Saturday, 7 June 2014

A Monkey in Silk is a Monkey No Less

Current mayor of London, the UK Conservative Party’s Boris Johnson, has recently (Thursday, 5 June 2014) announced in a piece in the UK’s The Telegraph newspaper that:

London will fall like the Greek city of Sparta if it turns away immigrants like the ancient militaristic regime which “kicked people out.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron's pledge to bring down immigration into the tens of thousands was a “policy failure” and should never have been attempted, the Mayor said.
"Look at Athens and Sparta," Johnson told the Telegraph.
"Athens was an open city and Sparta kicked people out. Go and look at the ruins of Athens and Sparta now and ask which of the two cities made the greatest contribution to civilisation. Look at the greatness of the American economy."



Johnson was educated at the European School of Brussels, Ashdown House School, Eton College, and Balliol College, Oxford—where, of all things, he read Classics.

He began a career in journalism with The Times and then The Telegraph, where he became Assistant Editor from 1994 to 1999. In that year, he became editor of The Spectator, a position he held until his election as a Member of Parliament in 2005. In 2008, he became Mayor of London.

Given all this, one might be forgiven for thinking that Johnson might actually know what he is talking about.

So why this blog post? Well, simply put, Johnson is talking complete and utter rubbish.

I had the temerity to scribble off a letter to The Telegraph in response to Johnson’s article.

I have no hope that they will actually print it, of course, so I thought I might as well put it up here, just for amusement, if nothing else:

Letters to the Editor
The Telegraph
Sir/Madam

With reference to Boris Johnson’s utterly unfounded claims that Sparta fell because it did not welcome foreigners (The Telegraph, 5 June 2014), please allow me to correct his clearly deficient historical knowledge.

The truth is exactly the opposite of what Mr. Johnson claims:

Firstly, it was Athens, not Sparta, which introduced a law in 451 BC which limited citizenship of that city state to those of Athenian biological descent only; and

Secondly, Sparta fell because it exhausted itself in military adventures, not because it expelled foreigners.

Mr. Johnson is obviously unaware that in 451 BC, the last great Athenian leader, Pericles, enacted a law which definitively expelled foreigners from Athenian citizenship.

As detailed in Aristotle’s book, Politics (Book 3, 1278a), Pericles’ law limited Athenian citizenship to those who had biological descent from Athenians—in other words, only those born of an Athenian mother and an Athenian father could be citizens of Athens.
Sparta never had any such law—so it was Athens, which did give so much to Western civilization, which “expelled foreigners,” not Sparta.

With regard to Sparta, what Mr. Johnson is mistakenly referring to is an institution known as the Crypteia.

This institution, according to Plutarch, was an annual event where on one night a year, certain private Spartan militia would hunt down and kill helots, or the lowest class members in Spartan society. It is true that these helots were not Spartans.

But Sparta did not fall because of this annual private militia action.

In fact, Sparta conquered all of southern Greece when its armies defeated those of Athens during the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), and remained supreme until 371 BC.

In that latter year, the Spartan army, which was already weakened by almost continual war, was defeated by a new alliance of people from central Greece, the Boerotians and Thebans, at the Battle of Leuctra.

This 371 BC defeat was so massive that Sparta, finally bled dry of its warrior class, was never again able to dominate Greece, and their territory was absorbed into the Second Achaean League, a confederation of Greek city states which lasted from 280 BC and 146 BC.

There is therefore, no link to Sparta “not welcoming foreigners” and its collapse, as Mr Johnson alleges.

Even worse for Mr. Johnson’s already twisted thesis, the Athenian civilization collapsed long before Sparta.

The Athenian Golden Age ended with the Peloponnesian War in 404 BC—so actually Sparta outlived classical Athens by over a century.

Mr Johnson should really do his research better.

As Abraham Lincoln once said: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”

Yours sincerely

It might be a coincidence, but shortly after I sent this letter, Johnson’s article suddenly vanished off the Telegraph’s website, and the URL was replaced with this message:




Fortunately, the article was copied by the Huffington Post, and you can still read it there.


God help Britain if this is the quality of “intellectual” who is not only Mayor of London, but also pretender to the leadership of the Conservative Party.

Tuesday, 3 June 2014

Hungarian Prime Minister Echoes March of the Titans

“History has shown us that the civilisations that cannot biologically be maintained, will disappear”—Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

I am happy indeed to read that the current Hungarian Prime Minister and leader of the Fidesz Party has announced to what must have been a shocked shriek of liberals* one of the basic principles of March of the Titans: that any given civilisation only exists for as long as its founding population remains intact.



Vicktor Orbán made his announcement before the WDR Forum in Berlin—you can read all about it here.

