Arthur Kemp’s Blog

ESSAY ONE from the book “The Lie of Apartheid and other true stories from Southern Africa“

It is one of the many bitter ironies about South Africa that the policy of apartheid–to which Afrikaners clung for decades as their only hope and salvation from Third World domination–was in fact an impracticable and unworkable system which led directly to the Afrikaners’ demise as a political force in that country.

The politicians–the National Party–who fostered apartheid are the primary criminals in this tragedy, holding out a false illusory hope to the Afrikaners, and then when the inevitable became just that, changed track and gave in, abandoning their followers to African National Congress (ANC) rule as callously as they had earlier lied to them.

For apartheid–in reality forced social segregation–was nothing but an illusion, a twisted distortion of the demographic reality of South Africa, not to mention the truth that it was ultimately, morally repugnant as well. The conservative white South African politicians never understood what the driving force of political power is: namely, physical occupation. Political power comes from physical occupation: not historical rights, not title deeds, not moral rights-only occupation. Those people who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that region.

Two examples, familiar to all, illustrate this point well:

* Example 1: North America. On that continent, the American Indian (Amerind) people lived for thousands of years, creating a culture which dominated that continent. The culture of North America reflected the fact that the Amerinds lived and formed the majority population there.

After 1500 AD, however, that continent filled up with white immigrants from Europe. These white immigrants displaced the Amerinds by squeezing them out of possession of North America. The Amerind culture had dominated for thousands of years, because they were the majority population. Within one hundred years, this had changed. This shift reflected the fact that the majority of inhabitants of North America had become white Europeans. The Amerind civilization “fell” because the population of North America changed.

This effect–the displacement of peoples and the subsequent disappearance of their civilization–has direct implications in racial terms. The rise and fall of any particular civilization can therefore be traced, not by the economics, politics, morals, etc., of a particular civilization, but rather by the actual racial presence of the people themselves.

If the society which has produced a particular civilization stays intact as a racially homogeneous unit, then that civilization remains active. If, however, the society within any particular given area changes its racial makeup–through invasion, immigration, or any decline in numbers–then the civilization which that society has produced will disappear with them, to be replaced by a new civilization reflecting the new inhabitants of that territory.

* Example 2: Israel. The state of Israel is today a political reality, not because the Bible says Jews belong there (although many Jews and Christians might think so) but simply because the Zionist movement has ensured that Jews are a majority in that territory. This was done through a deliberate policy of settlement and immigration, coordinated over decades.

This also forms the rationale behind the current Israeli government’s plans to build up Jewish settlements in the West Bank: by physically occupying the territory, they hope to change the makeup of that region to the point where it becomes de facto part of Israel.

History teaches us that there are two main reasons for a change in the racial makeup of any society: either military occupation, or the use of alien labor. The American Indians serve as a textbook example of the “military occupation” case study, as detailed above, while South Africa serves as a textbook example of the “use of alien labor” case study. When a change occurs through the use of alien labor, the following process occurs:

- The dominant society imports (usually racially) foreign labor to do the menial work in that society.

- These racial aliens then become established, and settle down and multiply in numbers by drawing upon the society’s structures (in white countries, their science, healthcare, technology, etc.).

- They finally dominate that society by their sheer numbers.

It is, simply put, a demographic reality: those who occupy a land determine the nature of that society. And so it was–and is–with South Africa, where population figures reveal precisely how the use of alien labor by the Afrikaners dispossessed them of their fatherland.

Consider the following: in 1904, the first population census of the old Transvaal revealed that there were 297,277 whites, and 937,127 nonwhites in that region (Transvaal, 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica).

Importantly, the 1904 census also tells us that of these nonwhites, some 135,042 were not from the Transvaal, and were only in the “Witwatersrand to work in the gold and other mines,” and that only 77 percent of all blacks in the Transvaal in 1904 were actually born there (Ibid.).

With transient migrant laborers removed from the equation, this means that there were 297,277 whites and 802,085 locally born blacks in the Transvaal.

According to the 1960 census, the population of the Transvaal numbered 6,225,052, of which only 1,455,372 were whites (Transvaal, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1966, Volume 22, page 423).

These were only the figures for the Transvaal, it needs to be noted. For the entire country, the figures were even more frightening: 4.5 million whites to anywhere between 30 and 35 million nonwhites.

What caused this population imbalance to swing from 802,000 blacks in the Boer homeland in 1904, to 4,769,680 in 1960–just fifty-six years? The answer: the blacks multiplied because they were drawn to the Transvaal by the offer of work. Once settled there, they used the benefits of white society (healthcare, technology, etc.) to exponentially increase their numbers.

The formalization of apartheid by the National Party after 1948 did not address the real issue which has faced every minority trying to rule over a majority country throughout history. This inherent contradiction of allowing huge numbers of racial aliens into a territory whilst trying to prevent that majority population from dominating that society has never been solved.

