J.M. Coetzee: Yet Another Nobel Prize Winning Hypocrite

In 1948, the Boer government of South Africa enacted a policy called Apartheid. The main purpose of this policy was to segregate the population of South Africa along racial lines—keeping the blacks, coloureds, Indians, and whites separated from one another. As with any racially influenced debate, opinions on the merit and successes of Apartheid (which ended under intense global pressure in 1994) are sharply divided.

One side of the debate typically argues that the segregation of blacks by the white Boer was a crime against the very decency of humanity, and that the treatment of black people by the Apartheid regime were unforgivable acts of bigotry for which white South Africans should be held accountable for. They view the Apartheid regime as one of censorship, forced relocation, and clandestine murders, all of which are wholly unjustified, and that South Africa was an immoral state for half of the twentieth-century.

The other side counters that, while there were crimes committed by the Apartheid government against the black South Africans, the actions of black South Africans post-Apartheid show that the Boer policy was correct and justified. Crime rates, especially those of rape, have sky rocketed since the end of Apartheid.

Although crimes by the black population against the whites are so pervasive and persistent as to put white South Africans on genocide watch, the exorbitant crime rate affects all peoples—last year, the black captain of the national soccer team was killed in a home invasion. Inequality between the rich and poor has widened, and AIDS and HIV infections have become rampant. To top it all off, members of the (currently) ruling ANC party have sung songs containing lyrics which call for the murder of whites, including leftist cultural hero Nelson Mandela.


It’s obvious to see what side of the debate I’m on.

Unfortunately for myself (and quite fortunately for humanity, probably) my opinion on Apartheid is moot. I was one year old when Apartheid was repealed, and I am not even a citizen of South Africa. My writing only reaches a small segment of the population, and most of those readers are quite likely already on the second side of the Apartheid debate.

So let me bash someone who was a South African citizen, who was anti-Apartheid and who was most definitely influential about the debate; John Maxwell Coetzee: authour, smarmy douchebag, and winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Literature.

Who Is J.M. Coetzee?


Commonly referred to as J.M. Coetzee (and who will be referred to solely as Coetzee for the rest of the article because I’m lazy and you’re already bored), John Maxwell Coetzee was born in South Africa in 1940 to a Afrikaner family with roots in South Africa dating back to the 17th century.

Unlike many white children in South Africa today, Coetzee grew up under the safety of the Apartheid government. His childhood was one of bored safety and prosperity; his memoir of that time is a fictionalized autobiography, which means he basically makes up strife about his privileged childhood to make himself look more disadvantaged then he actually was.

While many modern Afrikaner children have to deal with all manner of harm being inflicted upon them by a desegregated multicultural society, Coetzee had a relatively sheltered upbringing and came of age during the radical 60’s. Coetzee spent most of his 20’s attending universities, first moving to the United Kingdom in 1962 and then to the United States in 1965.

He gathered degree after degree (and likely indulged in the sexual revolution with a bevy of co-eds) and participated in anti-Vietnam protests (which cost him a chance at American citizenship…there once was a time the US didn’t take too kindly to rich foreigners spitting on their veterans). Interestingly, while Coetzee was living a life of plenty and privilege in the US (and protesting the service of the young men of his host country while sleeping with their women), many of his Afrikaner peers were being conscripted to fight in a border war with Angola.

Portrait of a spoiled leftist

In 1968, at the ripe old age of 28, Coetzee got a cushy job teaching at the State University of New York at Buffalo and shortly thereafter wrote his first book in 1971. Coetzee’s writing, as with most people with too much intelligence and privilege and too little wisdom and experience in the real world, was written from a leftist bent, criticizing what he sees as oppressive systems (the [exaggerated] evils of colonization and closed nations which protect their own people are a recurring theme in his book).

Coetzee claims to be neither leftist nor right, portraying himself as being above both, though as mentioned before Coetzee is a) white; b) privileged; and c) spent most of the 1960’s in universities. I’ll let you judge for yourself if Coetzee comes across as the most intolerable kind of leftist; here is the plot summary from another of his autobiographical books [words bolded by Billy]:

Youth (or Youth: Scenes from Provincial Life II) (2002) is a semi-fictionalised autobiographical novel by J. M. Coetzee, recounting his struggles in 1960s London after fleeing the political unrest of Cape Town.

After graduating in mathematics and English, he moves in the hope of finding inspiration of becoming a poet and finding the woman of his dreams. However he finds none of this and instead, takes up a tedious job as a computer programmer. He feels alienated from the natives and never settles down, always aware of the scorn they see him with. He engages in a series of affairs, none of them fulfilling to him in the slightest. He scorns people’s inabilities to see through his dull exterior into the ‘flame’ inside him; none of the women he meets evokes in him the passion that, according to him, would allow his artistry to flourish and thus produce great poetry.

Here are two quotes from the book itself:

At the Everyman Cinema there is a season of Satyajit Ray. He watches the Apu trilogy on successive nights in a state of rapt absorption. In Apu’s bitter, trapped mother, his engaging, feckless father he recognizes, with a pang of guilt, his own parents. But it is the music above all that grips him, dizzyingly complex interplays between drums and stringed instruments, long arias on the flute whose scale or mode — he does not know enough about music theory to be sure which — catches at his heart, sending him into a mood of sensual melancholy that last long after the film has ended.

raj puh

You can instantly tell a person’s political affiliation by asking them which of these two movies they would rather watch,

Here is a man who: flees political action in his own country, only to protest safely in another country which cannot charge him with any serious crime for political action or conscript him; who aspires to be a poet; who gets angry at people for not seeing how great he is; who watches “worldly” films from non-white countries; and who hates his parents, who treated him so badly that Coetzee is able to literally travel around the world and waste his youth banging out the burgeoning horde of Anglo sluts.

Oh – and he also is “alienated” from his fellow whites in the white countries he goes to, even though he has no trouble bedding the women of those countries. Coetzee is spoiled, hates his parents, hates his skin colour (though not the women who share his skin colour), is completely self assured of his own genius—though he blames others for not becoming the world’s greatest poet that he knows he is. Remind you of any members of the modern ultra left?

Seriously though; in the last golden age of Hollywood movies, Coetzee finds the Apu Trilogy to be his closest to his soul? Jesus Christ.

Coetzee returns to South Africa to guilt his fellow whites

In the early 70’s, when the political turmoil had abated somewhat and too old and prestigious to be conscripted into the military to fight he ongoing bush war, Coetzee returned to South Africa and continued his writing career with furor. Coetzee’s anti-white, anti-nationalist, anti-western book themes found a very receptive audience amongst the boomer liberals and Marxists who had taken over the intellectual establishments during the 60’s and 70’s.

During speeches at award ceremonies (the ones he could be bothered going to: Coetzee is infamous for not even bothering to show to collect his awards—unless, of course, they’re top-tier honours), Coetzee would rile on about the social inequalities about the Apartheid regime, especially in relation to its art.

South African literature is a literature in bondage. It is a less than fully human literature. It is exactly the kind of literature you would expect people to write from prison.

Coetzee publicly called for an end to Apartheid. Remember: this is a man who grew up in a safe, nearly all white community, which was provided by the policy of Apartheid. This is a man who fled South Africa’s political turmoil when it might have affected him. Living a life of luxury, living in a community protected by people whom he implied were less than human, Coetzee pushed hard to end Apartheid.

Though not the sole proponent of anti-Apartheid, and certainly not the most important member of the movement, Coetzee’s wish finally came true in 1994. Apartheid, under intense international and local pressure, was ended.

And the crime wave began.

edit south african farmer

South Africans of all ethnicities came under attack as the stern fist of Apartheid was swept from the land. A terrorist who had signed off on bombings which had killed dozens of people was put in charge, and his thuggish party, openly espousing murderous racial hate, brought in a corrupt regime which to this day continues to expand the gulf between the rich and the poor of all ethnicities in South Africa. Black, Indian, white—for all these people, violence is a very real possibility.

Coetzee does what he does best

So, Coetzee had finally gotten his wish, and the bondage in South Africa had been lifted. Now it was time for Coetzee to enjoy the fruits of his labours, right? After all, this was exactly what he wanted. He was a moral crusader—nay! He was a liberator! A paragon of human rights! This was a victory for not only him, nor just for South Africa, but for the world!

