All aboard the Ritual Slaughter Express

When South Africa’s new Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen, announced Roman Cabanac as his Chief of Staff in late August, the backlash against his hiring decision was swift. The objections primarily came from the race conscious left within mainstream media. While this development was entirely predictable, there were also criticisms from other, more surprising quarters. Soon, the negative reporting reached a fever pitch, and the entire affair seemed poised to become yet another depressing example of a manufactured scandal – one with a predetermined malevolent outcome.

However, sifting through the ashes after this latest firestorm, there appear to be some signs of new, albeit fragile, life. South African relations have weathered devastating firestorms for many years now, and an analysis of the most recent inferno might yield insights to help guard against future attacks by so-called “antiracist” arsonists.

I

The tittering first began on social media, and as sure as the sun, the moon, the tides, and taxes, these critiques soon spilled onto our printed pages and digital screens. Media outlets such as News24, City Press, Daily Maverick, IOL, Business Day, Vrye Weekblad, Rapport, and Sunday Times published these pieces in rapid-fire succession.

At first, the media’s relentless repetition drove home a singular message: Roman Cabanac is “controversial”. Yet upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that this label primarily stems from his willingness to break with the permitted narrative.

For instance, on August 26, an article by City Press (published on News24) dubbed Cabanac a “controversial right-winger”, a “controversial podcaster”, and a “conservative social media activist”. According to the publication, Cabanac had been involved in “many controversies on X” and that he had “gained particular notoriety” for his “controversial political statements”. The writer was then at pains to point out that this occurred soon after “the uproar” involving the Democratic Alliance (DA) for having appointed “another controversial Youtuber and podcaster”, referring to the DA MP Renaldo Gouws.

The next day, on 27 August, News24 followed up with a report that announced Steenhuisen was defending his appointment of this “controversial right-winger” and “conservative social media activist”. The article also emphasised that the appointment came “in the wake of another scandal”, involving the “controversial Youtuber and podcaster, Renaldo Gouws”.

On August 27, IOL entered the fray with a fresh angle in its headline, opting for the term “polarising” instead, before reverting back to the familiar “controversial” framing in the lede, labeling Cabanac a “controversial podcaster and media activist”. The article also once again revisited the case of “controversial Renaldo Gouws”, who had “uttered hate speech and racist remarks some years ago”. Thus, Cabanac’s appointment occurred “amid backlash toward the Democratic Alliance (DA)”. IOL then claimed that Cabanac had “achieved prominence as the co-host of The Renegade Report” where he “interviewed people with extreme opinions”.

These articles deployed the usual arsenal of smear words and scare tactics, aiming to manipulate public opinion by wielding loaded language and unflattering imagery – words and photographs all designed to cast Cabanac in readers’ minds as A Very Bad Person.

The coverage built into a frenzy with the media running numerous articles, citing each other as authorities, and hammering home their framing in readers’ minds. Among the endlessly repeated slurs were that Cabanac was a “racist”, a “bigot”, a “divisive” figure, a “race-baiter”, and a member of the “alt-right” who had once called Cyril Ramaphosa a “poes”.

On 29 August, City Press and News24 ramped up the rhetoric further and published yet another attack. This evidently drew inspiration and half-digested information from earlier hit pieces, without seeing fit to verify any of it. The headline was “Race-baiting, ableism, nazi-sympathising and more: Meet John Steenhuisen’s new hire, Roman Cabanac”.

II

But, to start with, who is Roman Cabanac and what has he done to offend so many in the media? Cabanac and his co-host, Jonathan Witt, burst onto the media scene when South African public discourse was at its most suffocating. Their groundbreaking podcast “The Renegade Report” emerged as a direct reaction to pervasive media bias, opening a window and letting some fresh air into a decidedly stuffy room. In fact, the show offered a counter to precisely the types of media-activist smears that are now being used against Cabanac.

The longform broadcast show – running typically to around an hour or slightly more – offered both relief and a refreshing alternative to those who wanted to hear directly from public figures. This was particularly true of those public figures whom one had a sense had been maliciously maligned by the press. The Renegade Report allowed listeners to hear directly from these figures in their own unfiltered words. In total, there were around 150 episodes (originally intended to be just six), and the show concluded during the lockdowns, as Cabanac shifted his focus to “Morning Shot”.