The truth is that it cannot be done.

In South Africa, almost every white household had (and still has) one or more black servants.

Afrikaner farmers–who are subject to a viciously high rate of attacks and murders–generally have hundreds of black laborers working their huge farmlands.

In the mines, the economic heart of the country, the vast majority of common laborers, numbering many hundreds of thousands, are black.

All over the country the overwhelming majority of laborers doing almost everything, from factory work to driving, from road building to house building, from restaurant workers to shop clerks, are black.

Over this mass of economic integration, the apartheid government attempted to enforce social segregation and still maintain a white government: it was a plan which was doomed from the start.

Apartheid was based on a fallacy: the fallacy that nonwhites could be used as labor to drive society; that nonwhites could physically form a majority inside South Africa, but that they could not determine the nature of South African society.

This then, was the lie of apartheid: that it was possible, through strict segregation, to ensure that blacks could not rule over a country in which they were the majority.

The historical record is clear: there has never been a society in which the majority of the population has not determined the nature of that society.

White South Africans, it must be said, more or less believed the lie. They were happy to have black domestic servants cleaning their homes, ironing their clothes, making up the very beds in which they slept-and were prepared to believe that this mass of established black labor inside their territory would never have any effect upon the political power structure of their country.

It is said, in fact, that the definition of a white South African is “someone who would rather be murdered in their bed than make it.”

Amusing? To be honest, not really–consider these true examples:

* Under apartheid, blacks could not use white public toilets, but they were used to clean those same toilets each day. One can only wonder at the naiveté of such an arrangement.

* Under apartheid, blacks could work in restaurant kitchens, prepare the food, put it on the plates, and deliver it to the white patrons’ tables, but they could not eat that food at the same table in the same restaurant. What hypocrisy is that? Surely if one was going to be consistent, one would have forbidden blacks from working in restaurants completely. But no, apartheid didn’t go that far; it was built upon the premise that blacks did the work.

Cynical observers talked about the “grass mower” syndrome amongst South African whites. They regarded black labor as akin to lawn mowers. A lawn mower sits quietly in its shed or garage until you need it, then it mows the grass, and then you put it back in the shed where it stays quietly, not causing any trouble, until the next time it is needed.

Somehow, white South Africans believed that black labor was like a lawn mower: you could have it around, and when you didn’t need it, you could hide it in its little shed where it would be good and quiet-until you needed it again.

The reality is, of course, dramatically different.

Another important part of the apartheid lie was that military force could keep the system intact. The demographic reality once again belied this: the South African white population totaled about five million at its height, while the black population at that time was around thirty million.

Of the five million whites, less than eight hundred thousand were of military serviceable age, and not all of these could be called up at any one time. The state had to rely on no more than a few hundred thousand military personnel to try and control a black population of millions.

Given that demographic reality, it can be seen that apartheid was unsustainable by military means. Yet the lie continued, and young white South Africans were conscripted into the army and police to fight and die for a system which was doomed from the very beginning.

At the same time, white Western healthcare and technology were made available on a massive scale. The largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere was erected in the black township of Soweto, outside Johannesburg, specifically for the black population.

Infant mortality rates for blacks fell dramatically (and were way below that of the rest of black ruled Africa). This rapid population growth put additional pressure on the demographic makeup of the country.

As the demographic balloon swelled further and further, the apartheid government was forced to think out ever more stringent and oppressive laws to protect the whites as the black population continued to leapfrog in number year after year.

Laws such as detention without trial and the banning of books and people were bad enough by themselves, but as the conflict intensified, both sides started using methods which would be shunned by any decent society. The apartheid state used officially funded death squads and police torture became routine. The ANC placed bombs in restaurants, and encouraged mobs to necklace murder collaborators, amongst other outrages.

In the name of a lie–that apartheid could be sustained–the state caused morally repugnant acts to take place on both sides of the political divide. The black resistance movements adopted a guerrilla hit and run policy of attacks on strategic targets. To combat this unconventional war, the South African Police were given extended powers of detention and other draconian measures. These could only be short-term firefighting measures, as the main issue: that of preventing majority black occupation of the country, was never addressed by any apartheid law.

The white government tried to give practical application to the policy of “Grand Apartheid.” Independence was given to a number of traditional black tribal homelands, the first in the mid 1970s.

In this way, the apartheid government deluded itself into thinking that black political aspirations could be satisfied with the right to vote only in these tribal homelands–despite massive numbers of blacks living outside of these territories in the white urban areas. (These so-called “white” areas were not majority European once all the black domestic servants, laborers, and farm workers were counted.)

The white government also refused to adjust the size of these traditional tribal areas to fit the changed demographics, stubbornly insisting that the black homelands–some 13 percent of the country’s surface area-could accommodate what was rapidly becoming over 80 percent of the total population, even if it contained much of the prime agricultural land, as was the case.