Yet it turns out that the newly unleashed violent elements of South Africa didn’t quite agree with Coetzee’s ego. They liberally targeted all peoples, the blacks, the whites—even the good whites, like Coetzee and his friends. Coetzee’s final book as a citizen of South Africa was Disgrace (1999), which features an assault on a white man and a white woman being raped pregnant by some black men. Though very popular with the moralist crowd, several black South African politicians were angered and publicly denounced Coetzee.

They needn’t have worried though; Coetzee is a man lacking all moral and ethical fibre. Shortly after Apartheid ended, and his fellow citizens were being subjected to cruelties beyond imagining, Coetzee went house shopping. And by house shopping, I mean he went looking for another country. In 2002, a short 8 years after Apartheid had ended, Coetzee fled to Australia, abandoning post-Apartheid South Africa to its fate. Coetzee gave an incredibly pathetic excuse for doing so:

I did not so much leave South Africa, a country with which I retain strong emotional ties, but come to Australia. I came because from the time of my first visit in 1991, I was attracted by the free and generous spirit of the people, by the beauty of the land itself and – when I first saw Adelaide – by the grace of the city that I now have the honour of calling my home.

Yes, Coetzee didn’t “abandon” South Africa. He just…came, to somewhere else; even though he initially admitted he fled because of the waxing crime rate. It’s amazing that so many people can say with a straight face that Coetzee is one of the premier authors writing today.

Of course the truth of the matter was that Coetzee fled South Africa because of the crime. He wanted to tear down a system which—while admittedly oppressive toward one specific group—kept a semblance of peace amongst all the races in South Africa. Once it was torn down and it was time to rebuild, and it was time for Coetzee’s to put his money where his mouth was and actually do something besides criticize, guilt, and moralize, when he finally got to live in the exact type of society he so virulently professed to wanting to live in, he fled like the coward he is to another country…one which just so happened to be predominantly white. I thought Coetzee was alienated by whites? He professed to feeling a spiritual connection to some Indians. Why not move to India?

No, it was to the white country of Australia that this holier-than-thou man fled, and the next year to award Coetzee for all his moral crusading they gave him the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize in Literature (citing his place of residence as South Africa instead of Australia where it actually was). Since it was so prestigious, Coetzee actually showed up in Stockholm to collect his prize. Instead of a speech he read from Robinson Crusoe.


A hypocrite as old as time

So now, while many South Africans live in constant fear, facing perpetual violence, J.M. Coetzee is sunning himself in the vastly more peaceful continent of Australia. He’s still writing.

It’s funny how consistent these types are with their hypocrisy. People like Coetzee, and modern leftists and social justice warriors and anti-racists and all these other so called humanists and moral crusaders endlessly spew about the injustices of the world, and how we need to tear down the barriers and throw away the system and start afresh…yet they’re almost always amongst the first ones to flee once those very barriers are taken down and it’s time to get dirty and start the rebuilding.

You see it amongst the democrats in the United States, who vote in slick politicians parroting their democratic ideals—then they flee the state when those ideals are enacted, only to repeat their same idiotic choices while looking down on the less enlightened. White people spouting anti-racist sentiments then moving out of their neighborhood the moment the first non-whites begin showing up is so common it’s a cliché.

I myself am a former Neo-Nazi, and yet I have more brown, black, Asian and [insert race here] friends than the most fervent anti-racist I know, who is a suburban white girl who hasn’t even so much as taken a poking from a penis that wasn’t snow white yet once railed for damn near two hours about the lack of diversity in our university dorm. She’s currently engaged to a white guy and lives in a lily white town of about 3,000 people in rural Canada.

We need to stop tolerating people like Coetzee and all these other goddamn moralizers, because it’s going to be the common people that pay for their self righteousness. When the going gets tough, rich, privileged scum-bags like Coetzee have no problem financially or ethnically about fleeing to greener pastures, and leaving behind their poorer and nobler peers to clean up after them.

It’s time to stop caring about what Coetzee and all the people like him have to say. Because I can guarantee you, at the end of the day, whatever your race, they sure as hell do not care about you. They see all of us as nothing more than pawns to feed their egos. Let them starve.

Read More: Nobel Peace Prize Recipiant Malala Yousafzai Is A Coward And A Hypocrite

214 thoughts on “J.M. Coetzee: Yet Another Nobel Prize Winning Hypocrite”

  1. Sounds like a typical guilty whitey liberal in the USA… calls for all sorts of “equality” but then lives in the safety of a gated community at night, protected by armed guards, and far away from the “riff raff” of the people he wishes there were more of in this country.
    I have to admit looking back at apartheid, it would have been interesting if the original plan, that is, grant full independence to the black homelands, and presumably leave the rest of South Africa as a majority white country, had played out.

    1. It’s easy to see what would’ve happened:
      The black homelands most likely would’ve been economically backward from boundless corruption and ineptitude, while the rest of the country would’ve been economically prosperous.

      1. True.
        And after seeing how things work in the world, I also fail to understand why ethnically or racially homogeneous countries are such a bad thing. Good fences really do make good neighbors.

    2. Didn’t you hear? Cowardice is the new cool. Everyone is a sellout, a traitor, a lecherous simp. We’re supposed to think about ourselves first, but we don’t leave the environment piss trodden and covered in dung by doing so do we? What this man’s fate is can only be a depression, he will not go out like a man, or as a hero, he is a coward, and a rotten globalist stooge. His time will come, eventually.

    3. I’m surprised the n!ggers didn’t rob, rape, kill, and eat him. and, not necessarily in that order. he should go back now for a visit. the pot is boiling

      1. One guy [second from the left] is wearing a shirt with a confederate flag, the man (or woman?) to his right looks like he (or she) is going through drug withdrawal and the young man in the middle is, for whatever reason, wearing a wedding dress?? This picture raises so many questions I know I don’t want to hear the answers to, so I’ll stop right there.

    4. Yes a thousand times. The sad thing is that this Coetzee probably has convinced himself that he really does love dindus at least as much as white people.
      There needs to be a connection to what people practice and preach. Otherwise, I will stop listening to the preaching and look at the practice, bc that shit can’t lie.

    5. Obviously South Africa’s biggest problem during Apartheid of blacks coming into the county from worse black nations would have carried over to whatever white area there was. Much like current 3rd world invaders hate everything about the West except the benefits office

  2. It was obvious in the 80’s that as soon as the South Africans pulled the plug on Apartheid, the country would begin a slow descent. The descent will only stop when SA reached a shittiness equilibrium with the surrounding crap countries.
    I know several families that got out around that time – the writing on the wall was too much to ignore.

    1. SA is the rape capital of the world now, garbage piles up on the sidewalks, can’t blame their problems on white patriarchy anymore. Educated and skilled blacks don’t want to live there and migrate out if they can, causing brain drain of society. The more successful blacks in the world live as minorities in white cultures.

      1. Actually they are blaming the current lack of electricity in the capital on whitey. Living on welfare is better than being in the top 1% of natives of black nations.

    2. To their credit, it was actually a lot slower descent that I would have predicted. It took almost 20 years for it to become a failed state, and 10 for the power companies to start failing; I would have given it 5, tops.

  3. welcome back Chubbs! I was beginning to think a damn alligator bit one of your hands off and you couldn’t type well anymore. 🙂

    1. Same for me. Well, almost.

      I was beginning to think a damn alligator landwhale bit one of your hands off and you couldn’t type well anymore.

    1. It actually frightens me how dogmatic and “convinced” they are. All things are permitted if those things help further the goal of world wide socialist utopia. They are not only blind, but also poke out their own ears with ice picks in order to not have to hear any dissenting view. They are the “intolerant religious” people they preach against, as full of faith in their dogma as the worst of the Jesuits on the Inquisition that they so despise.

      1. I can’t understand how such hypocrisy goes unnoticed. If they wanna be an ideologue fine. But they better be willing to accept responsibility for their actions.

        1. Orwell’s sheep come to mind. When confronting Snowball’s truth telling they simply stamp their feet and bleat louder to drown him out “two feet bad, four feet good!”
          We are talking the *exact* same kind of people who would have been the most tyrannical religious zealots if they’d lived in the 1500’s.

        2. Lots of people notice it… but surely you’ve had arguments with leftists. They are mentally ill. You can present all the hardcore objective “non-Fox News” facts in the world and they won’t concede a single ideological talking point.

        3. Exactly, they cannot even concede minor errors. They invest their entire ego in their dogma, so if the dogma has even one crack in it, it means that they have failed as human beings personally.

