933], is his conception of how America’s interests are best advanced. He conceives of the world as a battlefield in which every country is intent on dominating every other” (127). “Presidents from Roosevelt to Obama have sought to help allies protect themselves and to engage in collective defense against common dangers” (137). “America, the rock against which Fascism crashed in the last century, may have begun to slide” (1654).
Albright is ‘n dosent aan Georgetown University in Washington DC. Oor fascisme skryf sy: “There are no fully agreed-upon or satisfactory definitions” (159). Volgens haar studente is fasciste “nationalist, authoritarian, anti-democratic” en “almost always considered right-wing, arguing, ‘Stalin was as much a Fascist as Hitler’ … Fascism is often linked to people who are part of a distinct ethnic or racial group” (164). “My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remember best were charismatic” (175). “The more painful the grounds for resentment, the easier it is for a Fascist leader to gain followers by dangling the prospect of renewal or by vowing to take back what has been stolen” (180), bv grond/plase.
Albright gebruik haar boek om enersyds haar dade te regverdig en andersyds haar kennis van internasionale sake uit te stal. Oor Suid-Afrika skryf sy: “Nelson Mandela – another prisoner who became president – engendered hopes of a regional renaissance” (98). Sedert 1994 was daar egter nie sodanige oplewing in Suider-Afrika nie en in Suid-Afrika is daar onmiskenbaar agteruitgang. Albright was voorheen die vise-voorsitster en tans die voorsitster van die National Democratic Institute (NDI), gestig in 1983, in Washington DC. “NDI was … present during the historic 1994 election in South Africa that brought down the curtain on apartheid” (1522). “Mandela and many other memorable leaders have found in righteous [!] indignation the psychological edge they needed to endure years of doubt and trial” (1748).
Hoe en wat Albright is, kan uit die volgende passasie oor Mandela afgelei word: “His crime was to oppose the racist oppressors who had secured a monopoly on power and privilege in his country. The courageous dissident had a profound cause for grievance, a legitimate reason for bitterness, and thousands of days behind bars to cultivate hate. Instead he chose to spend time learning about the people who had put him in jail – the Afrikaners. He studied their language, history, resentments, and fears. When the long-awaited day came and he was finally released, Mandela not only understood those who had thrown him into prison; he was able to communicate with them, find common ground with them, forgive them, and – most astonishingly – lead them. As president, Mandela pushed back against the many in his party who wanted immediate justice for the multitude of wrongs done to members of the anti-apartheid movement. He appointed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that received testimony from all sides. Unlike so many, he found the trappings of high office eminently resistible and refused to stand for a second term … [Abraham] Lincoln and Mandela each fought with monsters [!]; neither became one” (3479). “We cannot, of course, expect every leader to possess the wisdom of Lincoln or Mandela’s largeness of soul” (3497).
Die volgende definisie word verskaf: “To my mind, a Fascist is someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary – including violence – to achieve his or her goals” (208, ook 3397). Die definisie is so breed of vaag dat sowel die ANC as die EFF hiervolgens fascisties is. Die EFF se rooi klere herinner aan die volgelinge van Mussolini se swart hemde en dié van Hitler se bruin hemde. Wanneer ANC- en EFF-politici van “the people” of “nation” praat, word swartes bedoel en die regte van blankes geïgnoreer. Geweld is skering en inslag van albei hierdie politieke partye.
Albright noem dat daar ná die Tweede Wêreldoorlog “Soviet-style Fascism” in haar geboorteland Tsjeggië was (1182). “The Soviet Union in this period continued to exhibit many of the classic symptoms of Fascism” (1261). Sy besin in meer besonderhede oor die verhouding fascisme/kommunisme: “Fascism and Communism were opposites, but the contrast is more complicated” (1133). Vir die fascis Mussolini “‘the State is all-embracing’ … in so doing, he acknowledged its overlap with Communism … Both Fascism and Communism had utopian aspirations … The Nazis sorted humans based on nationality and race; to Communists, the key determinant was class” (1133) terwyl stamverwantskap ‘n groot rol in die politiek van swartes speel. “Communists insisted that national identity was irrelevant” (1144). Die ANC verwater nasionale identiteit deur die plaaslike swartes se rasidentiteit met die res van swart Afrika te beklemtoon. “Like the Nazis, the Communists sought to shape the minds of citizens by owerwhelming their senses with propagandistic spam” (1155). Insgelyks wil die ANC met propaganda al hoe meer die inwoners/kiesers se denke beïnvloed en hulle uitdrukkingsvryheid aan bande lê.
Oor Mussolin skryf Albright: “Justice, he said, could be obtained only through violent struggle. Revolution was essential” (272). Nelson Mandela het gewelddadige revolusie herhaaldelik bepleit ter regverdiging van sy stigting en aktivering van die MK-terreurbendes. In die plek van Mandela se hooggeligte gebalde vuis het Mussolini “a Roman salute” gebruik (358, 826). Hitler het ‘n soortgelyke arm- en handgebaar gehad: “a stiff-armed salute” (508). Die Mandela-saluut wek egter ‘n meer militante en gewelddadige indruk as dié van Mussolini en Hitler. Mussolini het as “Il Duce” bekend gestaan (359), Hitler as “der Führer” (535) en Mandela as “Madiba”.
