South Africa has become a cesspit of contradictions, but if you still value reason and logic, consider this: by adopting a globalist, überblack identity, South African blacks have lost any claim to our territory. Of course they are issuing one “land claim” after the other and extremist Afro-Marxists such as the EFF are calling for “the return of our stolen land” from white Afrikaner farmers. But such claims are essentially meaningless as there is no black nation, nor do the historical tribes exist anymore. In legal terms, they do not have locus standi for their extravagant, vacuous “claims”.

South African blacks – or at least their leaders and spokesmen, including journalists – are globalists. At most they are “Africans” who lay claim to the entire continent. Being part of the African land mass, they also consider South Africa to be part of their continental “real estate”, so to speak.

But here is the problem: However fashionable globalism, continentalism and supranational identities may be, the entire state system is still organised along national lines. Germany has lost two world wars in a century, but its territory still belongs to the German people. Various stateless national groups, such as the 20-million strong Kurds or the Donetsk People’s Republic in the eastern part of Ukraine, want their own states and are fighting for it. Although denied by universalists and globalists, there is still such a thing as national or even ethnic identity that binds people together.

South Africa has always found itself in the midst of an identity conflict. In the nineteenth century it was between Boer and Briton, whereas during the twentieth it has been between Afrikaner and black nationalists. The ANC and South African Communist Party are vehemently against any form of Afrikaner identity, which is why they are attacking Afrikaans universities and schools. The EFF is currently threatening to burn down the campus of the University of Pretoria if lectures in Afrikaans do not cease forthwith. The university has practised a bilingual policy and even neglected Afrikaans, due to governmental pressure and to please globalist/contentalist blacks for whom international English is the “language of liberation”.

Consider this: Radical South African blacks are currently burning paintings and defacing statues of whites; they see such art works as “relics of whiteness”. But that same hatred of “whiteness” also holds when it comes to tribal or ethnic “blackness”. Which is one reason Jacob Zuma is disliked, being too much of a Zulu. If only he had been more globalist, Africanist, even Afro-American (like Mbeki), his sins would have been forgiven by all and sundry. But that is another story.

However, here’s the rub: South Africa’s blacks have abolished themselves, a bit like the title of Thilo Sarrazin’s book on Germany: Deutschland schafft sich ab, or Germany abolishes itself. In fact, apart from having – in many cases – fraudulent or adult-issued birth certificates and identity documents, millions of South African blacks have no identity linking them to the territory. They may hate Afrikaners and “whiteness”, but they also abhor their (former) ethnic selves at least as much.

South Africa’s black tribes could certainly lay claim to their own homelands which they have settled for a considerable period of time. This is what the old policy of apartheid or separate development was all about. In the old National Party jargon, the homelands were called “national states”, at least the ones who had accepted formal independence. But all of that is gone. No more Xhosa, no more Zulu, Tswana, Venda or whatever.

Now there are only Africans left. And as any member of the governing clique would explain: every African has the same rights everywhere on the continent. That is also the principle underlying the ANC-SACP’s open-borders policy whereby blacks from all over the continent are free to settle in South Africa, with minimal constraints.

Africa for the Africans. This phrase acquires a new meaning when one considers it as the antithesis of any national identity, or the abolition of national identity. No wonder communists have played such a pre-eminent role in the ANC and many other “liberation movements”, especially in this part of the world; one may certainly discern the shadow of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the antinational fervour of the ANC, SACP, Frelimo, SWAPO, ZANU PF, etc.:

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster.

Isn’t that just beautiful? It describes contemporary South Africa and our dominant antinational ideology more succinctly than any contemporary commentator could ever dream of. Except that in our case it is not the “supremacy of the proletariat” but the “supremacy of the globalised Afro-Saxon”, the Mercedes- or BMW-driving, Gucci-clad, antiracist, state-coffers-plundering, whiteness-despising, English-speaking, panafricanist, hair-relaxed or wig-wearing (in the case of the black woman) overlord you may see on the streets of Johannesburg or Prertoria every day, usually enveloped in a cloud of pumping, African-American music.

In a certain American sense, the proletariat has been “pimped”, which in slang means “to adapt or embellish in an ostentatious manner” (compare the TV programme “Pimp My Ride”).

As I tried to explain in my essay Raiders of the lost Empire, something of the same order has taken place among at least a section of English-speaking whites who, likewise, feel themselves part of a globalised, denationalised empire. Their founding myth of the 1820 settlers is hardly mentioned anymore. The cavalier neglect with which the (English-speaking) University of Cape Town is allowing a part of the white English heritage in this country to be literally burnt in broad daylight, demonstrates the lack of any identity worth mentioning among members of that demographic.

After Mr. FW de Klerk’s abject capitulation to a motley collection of radical-leftist blacks, Jews and Indians in 1994, South Africa no longer has any real master. It is a country adrift, being ransacked and ecologically trashed. There is sewage in our rivers, with more and more people calling us a “failed state”. It has been reduced to a Cave of Ali Baba and Forty Million Thieves.

In the future, this piece of land shall not, as Rusty Bernstein’s nonsensical 1955 “Freedom Charter” stated, “be shared among those who work it”, but belong to those who care about it. Apart from a few Afrikaners and Afrikanerised English whites hiding in the shadows for fear of being called “racists”, I do not know of anyone else who cares for this country, so beautifully venerated in Die Stem, that (almost) forbidden song.