        4. I did this once a couple of years ago: during a conversation with a hipster girl i admitted to being a patriarchal capitalist who only liked/dated asian women. Hipster girl didn’t know how to respond at first then called me an asshole and then left in a huff while i ordered another beer……good times.

      2. it’s funny how many dogmatic people are educated within the jesuit tradition. Especially on the left- Castro, Mugabe etc. I think modern jesuit philosophy has morphed into a pervasive leftist culture. No wonder the left are loving Pope Francis. Catholocism has made a deadly pact with the left and will likely be its undoing as Islam takes arms against the left.

  4. The South African state is getting much worse since Mandela’s death. There are unemployed white doctors in South Africa who are displaced by the state importing doctors from Cuba (not even South African citizens). This is due to aggressive affirmative action. As long as the doctor is not white, the state doesn’t care where they come from.

    1. The new president looks like an idealist!! He is corrupt to the bone and hell bent on retribution.

  5. Fun fact I actually had to read Coetzee’s book Disgrace for a class and I thought certain elements were absolutely absurd. One of which was a middle-aged white professor(probably himself) who has sex with a student contrasted to a group of black men that invades a home, robs the place, and rapes a white woman. Although in the story this “rape” that the professor does is non-sense, considering that the student herself comes back again and again to have sex with her professor. Yes she got “raped” and then went back by her own will to go get “raped” twice more. Yet this is compared to a violent home invasion, robbery, and forced rape. Yes. Oh yea and the professor also enjoyed banging prostitutes regularly(again more evidence pointing to the fact that this story is probably his life). Honestly I don’t even view any of the professor’s actions as bad, perhaps unethical, but not illegal.
    What also struck me as odd was that the professor later has dinner with the parents of the daughter he’s fucked. And they’re completely cool with it. What? I’m pretty sure most people would be flipping out and angry that they’re daughter has sex with this middle-aged weirdo who is her professor. It’s like some sexual revolution mindset that everyone would be cool with the fucking but reality sets in. To give a little context in the late 90’s it was also not seen as nearly as evil as 2015 for an older man with power, prestige, or authority to have sex with a younger, hotter woman.
    His mindset and life just makes me think of the immature liberal who upon unveiling his creation realizes it’s a Frankenstein. He then steps away(or flees) and rather than accepting that he was wrong, turns around and acts like, “Australia really spoke to my spirit more” or some bullshit like that. I mean give me a fucking break, what an arrogant pos, how stupid does he think we are? Like you said he flees to a greener pasture, I can’t wait till the wealthier white liberals flee America in droves, I think it’s already happening. We’ll see how much they stick by their causes when they’re back is pressed against a wall.

  6. I’m encouraged to see Mandela firmly put in his place in history by the article link. The man, like the majority of “great” men that the Leftists worldwide celebrate as paragons of virtue and humanity, was an utter fraud, a violent schmuck, a sociopath. This view also applies to their other heroes, such as Gandhi, Lincoln, Obama, and various “celebrities”.

    1. I am pretty sure, though not 100% certain, that even Nelson Mandela himself did not try to whitewash (pardon the pun) his own past. No doubt he did make a few token overtures to the whites in South Africa as State President, but he never claimed that he was “above” the use of violence.
      It was only leftist revisionists who deified him.

  7. “and protesting the service of the young men of his host country while sleeping with their women”
    –Me and every straight man in korea. There’s 2 year mandatory service here. They go to service while I stay and service.

  8. This kind of behavior has gone on for generations. In the 1920’s and 1930’s leftists praised Stalin’s Soviet Union from afar as a cool utopian civilization, but they didn’t want to live there.

    1. Indeed. Walter Duranty was such a good liar for Stalin in the New York Times that he was given a Pulitzer.

  9. Had to read a few of his books in college. Have to admit I liked them. I knew he was a leftie hypocrite like everyone else, but he’s still a good writer. Thankfully we focused mostly on his craft instead of his politics when we discussed him in class. One of my professors knew someone who dated him, pre-Nobel Prize I think, and apparently their “relationship” consisted entirely of getting together every day to stare silently out of a window in his office. What a weirdo.

  10. This Coetzee strikes me as no different than the other “leaders” of the Baby Boomer generation.

      1. I’m not sure that captures the level of derision we should regard them with, therefore, I’d say they’e “All talk and no cock.”

    1. Damn…I’m glad we’re all on the same page with this one.
      Someone needs to take this author and show him the benefits of manual labor (like a labor camp say – 10 years?) A little payback to society for “skating by” all those years while everyone else was hard at work.

      1. Thats what my old man always used to say should be done with these types : ” Make them work by the sweat of their brow” he used to say. That coming from the mouth of a man who had a Masters degree in Philosophy but busted his ass in a sawmill most of his life. He loathed these useless Marxist windbags with a passion.

    2. The dude is nothing but a fucking leftist dipshit, as every single leftist ever: They fuck the country they live in and then they flee to a first-world white country once their shit hits the fan. The end.

      1. Doesn’t just end there. Statistics show once shitlibs turn their own habitats into crime ridden toilets and flee to safer whiter areas they actually campaign and vote for the exact same ideologies that turned their last area into a shithole. Repeating the whole process.
        Excellent article btw. One of the best I’ve seen on ROK.

        1. This history constantly repeats itself.
          Yankees moving to Florida.
          Californians moving to everywhere else.
          And their shitty politics follow.

        2. Yes very true. I’m a Yankee (but hardly a liberal) living in the south Atlantic. Virginia and Florida have gone from red to purple headed for blue. North Carolina is going that way too. Georgia and South Carolina are hanging in there. For now. In the meantime every day I see more and more license plates that read PA, NJ, NY, Il etc. etc. The north has taxed and regulated itself to penury. Just like California on the Left Coast.

      2. Yep just check out the Greens party in the UK and their policies (some gems include; it’s ok to join terrorist groups since it’s your beliefs) Even more disturbing, they have a chance of getting representatives into parliament. The left is spreading and threatening to destroy everything in their path.

        1. The Green party already has an MP, who is standing down at the next election in May due to being unlikely to get re elected, as the Green dominated city council in her constituency has made such a mess of running things for the last five years. They look like being voted out in May too.

        2. Vote for more free stuff produced by productive East Asian and white men is the leftist/feminist mantra.

    3. I found Coetzee has been rather influential in my development in terms of reading material especially as a late teen. He talks of the depression he feels at seeing people seemingly surpass him who seemed to lack his ability. He talks of the inability at times to find a woman and when he was with certain women he talks of his lack of intimacy. He was very beta however in many ways. Highly motivated to do things because that might be an area to meet women or impress them and therefore he was at times very lonely but his depiction of his time spent with women was colourful. I however despised a few things about him and that showed he was self loathing 1) he was getting government money to go to university and yet in his own words wanted to see a wave wash over south africa and kill everyone. 2) he was painfully insecure at times. always wondering why affection or rewards would not go his way.

  11. I find that the following is a good barometer: the more obscure a person’s taste in film, music, art or literature, the more likely said person is a complete dipshit whose only interest is in collecting look at me points.

    1. LOL sure. Only those who watch Transformers or read Harry Potter are non-dipshits. Anybody who likes to read great literature or great films which the masses don’t enojy is a dipshit. Indeed.

      1. That’s not what he said and you know it, you pretentious peacock.
        He meant that there is a small group of people who make it a point to find the most obscure form of culture that they can find, who then claim themselves as morally superior for having learned a “deeper appreciation of the human condition” through their exclusionary pursuit. When you examine their tastes however you usually come up with them heaping praise on some African tribesman’s three step stomp dance in the dirt as if it were high art.
        See it all the time, especially from leftists, in fact it is the root attitude you’ll find in most Hipsters as well. Make it a point to demonstrate to everybody how unique and special you are because you like a certain obscure author (whose works basically suck) or (for the hipster) some craft beer from a microbrewery that puts out two six packs a year (which suck). When somebody dares to step forward and notice that the emperor has no clothes, they retreat behind sneers and snarks and an effeminate “I’m simply better and more cultured than you!” attitude.
        I have yet to find a single one of these douchebag types who, while pretending to find great meaning and depth in a poem about flatulence, have bothered to read and critically analyze even three books of great historical literature.

        1. There are all kinds of people. Pretentious snobs are one kind, but there are also those who are put off by mainstream culture and instead seek out genuine refinement.
          To say that just because one has obscure (non-mainstream) tastes makes one a “dipshit” is obviously going too far.
          If somebody likes Michael Haneke over Spielberg, I actually respect them more.