In a nutshell, the apartheid government refused to accept the basic truth of racial dynamics: those who occupy a space determine the nature of the society in that space, irrelevant of to whom that space originally belonged.

White South Africa’s fate was sealed when the territorial division was not adjusted to fit in with the demographic realities, when all the effort was put into creating black homelands and none put into creating a white homeland, and with the continued insistence upon the use of black labor.

The partial reforms of the mid 1980s–repealing of the laws forbidding mixed racial marriages and mixed racial political parties, and limited constitutional reforms which gave Indians and Coloureds their own parliamentary chambers-did little to stop the increasing violence.

In fact, racial violence increased dramatically. The reforms created an unfulfilled “revolution of rising expectations,” and it was precisely during this cycle of black violence and white counter violence that the racial war taking place inside the country exacted its highest death tolls ever.

In 1990, the white government finally faced the truth that it could no longer effectively control the ballooning black population, so it unbanned the ANC and released Nelson Mandela from prison. By 1994 power had been handed over to the ANC in a one-man, one-vote election. Although strict apartheid had ended in the 1980s, it is from 1994 that the policy is considered to have been laid to rest.

It was an inevitable result: apartheid could not be maintained. It was in practical terms, unenforceable due to the demographic reality, and it was morally unacceptable as well, based as it was upon violent suppression.

White South Africans, therefore, sowed the seeds of their own downfall with apartheid, a system of segregation that could never be maintained in the face of their own use of black labor.

Apartheid had to fall: the only question was when, not if. The politicians, who sold it to white South Africans as their only hope and salvation, lied: either deliberately, or out of ignorance of the reality of the relationship between demographics and power.

Can the Afrikaners be Saved?

From the above, it is clear that the use of nonwhite labor was the direct cause of the downfall of apartheid and white rule in South Africa. Afrikaners lost control of the country because of their lack of understanding of demographics, and not due to farfetched “conspiracies” or “betrayals,” as many would like to believe.

This occupation took place because white South Africa failed to understand that if they employed black labor, those blacks would inevitably form the majority in that society, and ultimately–and rightly–demand political power.

The question therefore arises: given the current situation, can the Afrikaners be saved?Â

The answer is relatively simple:

* In a united South Africa, in which they are the perpetual minority, the answer is no.

* In a smaller region where Afrikaners form the majority population, the answer is yes.

No minority has every survived indefinitely in the face of a growing hostile majority, particularly one in South Africa where the material discrepancy between white and black is so vast.

There is only one way in which Afrikaners can be saved. This would be if firstly they came to an understanding of the relationship between demographics and political power; and secondly, if they then adjust their expectations and political behavior in accordance with their actual numbers and their ability to majority occupy territory.

Only once a majority of Afrikaners understand this truth, can there even begin to be talk of a practical plan for saving them from ultimate long-term extermination at the hands of the Third World.

Theoretically, if a majority of Afrikaners should come to this understanding, then it would be possible for Afrikaners to save themselves–as no one else is going to save them.

Let us be positive and say that theoretically, Afrikaners did come to an understanding of the relationship between demographics and power politics.

Then they would stop wasting time blaming crackpot conspiracies for their downfall, and stop dancing around wasting time playing party politics in a majority rule system in which they are just as doomed to failure as they were under apartheid. Instead, they would start practically working toward creating a territory or region in which they became the demographic majority.

This would, as a result of their small numbers, be a much smaller territory than the current area of South Africa. Its exact location can be decided when and if that time ever comes. However, it must be majority occupied by Afrikaners (like Israel was created by being majority occupied by Jews), and those who settle there must be prepared to do their own labor. (There are immense problems in this, and this writer would be pleasantly surprised if the majority of Afrikaner farmers could be persuaded to dispense with their hundreds of farm laborers and mechanize like their American counterparts; or if the majority of white South African households could be persuaded to make their own beds and wash their own dishes instead of using the plentiful “maids,” but that is another story.)

Yes, this means gathering together the stock Afrikaner nation into a defined area. For example (and this is just a theoretical example), if 500,000 Afrikaners had to settle in the old Eastern Transvaal, and physically occupy it, then this territory would de facto, and later even de jure, become an Afrikaner state.

The only way that Afrikaners can be spared the fate of all First World minorities in Africa, is for them to abandon their dependence on nonwhite labor, accept that their salvation lies in a smaller territory, and congregate in that smaller territory where they will form an outright demographic majority.

There is no other way: all else is chaff in the wind. History will tell if the Afrikaners have it within them to undertake this second Great Trek.

Available here.

For many years, evolutionists claimed that Neanderthals were part of the human evolutionary chain. This belief was blown out of the water with the advent of several DNA studies (here, here and here) which have conclusively shown that there is no evidence of Neanderthal DNA having contributed to the Homo sapiens gene pool.