The Renegade Report welcomed a broad spectrum of views, although many on the political left routinely, and rather snootily, declined the hosts’ invitations to appear on the show. Nevertheless, guests spanned the ideological spectrum, ranging from anarcho-communists to conservatives, with many liberals in-between. Notably, the show featured numerous guests from the Institute of Race Relations (IRR), including Gareth van Onselen, Ivo Vegter, and Gabriel Crouse, among others – some of whom made repeat appearances.

The show achieved wild success. Its production was slick, but what perhaps irked some was the fact that neither host was a full-time journalist. Witt, a medical doctor, and Cabanac, a legal consultant, broke new ground and paved the way for others to launch their own shows.

Cabanac is clearly allergic to the shibboleths of the racialist Left. Through his shows on the Renegade Report and later on Morning Shot, he exposed the orgiastic excesses of the “woke” movement. His chosen weapons were irreverence and acerbic wit. Oftentimes, he wielded hyperbolic or ironic statements, deliberately challenging the boundaries of “polite” discourse. In Afrikaans, there’s a fitting term for this: aspris.

Unfortunately, taken out of context, some of these statements are now being turned against him. Yet, while his approach may have been displeasing to some, he deserves none of the degrading labels that the media has tried to stick onto him.

III

In the media coverage of the past few weeks there was no effort to present Cabanac as a rounded human being, to interview people who knew him well, and to present a fair and balanced portrait of Steenhuisen’s new Chief of Staff. Instead, the most grotesque and damaging claims imaginable were made on the flimsiest basis possible.

The source for the claim that Cabanac was a “Nazi sympathiser” stemmed from an earlier News24 report that Cabanac had “upset several Jewish people after interviewing ‘Nazi sympathisers’” and that it was journalist Nechama Brodie who had objected to these online conversations. The sole basis of this claim was a Jewish Report article from five years ago that had said something completely different. Cabanac, as an electoral candidate for the classically liberal ZACP, had once gone on someone else’s podcast to debate various critics and opponents of his party, some of whom held unpleasant views. When asked for comment Cabanac told the publication, “I don’t sympathise with their views at all, which is why I agreed to debate them. The point of the debate is to challenge and criticise views.”

Other dubious claims originated in an attack on Cabanac by Daily Maverick journalist Rebecca Davis, headlined “Steenhuisen’s podcast bro appointment of Roman Cabanac is a low for the DA”. Davis dismissively referred to Cabanac as an “alt-right podcaster” and a “podcast bro” and a “shitposting right-wing provocateur”.

It is worth noting in passing that the phrase “podcast bro” carries significant baggage – with undertones of both racialism and misandry. There are many successful black podcasters. Yet, rarely, if ever, are they diminished as “podcast bros”. Instead, the term is mainly used, both here and abroad, to refer to white males considered “conservative” or “right-wing” by the race conscious left, which in South Africa has been a culturally hegemonic force within the press for many years now.

Davis also wrote that Cabanac had “referred to President Cyril Ramaphosa as a ‘p*es’”. This framing conveyed the impression to the casual reader that Cabanac had at some point angrily or rudely verbally attacked Ramaphosa online. This allegation took fire, both in the mainstream press and on social media, where many South African users were predictably incensed. The Daily Maverick’s Stephen Grootes pompously declaimed in an article: “And while the coalition government includes people of many different views, none of them has called President Cyril Ramaphosa a ‘p**s’.” For his part City Press journalist, Johan Eybers, contacted the presidency to enquire about Ramaphosa’s feelings after the “podcast in which [Cabanac] allegedly referred to the president as a “p**s.”

However, if you go and follow Davis’ link in her article, all that actually comes up is a jokey meme shared on the Morning Shot Twitter account. This featured an image of an aircraft with the tail numbers PP-OES, with the comment: “Glad to see the President’s plane has been fixed.”

Glad to see that the President’s plane has been fixed. pic.twitter.com/FiCIcCQ554

— MorningShot (@MorningShot1) February 28, 2023

In their mock outrage, Davis and others coyly inserted two little stars in the word “poes” (‘p**s’), feigning moral decency as if they wished to avoid further offense to the president, or their readers’ sensibilities. This was somewhat galling considering their own enthusiastic embrace of similar free expression. Daily Maverick journalists have openly indulged in foul-mouthed rhetoric for years – not only on social media but also in their articles. In particular, the synonymous term “doos” appears to be a particular favourite of theirs, one which invokes much mirth and mutual backslapping on social media whenever it is employed.