        2. Oh god I have the tragic misfortune of knowing exactly some of those pretentious hipster fuckwads that think they’re so special because they read some obscure book or know some obscure poem. It’s just so painful listening to them droll on about it, as if they have the ability to think critically about anything. I remember listening to why white liberal men are quickly becoming hipsters and generally it’s their own bizarre version of showing off their masculinity.
          Where the rest of humanity views masculinity in the traditional sense, these dipshits are trying to carve out a “new masculinity”. Keep in mind these white liberal men have been indoctrinated for decades to hate themselves, praise feminism, and hate traditional masculinity. However things are not going according to plan, they are the ass-end of every joke, absolutely nobody respects them. Hell, even hipsters don’t respect each other. You can’t change masculine principles that have existed since antiquity, try and change them and become the biggest depressed hipster faggot in the entire world.
          Instead of praising worthwhile pursuits, talents, job skills, physical strength and endurance, hipsters choose the easy way out. Obscure books and music for the most part and they can turn their nose and say “I liked x before it was cool” is a funny joke because that’s how all of them act. As if no one can discover x because if it does, they’ll lost points on their off-brand of masculinity.
          To any hipsters reading this page, just stop, no one buys your bullshit just as no one thinks your cool and masculine. Becoming masculine takes trying, effort, and years of work in practice in certain disciplines. It’s not in listening to some band called Ghsaillf from the 1980’s in Sweden and posting on Facebook with your iPad about how good it is while drinking Starbucks. No one cares and their music more than likely sucks ass. Hipsters are the epitome of the 21st century feminized manchild and they’re fucking everywhere.

        3. Ive also engendered deep hostility from these types when Ive quickly banged some chick they’ve been orbiting around for the last year

      2. Who said that? For the record, there is plenty of great art, music, literature and film in the American pantheon. It’s not all Michael Bay crap. But someone who goes out of their way to deny this greatness and seek out obscure and eccentric things just so they can one up you with their worldliness is a douchebag.

        1. There might be plenty great stuff in the American pantheon. But there is much more in the rest of the world, in sheer numbers. European cinema, Greek literature, German philosophers, Asian music and dance, …
          Liking something obscure for the sake of its being obscure is foolish, but expanding one’s horizons or even liking and treasuring something obscure is no cause for immediate condemnation.

        2. I agree with your last point, but the majority of these folks that I encounter fall into the esoteric attention whore category. So while I can agree that there are merits to foreign arts, and I actually enjoy them myself, it’s one thing to discover these things naturally and truly appreciate them, and another to intentionally seek out the most abstruse art just so you can wear it as a badge of honor. You typically know these people when you see them ( or most likely hear them since they never shut up about this type of thing).

        3. Agree. Nothing wrong with being curious about certain work from the rest of the world. But, I’ve met too many people who are more interested in how they appear to others – because they’ve read or seen the “most abstruse art”, certain books, certain movies, etc…
          It’s more about the one upping (attention whoring) in their group.

        4. Yep.
          It’s like the joke about the vegan, the atheist, and the crossfit trainer go into a bar together.
          I know this about them because they made sure everybody knew it within minutes.

  12. This article is a little too try-hard. I have read Coetzee’s books and he is a great writer. His “Life and Times of Michael K” is an awe-inspiring ode to freedom.
    If Coetzee’s choosing to live in a region of his choice while still writing about his native country and its issues is the only flaw the OP could find, then it seems to me that OP needs to pick his targets better.
    OP has also completely misunderstood Youth. Just because an intelligent young man finds movies of Satyajit Ray (and they are great movies, about men and and about women, see for example “The Middleman” about the corruption of a young idealist man) more interesting than Goldfinger makes him hateful?
    One of the worst articles in RoK’s history.

  13. Though not the same exact scenario, it’s still very much related. Just peruse this Facebook page if you want to see something truly depressing. Like it too just to show them support, there aren’t very many of them left anymore. Legend has it that Ian Smith’s last words on his dying bed were “I told you so”:

  14. As I often say, white Liberals will never hate any race more then they hate their own.

    1. The 60’s generation with their ‘revolution’ which turned out to be nothing, and then becoming the most materialistic of all generations prior? That generation?

  15. hahaha this was unexpectedly good. A little meandering, but was skimmable when necessary. 1994 was a tragedy to anyone with a brain, and the irony is that there was a responsible and upstanding black man who could/should have been president: Mangosuthu Buthelezi.
    Mandela and his cohorts shouldve been hanged or shot.

  16. The singer ZP Theart is from South Africa. Makes me wonder if this is what his song “Silent Genocide” is about.

  17. Charging somebody with “Hypocracy” is useless.
    It is ok for somebody to change their mind, or have different opinions in different circumstances. It is very popular these days to call people hypocrites, but, the charge never sticks or wins arguments except against religious figures.
    This guy seems to hate his country, not South Africa, but the environment I which he was raised. Charge him with that instead of hypocrisy.
    Finally, I come from this article more intrigued by what lead the author away from Neo-Naziism than anything else.

  18. Let me get this straight, Europeans invade South Africa, seize it and enact a system of segregation and because the Africans in post-apartheid South Africa have done shit, apartheid wasn’t wrong? That argument has several fallacies all rolled into one.

    1. He didn’t say that. But you’re correct, your misstatement of his theme does contain many fallacies.
      He compared two bad systems and noted that one actually worked out better for *everybody* than the other.

      1. “The other side counters that, while there were crimes committed by the Apartheid government against the black South Africans, the actions of black South Africans post-Apartheid show that the Boer policy was correct and justified. Crime rates, especially those of rape, have sky rocketed since the end of Apartheid.”
        Work on your reading comprehension before you comment.

        1. Correct and justified does not mean that it was good. He notes that it did bad things to people. It is correct and justified to sometimes have a lynch mob go hang a few men that need a good hanging when the justice system fails. That doesn’t mean that a lynch mob is a good thing.
          Keep your snarkiness to yourself, you’re not impressing anybody.

        2. Yet I didn’t say “good”. I said wasn’t wrong. So once again, get your reading comprehension in order. How did the Boer get to Africa in the first place? They would never have had the problem if they didn’t invade the continent. So using the problem as a justification for the invasion and the invaders’ authoritarian system is a shitty argument.

        3. Oh for fucks sake, something can be wrong from a moral perspective but still be correct and justified for a particular situation. Be a bit more pedantic why don’t you? If a brutal system kept a much worse fate from befalling all people, then objectively speaking the system was a better choice than the alternative.
          Invasion insmasion. If you lose the war, you don’t get to set the terms of the peace. Period. End of sentence.
          Don’t like it, don’t lose the war/fight.
          Sub-Saharan Africans dwelled on that resource rich continent for thousands of years and never invented one damned thing with all of those resources besides the grass hut and maybe, on a good day, some form of fishing tool. They literally walked day in and day out over untold riches and resources which were unknown to them and, left in their uncontacted condition, unknowable for eternity, and could not be arsed to even come up with the wheel to show for their advantage of location.
          They lived and died by constant warfare with other tribes, or by the cruel hands of nature through starvation or rampant disease. They never had it so good as when Europeans decided to “invade”.
          Spare me your white guilt revisionism, I’m frankly not interested in wrining my hands at how awful nasty those world-advancing Europeans are.

        4. Hilarious, you talk about the left being trapped in an ideological prism and you do the exact same thing. You just wrote a bullshit script about what i think. You have no idea what i think.
          The Boer invaded Africa and set up a brutal system. After the system fell, the Africans have (as the writer pointed out) fucked up the country. So according to the writer that is justified (a point you seem to agree with).
          But here’s the thing, isn’t it just as hypocritical to talk about right and justified while at the same time talking “invasion insmasion”? Make up your mind, either there is right and wrong or the strong rule. You are all over the place.