Van Mussolini word gesê: “He had not learned which spoon or fork to use at a social dinner”(415). Mandela skryf: “I was still used to eating at home, where we did not use a knife and fork” (Long walk to freedom, London: Abacus, 1995, p 28). “In the [Italian] countryside, Socialist peasants claimed the land they had long been tilling, sometimes murdering estate owners to spread terror and settle personal scores … and seize and redistribute land” (Albright 294). Grondbesetting en plaasmoorde is kennelik nie eers ná 1994 in Suid-Afrika uitgevind nie. Mussolini het Hitler se rasideologie, bv anti-semitisme, aanvanklik verwerp (646). Hitler het in “a master Nordic race” geglo (646), asook in “the racial inferiority of Mediterranean peoples” (663), wat die Italianers ingesluit het. In 1938 is Mussolini tot Hitler se anti-semitisme bekeer (1056). Soos Mandela was Mussolini uiters militant: “War is to a man what motherhood is to a woman” (686).
In 1933 Hitler “assumed power not via popular acclaim but because he commanded the most violent gangs” (448). Toe die ANC in 1994 die politieke beheer in Suid-Afrika oorgeneem het, was dit onder meer te wyte aan die geweld wat hy vanaf veral 1984 tot 1994 gepleeg het. Anders as in Nazi-Duitsland het die ANC aanspraak op meerderheidsteun by die kiesers gemaak na ‘n chaotiese verkiesing waarin bv baie ongeletterdes en oningeligtes geïntimideer is om vir die ANC te stem. Hitler het sy magsoorname “a legal revolution” genoem (552). Die eerlose magsoorgawe aan die ANC is deur Allister Sparks in die titel van sy 1994-boek ‘n “negotiated revolution” genoem. Soos in Suid-Afrika onder ANC-bewind (bv swart ekonomiese bemagtiging) het Hitler spoedig begin met “share-the-wealth measures directed at the rich” (491). Oor die Nazi-gepeupel word gesê: “In the cities, they wanted jobs; in the countryside, land” (569). Hierdie soort bakhandstanery is oorbekend in die nuwe Suid-Afrika. “Hitler told his fellow Nazis, ‘The Constitution only maps out the arena of the battle, not the goal … once we possess constitutional power, we will mold the state into the shape we hold to be suitable'” (1532). Op ‘n soortgelyke manier beskou die ANC die 1996-Grondwet bloot as ‘n manier om onder die dekmantel van demokrasie die politieke mag te bekom en die Grondwet daarna na goeddunke te hervertolk (bv eiendomsreg) en te verander. Die moontlikheid van ‘n eenpartystaat word nie uitgesluit nie.
Albright skryf: “All humans are of equal worth. This generosity of spirit – this caring about others and about the proposition that we are all created equal – is the single most effective antidote to the self-centered moral numbness that allows Fascism to thrive”(933). In werklikheid is die gelykverklaring van alle mense geen teenmiddel teen fascisme nie. Ekonomies is die sakeman of nyweraar heelwat meer werd as die werklose plakker. Mense word op dieselfde manier gebore, maar dit volg nie dat hulle gelyk geskape is nie. Byvoorbeeld, selfs in dieselfde gesin kan kinders hemelsbreed verskil, bv wat intelligensie of ander talente betref. Gelyke stemreg maak nie mense terselfdertyd in ander opsigte gelyk nie – soos Mussolini (251 hier bo) tereg opgemerk het.
Albright spoor fascistiese kenmerke by baie staatshoofde en ander politici op, bv by die Amerikaner Joseph McCarthy (1277), Hugo Chávez in Venezuela (1671), Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkye (1889), Vladimir Poetin in Rusland (2128), Viktor Orbán in Hongarye (2355) en Kim Il-soeng, Kim Jong-il en Kim Jong-oen van Noord-Korea (2661). Al die regse politieke partye in Europa (“goose-stepping right-wingers” – 3215) is volgens Albright ‘n teelaarde vir fascisme met “such sentiments as ‘White Europe’ and ‘Refugees Out'” (2536).
Hoofstuk 15 word in die konteks van fascisme gebruik om allerhande besware teen Donald Trump as persoon (bv “his country-club lifestyle” – 3164) en sy beleid te opper, bv “America First is a slogan with a past” (3000). Trump het in die VN gesê: “I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first” (3011). Dit is immers wat Albright ampshalwe vir Amerika probeer doen het. Barry Hertzog se beleid was: Suid-Afrika eerste – nie Brittanje nie. In soverre die ANC se beleid (swart) Afrika eerste is, is dit onverdunde dwaasheid.
“Trump has attempted to fulfill campaign promises that he should never have made … squandering resources on the Mexico wall; trying to ban Muslim immigrants” (3073). “I continue to believe that the United States banked enough international goodwill in the interval between George Washington and Barack Obama to recover from the present embarrassment” (3078). “Years from now, we may look back on Trump as a onetime oddity who taught us a lesson we will not forget about the quirks of democracy” (3247).
Omdat Albright self ontworteling ervaar het, kom sy met die volgende sinvolle opmerkings vorendag: “The identification we feel toward the places where we live or were born can give us an anchor in a chaotic world and strengthen our connections to family, community, and the generations that preceded and will follow us. At the best, such feelings are a celebration of culture and all that comes with it in the form of literature, language, music, food, folktales, and even the wildlife we associate with our homelands” (1356). Maar het Albright hierdie sensitiwiteit in haar besluite oor bv Kosovo and Serwië geopenbaar? Dit is onwaarskynlik dat Albright enige simpatie met ons as Afrikaners het wat onverdiend en op die allerskandaligste verraderlike manier van ons vaderland beroof is.
Skrywer Leon LemmerGepubliseer op 19 Mei 2018 Kategorieë Leon Lemmer, RubriekeSleutelwoord Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, fascisme, Gleaves Whitney, Madeleine Albright, William Ebenstein
Vorige Vorige artikel: Polisie soek na moordenaars van Engelbrecht-egpaar
Volgende Volgende artikel: Netwerk24-rubriekskrywer noem Afrikaners ‘Boerbare’ en rassistiese moordenaars