Would it be too much to hope that this understanding is now at last beginning to percolate out to the wider society, and Europeans in particular? 

Maybe it’s too early to tell, but the signs from Hungary are encouraging, to say the least.

The basic principle which the Hungarian Prime Minister endorsed can be found in the prologue to March of the Titans, here.

* “A shriek of liberals” was a collective noun invented by my old friend, Anthony Jacob.

Thursday, 13 March 2014

New Study: “A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History”

A fascinating new study whose online component has an interactive DNA map has provided a dramatic visual overview of the racial history of selected groups around the world—and has confirmed the essential thesis of March of the Titans.

The new study, titled “A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History,” published in Science 14 February 2014: Vol. 343 no. 6172 pp. 747-751 (DOI: 10.1126/science.1243518) says the following in its abstract summary:

“Modern genetic data combined with appropriate statistical methods have the potential to contribute substantially to our understanding of human history.
“We have developed an approach that exploits the genomic structure of admixed populations to date and characterize historical mixture events at fine scales.

“We used this to produce an atlas of worldwide human admixture history, constructed by using genetic data alone and encompassing over 100 events occurring over the past 4000 years.

“We identified events whose dates and participants suggest they describe genetic impacts of the Mongol empire, Arab slave trade, Bantu expansion, first millennium CE migrations in Eastern Europe, and European colonialism, as well as unrecorded events, revealing admixture to be an almost universal force shaping human populations.”

This remarkable study’s online element can be found here, or by clicking on the graphic below.

By clicking on a population group on the map, an automatic display comes up showing the broad genetic compositions of each sample group.

It is important to note that the results are, of course, only based on the returns provided by each sample group, and should not automatically be presumed to be representative of every single individual in that particular group.


Nonetheless, the map essentially proves once again the accuracy of the historical account of racial demographic population shifts, as outlined in March of the Titans.


Tuesday, 10 December 2013

Mandela Lied to World: South African Communist Party Admits He was Senior Central Committee Member

The South African Communist Party has finally admitted that Nelson Mandela was a senior Central Committee member, exposing as lies the deceased ANC’s leader’s claims to the contrary made in his autobiography, his official biography and during the famous Rivonia Treason Trial, where he denied to the world that he was a Communist party member.

The post-mortem confession by the Stalinist SA Communist Party (SACP) is contained in the latest edition of their party journal, Umsebenzi, as part of their eulogy to Mandela.

The article, titled “The true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love,” the SACP wrote that

“At his arrest in August 1962, Nelson Mandela was not only a member of the then underground South African Communist Party, but was also a member of our Party’s Central Committee.

“To us as South African communists, Cde Mandela shall forever symbolise the monumental contribution of the SACP in our liberation struggle.
“The contribution of communists in the struggle to achieve the South African freedom has very few parallels in the history of our country. After his release from prison in 1990, Cde Madiba became a great and close friend of the communists till his last days” (Umsebenzi Online, Volume 12, No. 42, 6December 2013).

Not only does this confession finally end the debate over whether Mandela was a Communist or not, but it also reveals him to have lied blatantly on at least three public occasions over the matter.

The first time was at the trial at which he was sentenced to prison, where, in his statement to the court, he denied being an SACP member in the light of a handwritten (by him) document being handed in as evidence titled “How to be a Good Communist.”

At the time, Mandela admitted to writing it, but claimed that it was just a copy of something someone else had written, and was not authored by him.
Addressing the court, Mandela declared that he had “never been a member of the Communist Party,” and that he disagreed with the movement’s contempt for Western-style parliamentary democracy.

In his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela also denied in writing that he was an SACP member (Mandela, Nelson (1994), Long Walk to Freedom Volume I: 1918–1962, Little, Brown and Company, p. 365).

Finally, in his authorized biography, Mandela: The Authorised Biography, he also denied being an SACP member (Sampson, Anthony (2011) [1999], Mandela: The Authorised Biography, London: HarperCollins. pp. 135–138).

It must be remembered that, at the time when Mandela was an SACP Central Committee member, the party was completely allied to the Soviet Union, which had only recently brutally repressed democratic uprisings in a number of eastern European nations.


The news that Mandela chose to lie about his hard-line Communist affiliations is unlikely to worry the sycophantic westerners now grovelling at his passing.

Sunday, 8 December 2013

To Those Who Don't Understand

To those who don't understand my previous post: this one is for you.

I love Ireland. Maybe it's because my grandmother was Irish, but whatever the case, Richie Kavanagh just sums so much up:


Thursday, 5 December 2013

Nelson Mandela Dies: A Nationalist Reappraisal, or, Where Would You Have Stood as a Black Person in Pre-1994 South Africa?