        5. I’m not speaking about ideology, first off, so you’re off base on that. I’m simply noting what Chubbs wrote in contrast to your pronouncements about what he wrote. He notes both ways are/were bad, but one is worse. Is this correct, or incorrect?
          Second, who invaded what where and when is irrelevant given as nobody alive there now, nor in 1994, was alive at the time of the fighting and invasion, discounting any nominees for “oldest person in history”. They had a working system, not an ideal one by any stretch (not even a very long stretch), which they did not establish (not being the founders) that then went away and the country went into total shit. It was total shit beforehand too, before one white pasty face arrived, but we’ll ignore that for now.
          This isn’t about right and wrong. I’ve exercised no moral judgment here, because I was correcting you on your initial mis-interpretation of the article. My moral take on apartheid has not entered this debate, not once. Noting one system causes, say, less death and rape than another does not mean that the system is being judged as morally right and good. The Nazis ran a tight ship compared to the Weimar Republic, but I wouldn’t want to live under National Socialism.
          If you need to continue to snark and sneer, have at it, I really have nothing else to say at this point. If you don’t understand that Chubbs was comparing and contrasting the two systems, that’s really not my concern any longer.

        6. Nope, this started with you misinterpreting what I said and then going off on some rant about white guilt yada yada. The writer said: “the actions of black South Africans post-Apartheid show that the Boer policy was correct and justified.” Which is a bullshit argument because it is using a future circumstance to justify a past crime. I’m not even talking about the morality of apartheid, I’m talking about the weakness of the argument.
          And when you followed up with your “invasion imsmasion” you just doubled down on it. If he (or you) had just said “look, might makes right, they were able to take the land and keep it so they took it,” I might not have agreed but at least you would have been consistent. That’s all I want from my fascism, consistency.

        7. It is clear that most in the “manosphere” are only looking out for their own interests. Most lack the ability to put themselves in another person’s shoes for the briefest of moments. As long as they and their kin/kind have all the advantages, they are happy. If not, they howl to the moon and cry bloody murder.
          Yet, they whine all day over woman’s solipsism.

        8. The Boer didn’t Boer from Dutch means farmer. The British who Coetzee had a greater affinity with and perhaps some French heritage greatly demonised the Boer’s for nothing more than wanting their own sovereignty over land that they have farmed for the last 400 years. The British merchants likes Cecil Rhodes who wanted gold and diamonds namely for the largest monopolised company ever de Beers seated the arc of a narrative that the Boers were savages for using the blacks as cheap farm hands while the british jews were using them as diggers in pits

        9. I know right? EVERBODY has a rationalization hamster when shit hits close to home. A lot of the time its just different groups in their ideological bubbles arguing past each other.

        10. The British found religion on imperialism as soon as they couldn’t afford an empire anymore. After that, everybody who did the same things they did to rise to power were evil scum.

        11. The Boers weren’t colonialists in the least. They farmed areas that were low in population and cohabited areas with many Zulu’s. I t wasn’t until the turn of the century around the time of the Boer war that the British (Rothchild/Hohenzollren jewish) mining interests were at stake. Cecil Rhodes and co attracted more africans from other areas to South Africa as cheap labour and there was a population boom. THe Boers were being kicked of their land that they farmed no different from farmers in America -South America. The boers had no affinity with their ancestral homeland. they weren’t indoctrinating the africans. They were forcibly placed in concentration camps to move them of the transvale area in a grab for Gold. J.M Coetzee hates South Africa for the same reason Britain hated and cut ties with south africa. He even said that he listened on his radio at night and waited for what he hoped would be a British invasion to end apartheid. he makes no mention of ever having met a black man or women and speaks rather condescending terms of times he had intimate relationships with Boer women who he found to be unsophisticated. he makes not one mention of ever having any relationship with a black women.

        12. Don’t kid yourself. Whatever the origins of the Boer presence in Africa they were still aliens on other people’s land. I’m no fan of the British or Coetzee, nor do I have anything but sympathy for white South Africans being terrorized by blacks today. But the Boers were alien transplants on other people’s land and they instigated a brutally oppressive system to maintain control over that land.

        13. it would be laughable how liberals rewrite history if it wasn’t so socially destructive. Fact: The boers went to south africa as refugees. They were being killed by the spanish and french for being Protestants. They were hated through much of Europe. They left to secure their future. They treated the africans on better terms than most people through any period of time. Now if you are going to critique boers for being in africa than i should be free to critique the modern agenda of refugees from african countries. I can be happily critical of african immigration to any number of countries and i can hope that the native inhabitants or predominant people treat them with the same hostility that the zulu’s treat the boers.

        14. You can be critical of African refugees in other countries as soon as they start putting the native people in pens, telling them where they can and can’t go and then torturing and shooting them if they don’t.

        15. You mean like many neighbourhoods in Europe, North and South America. Gated communities= pens. Have you seen the fences you may as well be in prison. Fearing your child will be killed or taken hostage if you leave. Shooting’s in entire neighbourhoods if people enter. If they can’t get guns then getting chopped up with a machete. These are all things that happen to white people. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/africa/65530177/three-members-of-perth-family-killed-in-axe-attack-in-south-africa

        16. Yes, and the people doing it to those white people are criminals and should be treated as such. I’m not the one defending any crimes. And i think its interesting you pointed this out because it shows how much like those dreaded SJWs some redpillers can be. It’s an SJW tactic to make excuses for the groups they defend. Isn’t that what you are doing? So where’s the reason? Where’s the realism and rational thought?
          You want to know the true test of how strong your ideas are? It’s when you can apply them universally. People who descend on other people, kill them, brutalise them and put them in cages because they want what the other people have, are criminals in my mind. Doesn’t matter their race, religion, nationality, etc, etc. If you don’t see it as a crime when the Boer did it then you’re just as much a hypocrite as Coetze if you see it as a crime if anyone else does it. It’s either wrong and right or might makes right, take your pick.

        17. The Zulus were also invaders of other people’s land. Didn’t they take the land from the Bushmen at about the same time as the Boers came along? The Zulus had no more claim than the Boers.

        18. I agree with your first point but not your second. The Zulu were just as much conquerors as the Boer. But that doesn’t mean the Boer weren’t conquerors who used forced and repression to control the land. It’s not about claim to the land, its about what you do to acquire and exploit the land. Conquest is conquest. Violence is violence, who ever is using it. All I was telling the poster was that he shouldn’t kid himself about what the Boer did. I don’t kid myself about what the Zulu did.
          But I see in your post about Billy Bragg you could use your own argument against yourself. The Uk has been home to Picts, Celts, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans – waves and waves of conquerors. So using your logic, who has a claim on that land?

    2. It is quite the dilemma, isn’t it? When the Europeans abandoned ship (keep in mind this was before Europe pretended to be one large White, Christian, English-speaking country plus some “crazy” Slavs off to the The East to atone for two World Wars and colonialism the way it does now) they left in a hurry since the natives were slaughtering them wholesale as they revolted. After modernizing and essentially “civilizing” the continent and then ditching it chaos erupted among the Africans along ethnic, tribal and religious lines and still perpetuates to this day. It’s like the whole “Iraq was better under Saddam” argument, which of the two evils is the better one? The one that brings security, jobs, and social services with an iron first or a sham democracy with total anarchy and lawlessness? Same story with most of Africa, whether black or Arab or even both concurrently.

      1. Most developing countries do far better under dictators, what the best system is an equal opportunity oppressor, there have been several successful leaders who leads that way. Someone who doesn’t favor their religion/ethnicity and when they get in power, everyone is fairly evenly oppressed. Although it kind of brings into question, “oppressed” with better jobs, health care, infrastructure, prosperity, education, and opportunity? In that case the “oppression” is much better than the stateless anarchy. You want to see what anarchy looks like anarchists? Somalia. That’s what you get. However the problem with benevolent dictator is whoever follows them is never nearly as benevolent or intelligent enough to run the country, that’s where you run into problems. Although some countries never got the benevolent dictator privilege, most just had some dickhead who ran around, robbed people, disenfranchised many, and stays in power due to the military.

        1. Most developing countries do far better under dictators

          Chile under Pinochet is a prime example. He pushed a capitalist economic regime there and now they’re the 3rd richest country in the western hemisphere. Sure it has problems, but it is further ahead of other countries in Latin America.
          And it came at the cost of 3000 communists. Not a bad trade if you ask me.

    3. Africa will always be a place that is either absolute chaos, under some kind of authoritarian rule, or always colonized. The kind of westernized government that we take for granted, which itself is the product of European conquests, is a rarity there.
      Now the Chinese are moving in. SSDD.

      1. Sub-Saharan Africa, definitely.
        Egypt/North Africa had civilization, of course, but they were not black. Not white, but definitely not black.