Davis has also previously boasted online about her “postgraduate degree from Oxford specialising in metaphors”. Presumably, a metaphor specialist’s understanding would also extend to an understanding of the subtleties of memes and jokes. The moralising therefore amounts to little more than desperate clutching at fake revolutionary pearls.

III

Another poisonous assertion of Davis, blindly regurgitated by others, was that Cabanac was “alt-right”. Racial leftists are adept at changing word meanings to suit their own agendas – a strategy wielded with great effect – but the fact remains: “alt-right” does not mean “a man with conservative views who, for the moment, still has access to a partially-free internet”.

The alt-right started in the United States and is a far-right white nationalist movement that is explicitly anti-capitalist and antisemitic. It seems self-evident that a founding member of a capitalist party (the ZACP) cannot be considered anti-capitalist. And nor can someone who co-hosted a podcast show spanning 150 episodes alongside someone who is Jewish be reasonably labelled antisemitic. A clearly ironic tweet about being the target of this slur in the past nonetheless formed the centrepiece of an attack by Max du Preez, headlined Is Steenhuisen and Zille’s alt-right slip showing?

IV

While the media’s resistance to Cabanac’s appointment was to be expected, the criticisms from the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) have been a surprise. Gabriel Crouse, the executive director of the IRR’s legal division, penned an opinion piece published on News24, accusing Cabanac of the indelible sin of having once made a “racist remark”.

For years, the mainstream media insisted that the DA must move away from its liberal principles in order to appeal to black activists and voters. In his recent autobiography the former DA leader Mmusi Maimane related that during his time leading the party he had also concluded “that, for the DA, liberalism was not something born in South Africa but an imported Western concept. The DA’s views on this are out of context and timeline, so it is by nature a conceptual import from an old dying universe.”

After the Sunday Times tweeted out a link to an extract containing that claim Cabanac responded: “The DA is a constant reminder that blacks are not liberals. If you want to be a liberal party, it cannot be black-run.”

This was a clumsy take, and a silly generalisation, but it is not one that could be said to go against the prevailing racial doctrine in South Africa or the West for that matter. Black liberals are subjected to particularly degrading racial abuse (as “Uncle Toms” or “House Negroes”) for breaking ranks.

Individuals should be judged, and written about, in the whole. In his article and during subsequent broadcast interviews, Crouse emphasised that Cabanac is a genuinely kind individual – a long-standing acquaintance who consistently treats everyone, regardless of their origins, with utmost respect. In other words, anything but a “racist”, a “bigot”, a “Nazi sympathiser” or a “race-baiter”. Crouse’s concern, he made clear, lay with Cabanac’s political views.

In his article, Crouse lists the IRR’s values, describing what he calls the “classical liberal formula” that would benefit the agricultural sector, namely: “strong private property, spreading title deeds, free trade, efficient extension services, prudent risk management, and non-racialism in principle and practice”. However, he conspicuously omits a very important one: freedom of speech.

According to Crouse, Cabanac is “vocally illiberal and has been for years. The rising popularity of illiberal views like his, and others, as illiberalism comes in many forms, has been effectively exploited in all race groups.” Cabanac may be on the more conservative end of the liberal spectrum, but which of the classical liberal ideals of a limited government, a market economy, private enterprise, freedom of speech, individual liberty, property rights, or the rule of law is he offending precisely?

He has for years stood up for the free speech of others, including many who were being wrongly deplatformed and cancelled (including Politicsweb – Editor). The IRR’s employees in addition appeared on multiple Renegade Report shows, at a time when they struggled to get a hearing elsewhere.

Crouse then takes issue with Cabanac’s alleged “anti-constitutional” views, because he previously had shown interest in Orania, by filming there, and was similarly open to discussing the idea of Cape secession. The first point to make is that there are black journalists who have had positive things to say about Orania, including the South African podcaster, Penuel the Black Pen, that has visited Orania and spoken of the lessons or inspirations that could be taken from the experience.

For most of us, living in Orania would not be our chosen lifestyle. But Orania has a right to exist, and these conversations are important. We should be having more of them. This is what a healthy and tolerant society should look like. As for Cape secession, Phil Craig and members of the movement, of all races, were similarly the victims of Leftist attacks.