Commentary on the news of the death of 95-year-old Nelson Mandela will vary tremendously, from fawning obsequience and hero-worship in the mass media, to outright condemnation by "right wing" commentators.

I would like to take a different approach, not only because I want to be different, but also because this is something which I really believe and which the "right wing" would do well to consider.

The time has come for all honest pro-European activists across the world to take on a new perspective of this African nationalist.


Yes, Mandela was a Communist.

Yes, although Mandela personally did not kill anybody, and never set off any bombs, or even shoot a gun in anger—he certainly had the intention to do so and the organization which he founded—the ANC’s armed wing—most certainly did kill people.

And Mandela was certainly no friend of white people, no matter how the media tries to spin it.

Yes, the current state of South Africa is shocking.

But I would suggest that the current state of South Africa was inevitable, and would have occurred even if Mandela had never lived.

The knee-jerk condemnation of Mandela as the cause of South Africa's problems, is a typically “right wing” misunderstanding of the story of the political development of South Africa.

I know, because this was the line I was fed as a youngster in Southern Africa, and, sadly, believed for a long time—until I became wiser and realized it was just another lie of apartheid.

The pointless war: Arthur Kemp. (left front) and his Casspir crew, Unit 19 mobile reaction unit, 1988. 
The reality is that the ANC only resorted to “armed struggle” some 50 years after its foundation. During those prior five decades, it had sought to end white minority rule by protests, mass demonstrations, strikes, stay-aways and so on.

The state, however, refused to contemplate black rule, and cracked down on the ANC—using force.

From Mandela’s perspective therefore, it can be argued that the resort to “armed struggle” was a reaction to the state’s violence against opposition to Apartheid.

And, contrary to the “right wing” version of history, this is in fact completely accurate. The ANC resorted to violence and, yes, terrorism, after its five decades of peaceful attempts to end white rule.

Think about it for a minute: if you had been a black person in pre-1994 South Africa, what would you have done?

The time has come to be completely honest about this: if I had been a black in South Africa in the pre-1994 era, I would have supported the ANC and the armed struggle as well. And so would all of my “right wing” friends in South Africa—had they been black.

The truth is that any objective observer cannot “blame” Africans for wanting to rule themselves, not be ruled by whites and for eventually taking up arms to achieve this goal.

Quite frankly, that is a perfectly normal human reaction, and I would expect it of any healthy people.

No healthy race wants to be ruled by others. 

Why would you, except if you were sick?

Now I know that Mandela was an self-admitted socialist. He described himself as such (see Sampson, Anthony (2011) [1999]. Mandela: The Authorised Biography. London: HarperCollins) and one of the main pieces of evidence during the Rivonia Treason Trial was a hand-written document by him called “How to be a Good Communist.”

I know that the ANC committed many gruesome atrocities in its “armed struggle.” But I also know, from personal experience of my four years’ national service in South Africa from 1985-1988, that the state was prone to violence as well. It was a cycle of violence, each outrage feeding the next in an ever-increasing spiral.

But all of this aside: the true meaning of Mandela is that here was a man, fully committed to the liberation of his people at whatever cost, who held true to this belief and never wavered.

Even though you may personally not like his ideology or what was done in his name (and, given the outrageous black-on-white murders in South Africa which are still occurring), you cannot get away from the fact that from his perspective, he stood by his principles and never faltered, even though the personal cost was massive.

The desire of Africans to rule themselves in their nations, free of white rule, as personified by the life of Mandela, in fact justifies the demand of Europeans to rule themselves in their nations.

Think about it. Instead of condemning Africans for wanting to rule themselves, pro-European activists should accept that it was wrong for Europeans to colonize the Third World—and therefore, that it is equally wrong for the Third World to colonize European lands.

Instead of condemning Africans for doing what any healthy people would do, “right wingers” should give up the old, tired and failed rhetoric, and instead be looking for a “European Nelson Mandela” to help lead them away from the path of extinction on which they are currently headed.

Friday, 22 November 2013

A Letter to the Editor of De Telegraaf, Amsterdam. UPDATED

Letters to the Editor
De Telegraaf
Amsterdam

Dear Sir/Madam

The article “Moeder van drie” by Catherine Keyl (De Telegraaf, wo 20 nov 2013) refers.



As the author of the world’s only history of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) of South Africa,* I must point out that the above article is completely untrue.

It is also one of the worst examples of poor research and rumour-based gutter journalism that I have ever seen.

The article claims that right wing whites are killing white farmers with the intention of blaming blacks and stirring up racial tension, and that a “mother of three,” one Cornelia de Wet, has “confessed” to taking part in these murders.

However, Ms Keyl has failed to do the most basic research—which would be expected of any professional journalist—before publishing this incredible claim.