      2. Actually, several African economies are doing well. It’s one of the world’s major growth regions now. Some, like South Africa, are in a mess. But some are doing very well. And China moving in doesn’t mean they are colonizing it. China is moving in everywhere. They have an aggressive economic policy. What that has to do with governance of African nations I don’t see.

        1. Several are indeed, but this is the historical exception and not the rule. Of course we’d all love to see Africa modernize and have more first world nations emerge there, but there’s a lot of historical momentum against such things.

        2. The places that are cool with whites might be experiencing growth. But growth is merely an index of a burgeoing population. More people = more GDP. Doesn’t make a place worth it.

    4. Conquerors invade, get over it. Either kick them out or be subjugated. Reign or be reigned over. That is the only true law of humanity.
      As for the savages….when they’re done raping babies and their sisters to cure AIDS, then we can talk about equality.

      1. I’m beginning to think you people have a condition where words get transformed into something else in your brains. Where did you see me say anything about conquerors? Read it slowly. I said his argument was shitty. And where did you see me say anything about equality? Furthermore, its such projection that a moron like you, who can barely understand what he is throwing his ignorant comments at, is calling people savages, etc, etc. What are you reigning over other than your keyboard?

        1. Most of the blacks in SA migrated down from the interior of Africa to work white farms and enjoy the cargo whites brought. There’s little archeological evidence of settled farms in SA before whites arrived.

        2. No, you’re just whining because blacks were conquered by whites and trying to claim that that is morally wrong and therefore his argument is fallacious.
          You also attempt to imply that apartheid created black violence, mixing up cause and effect
          I’m sorry your brain doesn’t work very well, I’m sure you’ll blame that on whitey, too.

        3. Wha? For someone on a men’s site you sure do argue like a woman. Where did I say anything like that? Quintus wrote an article about being closed-minded and not understanding where your opponent is coming from. That’s you. You are so used to arguing with liberals that its all your capable of doing. I’ll repeat one last time for your limited mind. His argument was shitty. It’s funny how some of the most limited people bang on about their superiority.

        4. Your projection is humorous—like all SJWs, you project
          your own foibles onto others. Such as here, where you argue like a girl and
          claim others are doing it.
          No, his argument was not shitty. You got all upset at his
          article that dared to imply that perhaps apartheid was a rational, civilized
          choice give the savagery of blacks. You
          got all upset and tried to claim that conquering was somehow morally wrong and
          therefore imply it was all whitey’s fault. Then you pretended tone deafness
          when I corrected you.
          Apartheid and Jim Crow happened because blacks were and
          are violent savages. Black savagery was not caused by apartheid/Jim Crow, but
          the other way around. Stop trying to turn around cause and effect.

        5. I’m going to try this one more time. Firstly, I am not an “SJW”. I don’t limit myself to any ideology.
          I never, anywhere in this comment thread said apartheid or Jim Crow led to “black savagery”. If you have proof of me saying that anywhere post it. Put up or shut up.
          What I did say was that his argument was shitty because he used black savagery to justify apartheid. Which makes no sense. If the Africans and the Boer had always shared a space and the “black savages” were being aggressive then you could justify apartheid on those grounds (possibly).
          But this was essentially a conquest of African land. They would have had no problems with the black savages if they had just stayed where they came from.
          I understand you are a racist but at least be consistent. Or try and understand what you are commenting on when you make a comment. Now I’m done with you because talking to meathead racists makes me feel unclean.

        6. Black savagery does justify apartheid/jim crow—and savagery casued apartheid/jim crow. That is straight up cause and effect.
          In many conquered societies, the conquered were not forced into segregation because they proved quite able to follow the rules of civilization. They might have chafed and rebelled and had various social norms enacted against them, but they didn’t go around raping babies to get rid of AIDS or burning down cities in support of violent criminals or giving burning-tire-necklaces to people over minor disagreements. Most conquered people could act civilized.
          Not so with blacks. Their absolute savagery—on display today in post-apartheid South Africa and post-Jim Crow America—shows why those systems came into place. The default in human history has been to let the conquered live amongst you, with various restrictions imposed, but never segregation; it took a whole lot of savage behavior for conquerors to actually feel that walling off these savages from the civilized was a better alternative than living amongst them.
          You can try to deny the obvious cause and effect of black savagery causing Jim Crow/Apartheid, but it only makes you look foolish. His argument was sound. Not conclusive, but sound. Your objections are silly.

        7. This is so asinine. Empires are maintained by fear and force. I would say there are a few examples where an empire has more humane strategies and use a carrot and stick approach over extreme coercion but that has more to do with the conquerors behaviour than the conquered. Crude, brutal people enforce control with crude, burtal systems like apartheid and segregation. Look at how the English governed their colonies in Africa and the West Indies.
          The ignorant and savage policies of the Boer and the American South are reflections of the policymakers – not the subjects of their policies. Your rationalisation hamster is kind of pathetic and feminine.

        8. Your argument would only make sense if the conqueror-nations had the same policy towards every group they conquered. With blacks, however, policies are always different. This is a strong indication that blacks were a special case of savagery.And your trying to claim that the civilizating nations are somehow savage is 1984-esque.
          In South Africa, it was a tripartite division: whites, Indians, and blacks. This is because the ruling whites recognized that Indians were more civilized than blacks, and Indians did not want to mix with blacks themselves because they recognized blacks as savage.
          The English had different policies towards their Scottish and Irish conquests because of different behaviors of the peoples. And in America, the U.S government had vastly different views of Indian tribes: some were viewed as savage terrorists (Apaches), while others were called “Civilized Tribes.” These views were based on evidence
          With blacks, every civilized people they have come into contact with has always viewed them as the most savage and the most in need of separation. Blacks have continually failed to civilize. They are the one constant in these separation policies.
          Take the red pill.

    5. Most blacks in SA came in the 20th century. Apartheid was enacted because whites were getting alarmed at the massive number of blacks being brought in as wage slaves. The Boers were arguably better than the Americans, who slaughtered the natives.

  19. I had a conversation with a girl on the bus last night that you guys might find amusing.
    “I studied international development because I wanted to help disenfranchised people from other countries. But I learned that the capitalistic systems in place wont allow that. There is no way for us to redistribute wealth to the oppressed people who need it, so I’m going to become a lawyer instead. If only we had a more Socialist system, then we could help those people…” ***sigh*** “So what are you up to?”
    “I’m moving to Korea to teach English and check out more of the world.”
    “Oh thats so cool! South Korea right? Haha obviously North Korea is evil and oppressive”
    “Yeah I agree… North Korea is way too socialist for my liking.”
    ***Blank Stare*** “Do you mind if I continue reading my book?”
    “Np go for it.” ***Stares at iPhone for the rest of the busride***

    1. “so I’m going to become a lawyer instead. ”
      Just what the world needs, another lawyer cunt.

      1. Her comment does rather illuminate the thought pattern of the typical progressive though, doesn’t it? The world doesn’t work the way I want it to in my unworkable fantasies, so I’ll develop the skills to fuck everybody over who doesn’t agree with me. Yay vagina!

        1. Something, at times, I think only a complete and total collapse of civilization will cure.

        2. The women and the unreformable beta males will remain the same. They will just learn to think before they speak

      2. I know this type of cunt, They can’t hack it in the real world as a lawyer so she goes on to teach law school or goes on to be a judge in the family law courts.

    2. I had a similar experience during the “Arab Spring ” nonsense. Some girl at a white-collar bar, trying to sound smart, after admitting she’d worked on the Obama campaign:
      “Libya. Good to see the people rising up against oppressors.”
      “Me: “Yup. Quaddafi was one mean oppressor. Doesn’t surprise me.”
      “Dude was a confirmed socialist. They’re all totalitarians. He even wrote a little green book to copy Mao’s little red one. ”
      Angry stare. “He was not a socialist.”
      Me at my smuggist: “Look it up.”
      She whips out Iphone. Silence. 2 minutes later she speaks, shaking her head as if to make it go away: “Well, he wasn’t a real socialist.:
      No true scotsman come to life. I actually laughed. Also end of conversation, but who cared at that point.

    3. LOL typical, I remember in mid nineties when I used to open doors for women (not anymore by the way) and allot of them without even an acknowledgement sometimes pissed off.

  20. I just took at your updated bio Billy. A word from the wise… keep a tight lid on your ROK activities. A friend of mine in the American military who writes here got outed, and it went right up to the highest levels in DC.