I am sorry, but before the GNU – which is still fragile — there was a real risk of South Africa turning into a Venezuelan-style hellscape. In this context, trying to escape such an outcome is perfectly understandable and a legitimate and hardly “illiberal” response.

What is genuinely illiberal is to fixate on a single poorly formulated comment, made in the moment, and damn the person who made it in perpetuity, to the extent of agitating against them receiving salaried employment.

V

Reading the articles by Davis and others about Cabanac, a distinct pattern emerges: certain topics are deemed acceptable for discussion, while others are strictly verboten. In terms of free speech, racial leftists have arrogantly arrogated to themselves the power to decide who gets to make jokes, who gets to speak, how we should express ourselves, whom we’re allowed to listen to, and who gets to enjoy employment in areas traditionally considered their domain. This power was achieved through feigned outrage, the hijacking of public empathy, and – in the worst-case scenario – the destruction of reputations.

“It is simply ludicrous to suggest that Roman Cabanac – a podcaster who seems to draw up wills on the side – is the most qualified candidate to serve as chief of staff to the Minister of Agriculture,” wrote Rebecca Davis. Cabanac, she continued, is “notoriously one of the most divisive, race-baiting voices on local social media”. This denunciation too was echoed across the media landscape.

Again, apart from being unfounded, this is clearly not good faith criticism. Our media displayed no concern whatsoever for the qualifications of candidates through an entire generation of often appalling ANC cadre deployments. And the media’s sudden concern with the terrible offence of “race-baiting” is clearly insincere, given its own well documented predilection for this practice, and the hero worshipping of its most infamous practitioners.

In part the backlash against Cabanac is personal, and there is a considerable amount of score-settling involved. Both the Renegade Report and the Morning Shot pointed fingers at naked displays of “wokeness” by exposing public figures, like former DA MP Phumzile van Damme, who were – or remain – enthralled by identitarian social justice ideology. Referring to Cabanac, Van Damme said she “truly cannot stand that guy” and admitted her ire was “personal”.

A further offence that Cabanac has committed is that his online mien offends against the requirements of “anti-racism”. This asserts that all material disparities between racial groups stem solely from “systemic racism”. Much of the critical social justice rhetoric relies on, and encourages, the notion of “legitimate black anger” against “unequal power relations” and “white oppression”. According to this narrative, whites are advised to mind their “tone”, diligently “do the work”, and quietly take their medicine – irrespective of whether that might involve having to remain silent in the face of real threats to their life or property. Only quiet gratitude is expected, as though survival itself were the reward, given their own inherent villainy.

The real aim then of the journalists and editors that have invested substantial effort and reporting resources into this “story” was simple: to have Cabanac fired, by any means necessary. Grootes for example wrote, “There is no indication as yet that the agriculture minister and DA leader, John Steenhuisen, will revoke his decision to appoint Roman Cabanac as his chief of staff”. Davis told CapeTalk that Steenhuisen had “shown no indication that the position is going to be reconsidered in any way”, while the Sunday Times decided to run a poll “Should John Steenhuisen fire Roman Cabanac?”

Manufactured racism scandals are power plays – a form of metaphorical ritual slaughter. Beneath it all lies a fear of losing control. The race conscious left has long regarded specific spheres and public institutions as their personal fiefdoms. Consequently, when social justice journalists and activists engage in these public rituals, their message is stark: “Stay in your lane, or we’ll come after you – we’ll crush you.” It’s an act of sheer, brutal power.

The author James Lindsay succinctly captures the essence of the social justice movement’s use of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in cases such as these: “CRT is calling everything you want to control racist until you control it”. In practice, activists wield their poison pens, transforming opponents into unspeakable golems within the public consciousness. Through hit pieces and character assassinations, they manipulate public opinion to install their own social justice-friendly candidates, so as to advance their collectivist agenda.

Will Steenhuisen stand his ground? And is Cabanac up to the task? I don’t know the answer to either. But I see no issue with either Cabanac’s qualifications or his views, when considered in the whole, and would therefore wish him well. Accountability is important and if he stumbles, let him face scrutiny. But let’s ensure that any charges brought against him are accurate, genuinely newsworthy, and made in good faith.

Activist ankle-biting, while perhaps tempting for some, won’t escape notice. In the meantime, ministers should ignore activist assassins and continue apace with the mop-up operations within their respective departments. South African race relations and, more crucially, the country’s peace and prosperity, depend on it.