I wish to point out just some of the basic facts which should have been checked before the article was published:

1. De Wet’s allegations were rejected in court by the South African police at an unrelated trial on 4 November 2013—TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE ARTICLE BY MS KEYL APPEARED in De Telegraaf.

A police officer rejected claims by a rightwing woman that she played a part in the Steenkamp murders on a farm near Griquatown last year, the Northern Cape High Court heard on Monday.
“There is no truth in these allegations,” investigating officer Dick de Waal testified.

2. The police investigating the farm murder upon which the claim centers, rejected  De Wet’s allegations as completely untrue and without basis on 31 October 2013—THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE ARTICLE BY MS KEYL APPEARED in De Telegraaf.

[D]ie polisie “twyfel sterk” oor haar weergawe. Die polisie twyfel oor haar weergawe van gebeure, omdat sy dit glo reeds verskeie kere verander het en nié bepaalde uitwysings kon doen nie.— GW-stad: ‘Daar’s net 1’, Volksblad,  31 Oktober 2013


3. Tobie van den Bergh, editor of the Middelburg Observer in Mpumalanga, who has known Cornelia de Wet since she was 16, has said that she has previously made “amazing confessions” to the press about “right wing activities and farm murders” which have all proven to be completely false.

He gave two examples of such claims:

- Once, De Wet and her mother presented themselves “in bloodied clothes” at his newspaper offices, claiming that they had been tortured by blacks with razor blades. Van Den Bergh said it was obvious that they had cut themselves in an “attempt to draw attention to themselves.”

- Another time, De Wet claimed to him that she had been raped by “her bosses in the right wing.”

Needless to say, none of these wild allegations were taken seriously by anybody, the police included. Van den Bergh added that De Wet was “in urgent need of psychiatric treatment.”

ALL THIS WAS PUBLISHED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE ARTICLE BY MS KEYL APPEARED in De Telegraaf.


De Wet, wat op 29 Mei verlede jaar in hegtenis geneem is en weer op 28 November in die hof moet verskyn, het voorheen ook al “opspraakwekkende onthullings” rondom plaasmoorde of regse bedrywighede teenoor die media gedoen.
Tobie van den Bergh, redakteur van die Middelburg Observer in Mpumalanga, sê hy voel baie jammer vir De Wet.
“Sy het dringend sielkundige hulp nodig. Ek ken haar vandat sy 16 jaar oud is. Sy en haar ma het baie kere, in ’n bebloede toestand, in my kantoor gesit. Albei het beweer swart mense het hulle met lemmetjies gemartel.
“Ek is nie ’n kenner nie, maar glo hulle het hulself gesny om aandag te trek en ’n soort belangrikheid te kry. Sy wil graag ’n indruk maak op haar base in die regse bewegings. Sy het ook al beweer haar regse base het haar verkrag.”— GW-stad: ‘Daar’s net 1’, Volksblad, 31 Oktober 2013.

4. The man named by De Wet as being the head of the “security firm” which carried out the attacks, has been publicly identified as Jac Sherman.

He has denied even knowing De Wet, and has dismissed the allegations as “nothing but lies.”

THIS WAS PUBLISHED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE ARTICLE BY MS KEYL APPEARED in De Telegraaf.

Jaco Scherman, accused of being the mastermind behind the alleged “hit squad” responsible for the murders of three members of the Steenkamp family in Griquatown, has denied ever meeting white female farmer and member of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB), Cornelia de Wet.
“These allegations are nothing but lies. She has a personal vendetta against me after I refused that she use my company as a front to raise money. She is absolutely crazy. I have never met her and do not know where she lives. I have only spoken to her on the telephone twice,” Scherman said.—Security boss denies AWB hit squad claim, Diamond Fields Advertiser, Independent Online, November 1 2013.

As I am sure you will now see, the article by Ms Keyl is completely untrue.

Furthermore, all the facts had been published and were in the public domain THREE WEEKS BEFORE De Telegraaf printed her story.

The situation with farm murders in South Africa is bad enough as it is.

This completely false and gutter journalism of Ms Keyl’s only adds to the problem and spreads lies about an already tragic situation.

I do hope that in the interests of your newspaper’s credibility that you publish this letter—or at the very least, issue a complete retraction, apology and correction of  the article in question.

Yours sincerely
Arthur Kemp


* Victory or Violence: The Story of the AWB of South Africa ISBN 978-1471067464.

UPDATE 25 November. Ms Keyl has advised that she was "misled" by her South African sources and has undertaken to correct the article.....

Thursday, 10 October 2013

The Moving Epicenter

There can be no doubt that the epicenter of "Western Civilization"--or, rather, that which can be salvaged from it--is rapidly moving to Eastern Europe / Western Russia. It will be the last stand, where the survival--or not-- of the European people will be finally determined.