    1. “highest Levels,”
      As in generals? I’m curious as to what happened, and whst methods the military would use to punish a conservative writer.
      It’s a little surreal- I’m not doubting your claim – it just caused me to pause for a bit. I guess we live in a completely insane society now.

      1. A flag level officer (admiral or general, won’t be specific to protect identities) and hundreds of his minions took time out of their day to peruse his blog to see whether they should put him through the inquisition. Some of the female officers at the headquarters level were furious. They forwarded the issue to a legal officer, who said he was clearly on the right side of free speech, but that didn’t dissuade them from considering other things. He was saved because his CO had a modicum of sanity and a complete set of testicles (ever more rare in today’s military). Even when Non judicial punishment had been ruled out, they tried to give him a negative letter in his record, which can be a career ender for an officer. The most most disturbing thing to me, besides the free speech aspect, was that so many highly paid and ostensibly important people spent many hours trying to punish a minor infraction of the PC narrative.

        1. That’s crazy. I thought things were bad when I was in the military, but they were nowhere near that level of insanity, where you could be punished for a freaking blog.
          This is why people need to stay out of the military. You just allow yourself to get used by your enemies when you join it.i’m not coming at this from a position of moral superiority, I myself was in the military for a while so I know this firsthand.so maybe combat that site new returning back to divorce and disenfranchisement.

  21. The state I live in – Vermont- is full of these fuckn low lifes. Rich white, trust funders who just live for politically correct moral crusading. Surrounded by their own type – living in the whitest state in the nation surrounded by a pristine agrarian setting – they love lecturing the rest of the world about all the terrible environmental and racist injustices being committed all around them. The whole state is like one giant echo chamber for these stupid lib-tards. Then they elect ass hats like Bernie Sanders to the position of US Senator – showcasing to the entire nation what a bunch of clowns they are. These kooks couldn’t run a hot dog stand without royally fucking it up.

      1. Good question. Parts of the state I like – very rural, very agrarian. Also have good friends here and I own a business that dovetails very well with the demographic and natural settings found therein. Although these last two years have seen the madness coming out of Montpelier reach epic proportions – so the consideration about leaving is crossing my mind.

        1. Where you gonna run? Those fuckbags vote, and they vote for a centralized government that can point guns at you on behalf of the law that these fucks voted for.

        2. Agree,pretty much outside of heading to the moon there’s no getting away from them. It’s really a cultural issue and these people are its living mascots

        3. Not only do they run, but every time they fuck up another state with their leftist lunacy, they move to a sane red state and proceed to fuck that up too.

        4. Indeed supporting Voter ID laws is crucial to keeping crack addicts from voting 20 times

      2. Yea he could move to an area with more die verse city where people are more realistic.

  22. The Nobel Prize has become a fucking joke. They gave it to President Obama for fucks sake after he was only in office I think for less than a year. President “death-from-above” droner-in-chief was given the Nobel. How ironic. The Nobel is a farce except for the science awards….

    1. Well he was our first half-White… WHOOPS, I mean “Black” President, so he deserved it! Duh! :)-

  23. Good points throughout this article. The man in this article is an example of “watch his actions, his lifestyle and don’t listen to his words”. He is the perfect example of someone who complains about how shit needs to be fixed (change) and he’s all “on board”…as long as someone else is doing the heavy lifting.
    I’ve seen and I’ve heard many people (like this author) through out my life time make similar claims. He’s no different than many people here in the states – usually over educated and white but not exclusively. The shit gets too tough (i.e. draft for the Vietnam war) and many bounced to Canada or Europe. Once it was safe, they all came back (some stayed away but for other reasons).
    And then to award this man the Nobel Peace Prize….you can see how fucked up things really are today with society.
    Yes, you have to love it…the professional victims.

  24. haven’t quite finished this, but I do love assassination jobs, particularly when its a smug left hit. Could never work out what Coetzee’s attraction was to be honest – tried to read something he wrote on Dostoyevsky – unimaginably dull – could get through. Watched ‘disgrace’ – the movie of the book, and again dull but easy to see how it got so much acclaim by pressing all the right lefty buttons: weak father, strong woman, rape, etc.
    Coetzee is just one more example of the truth that literary prizes are given for PC politics not the ability to write

  25. The Afrikaners should have created their own Ethnostate instead of handing over the country to the ANC. Screwed now, especially those who can’t leave.

  26. Welcome back Mr. CHUBBS. I haven’t seen any articles from you in a while. Always enjoy your work man.

  27. I read somewhere that in South Africa, if you are a white farmer, you have a 10% chance of being murdered! That’s ridiculous! The government over here are black racists, so nothing is done to protect the whites.
    Can you imagine if black racists like Obama, Holder, and the Ferguson rioters were 92% of the population? Well that’s how South Africa is.

  28. I lived in South Africa from 2011 to 2013, and the older blacks there that are honest will admit that life was better under apartheid. There were jobs, working schools, reliable electricity and few corrupt politicians. So many of the white people have left or are planning on leaving, which makes the country so much poorer. The reverse discrimination and affirmative action against the whites is disgusting.

  29. The apartheid debate is just anti-colonialism. Not enough to say colonialism is wrong, it must be spun into a uniquely wicked crime.

    1. Yes but not all colonial practices are the same. Go to the Caribbean, they LOVE the colonial empires there because the systems weren’t that authoritarian or brutal.

      1. In general, population and life expectancy boomed under colonial rule. Hence why subjects from the interior of Africa for example would go the European controlled spots.
        Now of course there were crimes and criminals, like Leopold the Second, but if we speak generally Colonial powers probably have less to feel guilty of than other conquerors and nationbuilders.
        I would say our nationbuilding in the middle east is closer to the colonial horror stories than Colonialism itself.

        1. It’s no coincidence that Colin Powell has Caribbean roots. The British especially invested heavily in educating their colonial subjects and surprise surprise, when you do that you get normal upstanding citizens.

        2. Indeed. In Nigeria, there was a tribe that was raided and enslaved by all the other tribes. Until the British built the schools, they went for te schools.
          Suffice to say the tables turned

  30. How does this article help me get laid? I don’t really get the full political alignment of us red-pillers of the community. OK I get it, game yes, anti-feminist yes. Do I have to live in a red state if I take the red pill? Do I have to vote Republican? Do I have to thump a bible (and get with the strict-father starting with God) to get with the patriarchy? Do I have to be a racist? A white supremacist? Do I have to be anti-PhD (Playa-hatin’ Degree)? I’m high on the red pill but somebody tell me where the lines are. Are we anti-science? But Heartiste is forever citing scientific studies that support his positions. Maybe we’re still figuring out the borders of the manosphere. Maybe as a man I just define my own borders. I just think this needs a little more thought than just a knee-jerk conservatism, or automatically taking the opposite opinion of liberals or intellectuals.

    1. ” I don’t really get the full political alignment of us red-pillers of the community.”
      Stop thinking of there having to be an official political Bible that all red-pillers must read from. That’s feminist thinking: hive mind, that you must follow a given ideology chapter and verse and no dissension will be tolerated. Some articles will poke at our prejudices no matter what we do. I find it’s best when it comes to political articles here to regard them mainly as exercises in keeping an open mind. There is no requirement to believe, only that you consider an alternative viewpoint neither taking it to heart automatically nor rejecting it out of hand necessarily. There will be heavy debate here from people, but compare that to the liberal use of banhammers for comments against the party line on sites like Jezebel or xojane. Those places are afraid of dissenting views.
      I prefer Lt. Rasczak’s line from the film version of Starship Troopers: “Figuring things out for yourself is the only freedom anyone ever really has. Use that freedom. Make up your own mind.”

  31. I’ve always seen his books, never picked one up over the years. Now I won’t. Oh, AWESOME ESSAY BILLY CHUBBS, before I forget. I generally loathe writers whose books are such clear monuments to themselves—Explorations of their own experiences as fiction. Most hyphenated, ethnic-based writers are simply sharing their diary with you. The only ‘autobiography as fiction’ type that I liked was Hemingway. McCarthy’s ‘Suttree’ was amazing too. Other than that, most selfists are totally boring and lead to this kind of shit. Tell a story if you’re a writer, I say. Craft it; character, setting, arcs, plot, foreshadowing. Show us your skills with the game’s tools. You wouldn’t see a basketball player step onto the court and start telling the crowd about his childhood in lieu of playing the game. Writing shouldn’t be so different than that. Show us your skill in this game, don’t just bleed your personal shit all over us.

  32. I felt like I got past the “rage stage” years ago. While this article is appreciated and well written… it makes my blood boil. The very word “liberal” or “communist” makes me upset.

  33. As a long time reader of ROK, I’m a bit dismayed at this article. I was born in South Africa in 1978, and have read many books by Coetzee. My parents were reasonably active in anti-Apartheid activities in the 80s. We also lived a pretty comfortable middle-class existence. However, the closer it got to 1994, the clearer we saw the writing on the wall, and we too left the country (in 1995, for the UK).
    While I agree with certain parts of this article (Mandela a terrorist, and the country now circling the drain), it is unfair to call Coetzee (and others who left) hypocrites. Apartheid was a sadististic, violent, dictatorial regime, which must bear some (not all, only some) responsibility for the country’s current predicament.
    Like many SA whites, Coetzee lived a comfortable middle-class existence. The fact he was critical of the Apartheid regime illustrates how he was acting AGAINST his best interests, and is not a reason to castigate him. These are hard questions, but campaigning against such a barbaric government and police force was the noble thing to do. It could not have continued.
    Unfortunately that racist system which could not be sustained only made way for a corrupt government and excessive crime, so most sensible people (with foreign passports) had to leave. Not sure if these were the reasons why Coetzee left, but it’s wrong to single him out. The description this article paints of him, as some kind of spineless, sex-crazed hack, marauding around the world having sex with co-eds, is not one I recognise from his writings.
    South Africa is a beautiful country, and we all had high hopes. The government is corrupt and ineffectual, and a lot of people wrongly pinned their hopes on Mandela (a man whose myth has been romanticized and falsely promoted by America, and almost everywhere else).
    By the way, Coetzee is a masterful writer. The fact he had both whites and blacks wanting to kill him at various points in his career, shows he was at least being fair to all sides.

    1. I think you’re missing the point of the article. He’s not saying that apartheid was awesome; he’s saying it kept the peace for more people. Now that it’s gone, SA is a bigger hellhole for more people. And…you don’t recognize Coetzee’s flaws from his FICTIONAL autobiographies? Really?

      1. prior to apartheid, when some prime lands were settled by others, was it a hell hole to anyone else? i read about sub-par services that should have been equal during apartheid–was it a hell hole to a set of people then?
        after that, when a group of people are sick of that–is consequence not expected? here’s some red pill: you can’t be rich around a bunch of broke, people.

        1. The area was sparsely populated by Bushmen. The blacks can’t farm or organize commercially viable enterprizes. Show me a black run breadbasket. The blacks in Rhodesia and Haiti have created negrified basket cases.

        2. So the bushmen that were there–no claim of the land there?
          i guess it just depends on perspective. but if those bushmen wrote the story–i wonder when hell started for them?
          but crooked ass folks exist all over. i don’t know enough about the region to dispute accurately.
          what’s a negrified basket case? just a bunch of nut jobs?

        3. Rhodesia fed Africa. The world feeds Zimbabwe.
          Many Boer Farmers have a dash of Bushman blood.

    2. Having a black guy wanting to kill you means you cut him off in traffic or didn’t say excuse me when he bumped into you. It’s really not a high standard.

    3. ” My parents were reasonably active in anti-Apartheid activities in the
      80s. We also lived a pretty comfortable middle-class existence. However,
      the closer it got to 1994, the clearer we saw the writing on the wall,
      and we too left the country (in 1995, for the UK).
      “By the way, Coetzee is a masterful writer.”
      The writing is on the wall for the UK as well.

      Even converting to Islam may not save you:
      So have you decided which country you’re running away to next with your Coetzee books?

    4. RoK’s got a healthy contingent of “race realists”. I wish the better red pill writers would migrate from this cesspit.

    5. White South Africans should have pushed the Bantu over the Zambezi and never let them back in. Should have reaped your own harvests.

  34. So the point of this article: White crime against black local population. Fine, whatever. Black crime against white residents. Problem. The crime rate probably went up because all the violence and injustice perpetrated by the government itself during Apartheid didn’t end up in the “crime rate”.

  35. The rape capital of the world, the murder capital of the world, the AIDS capital of the world, 70,000 whites murdered, high unemployment, misery and unimaginable poverty for the vast majority of the population and this is what western leaders consider an African success story.

    1. Mandela’s family is full of rapists, corruption and murderers!
      The family is fighting for his grave so they can make a theme park.

  36. interesting convo. i’ll have to read up on why Apartheid was initially implemented. Right now, i’m just wondering how a place that was inhabited by blacks got introduced to europeans & subsequent law was put in place to divide an area geographically.
    And not that that’s right or wrong or anything but after displacing people, is no backlash expected or should there not be consequences? should the displaced just be “cool”? was utopia supposed to appear? help me out, yall.

    1. George Obama (barry’s bro) lives in a Kenyan slum and wrote a book. In it he said Africa was better off when colonialists were in charge.

      1. because he’s the foremost authority & speaks for all africans. he should be president of the continent of africa.

  37. Interesting that people commenting about this have no qualms with the author’s hackneyed and deeply immoral defence of Apartheid, and yet the people copping criticism on here are left-wingers. Seems to me that if you don’t have the moral integrity and empathy to be against apartheid, then what you think of others ain’t really worth shit.

    1. He merely presents both siders of the Apartheid debate. After all this article is about the lack of conviction among individuals who implement policy. I strongly suspect Coetzee of being a closet racist as he chose to live in Australia a country with notoriously strict anti-white immigration laws.

      1. where natives were once again disenfranchised & killed & once they learn their history will repeat said violence & turn a place into yet another “cesspool”.

        1. There was no such thing as apartheid only genocide in Australia. The Aboriginal people were displaced from their homeland whereas European colonisation of South Africa displaced the Bantu people who had previously driven of the Khoisan, Khoikhoi and San peoples.

      2. I’m Australian. Our immigration laws were racist up until about the 1970’s. Since then, the race-baiting has mostly centred on asylum seekers. It is a source of deep shame for our country, that both major parties participate in that. That said however, I think that it’s preposterous to suggest that that was Coetzee’s reason for moving here, given that he fought against apartheid. Australia is paradise, just a lovely place to live. There are maybe a few places in the world that match it, more or less, but nowhere beats living here.
        Taking the ‘other side’ of the apartheid ‘debate’, and trying to misrepresent it as being anything other than evil is despicable. This article oozes racism, and makes feeble attacks on a man who stood against it.

        1. Not for long. Better get accustomed to nigger and sand nigger dick raping your women and your arse and maybe learn some Chinese too.
          Australia is gone! Sold out by rich and leftists.

  38. This article’s foundation is a complete misreading of Coetzee’s work and a complete misunderstanding of his character and beliefs. You’re just taking someone’s life and picking and choosing bits and pieces that you can project your stereotypes about leftists onto and then taking your anger about leftists out on that person.

  39. The observations the author has made about this Coetzee thing ought to be raised more often by “those who can see”.
    Billy (Burton Bradstock) Bragg attacks white working class people for their racism because they resent being driven out of or becoming minorities in their former neighbourhoods, yet the cunt lives in the whitest part of England it is possible to find. He was born and raised in Dagenham. Why don’t you live there Bragg, you vile hypocritical maggot?! It’s too diverse for you thats why.
    Tony Blair was living in Islington when he pulled some strings – like other members of the liberal establishment do when it comes to schools – to get his own children into a school in Fulham, as far away from diversity enriched schools as possible.
    Gordon Brown attacked a women who made rather mild criticisms of East Europeans taking jobs and school places, now the shitbag lives in Queensferry in Scotland, as far away from non-whites as possible, and his own children attend an all white school of course.
    You can always tell a “liberal” or “socialist” by the ethnic mix of the school their own children attend. (All white.)

    1. These left parasite men always have a sexual deviancy with women of colour.
      And they benefit from multiculturalism without any of the threats and violence.
      Hopefully he or someone he loves gets some volence or Love (read rape) from a muslims nigger

  40. The author makes some very good points specific to the subject but extrapolates his conclusions into the absurd.
    Since when did this forum turn into a pulpit for racial hatred and political grandstanding? And what the hell does that have to do with Kings? It’s a shame given the quality of some of the articles.

  41. White South Africans should flee as refugees. Seems “refugees” get a clean pass into UK, Australia etc. And if anyone deserves it it is them.
    But remember children Black people can’t be racist!

Comments are closed.