The evolutionists then quietly dropped Neanderthal from the evolutionary path, and carried on as before.

Now, as I have said often enough, I don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution per se – in fact it is a lot more plausible than the creation theory – but my problem has always been the single-origin theory and the way it is manipulated for political purposes to “prove” we are all African, the same etc. etc.

I have always favoured the distinctly un-pc multiregional theory, which argues that the main racial groupings which comprise modern Homo sapiens developed quite independently in disparate geographic areas, at differing time periods.

This has always seemed to be the more logical explanation for racial speciation, and would certainly better explain that phenomena better than the single origin “out of Africa” theory which asks us to believe that racial speciation occurred in the short (comparatively) span of 100,000 years or so since “we all left Africa.”

And therein lies the rub: because the crazed leftist academics who dominate the “halls of learning” these days even deny that race is a valid taxonomic discipline, they support the “out of Africa” theory precisely because it makes the concept of racial speciation so difficult to accept.

But races there are, and that is the reality.

So I wonder what they will think of the very latest DNA research into Neanderthals, which has now shown that even that group was racially split into defined geographic areas?

According to the new paper, “Genetic Evidence of Geographical Groups among Neanderthals” (Virginie Fabre, Silvana Condemi, Anna Degioanni*Laboratoire d’Anthropologie Bio-culturelle, UMR6578 Université de la Méditerranée, CNRS-EFS, Marseille, France, published April 15, 2009), Neanderthals can be divided into at least three groups: one in western Europe, a second in the southern area and a third in western Asia.

---

---

After analysing all the existing genetic data, the researchers plotted out plausibility studies for all the possible permutations (“Model 1: a unique population; Model 2: derived populations; Model 3: three derived populations; Model 4: A heterogeneous derived population”) and concluded that the only reasonable explanation is model 3.

 

“The third model correspond to an ancestral population which gives rise to three sub-populations: one in the West, another in the East and one in the South,” the paper reports.

“This southern population corresponds to the paleoanthropological hypothesis concerning the presence of a southern population. According to the geographical barriers and morphological evidence, we have established three different divisions. The fossil of El Sidron from a paleogeographic standpoint is closer to French fossils than to Italian and Croatian fossils. On the basis of morphological data it might be closer to the southern fossils (model 3b). Due to its geographical position, the fossil of Mezmaïskaya, discovered in the Caucasus, might be placed either in the eastern (model 3a) or in the western group (model 3b and 3c).

“For model 3 (a, b, c) we made the same assumptions as in model 2 regarding population growth, migration, population sizes, and generation time. Forty eight simulations of this model have been tested, sixteen by grouping. Most measures of genetic diversity fit the observed measures more closely than in the previous models. Indeed, if we consider a growing population in which migration occurs, we see plausible and best values of P(Co|C) for all models (3a, 3b and 3c) for simulation sets with twelve or nine sequences. The most precise fit is that of model 3c, which presents values of P(Co|C) closest to 0.5. If we consider a growing population with no migration, only model 3c presents the best values of P(Co|C). Thus models three, which posit three groups among Neanderthals, and assume a growing population, seem to be most realistic, and model 3c is the most plausible one.”

In other words, there were distinct races of Neanderthals, as there are races amongst Homo sapiens.

Some of us will not be surprised.

The state-owned Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (Norsk rikskringkasting AS) or NRK has broken ranks with the rest of the controlled media in Europe and has openly declared an emergency over the Third World origin of sexual assaults in that country.

In a remarkable broadcast last week, NRK reported that “immigrants from Kurdistan and North Africa” are behind most cases of aggravated sexual assault in Norway.

According to the NRK, police figures from Olso reveal that over the past three years, they have investigated a total of 41 cases of rape in that city. All of these assaults, reports NRK, were carried out by “non-western immigrants to Norway.”

According to the Norwegian police, the rapists terrorising the beautiful white women of Oslo are of “a Kurdish or African background” and all have one thing in common, “namely the use of gross violence.”

How about that.

This news follows an earlier report in the leading Norwegian paper Aftenposten, that 33,000 asylum seekers have arrived in Norway without a passport or ID documents since 2005, and that most of them are still in Norway.

According to the Aftenposten, police say there are “several reasons why a large number of asylum seekers dispose of their ID documents.

“One is that many fear that it may be revealed that they have earlier applied for asylum in other countries.”

Who would have thought?

All this reminds me of the section on Norway in my book, The Immigration Invasion: Chapter 6: Chapter Six – Europe under Attack: Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland

3. Norway

Norway, with a population of 4.7 million, has long had a liberal immigration and asylum policy, and as a result became home to increasing numbers of immigrants, foreign workers and asylum-seekers from various parts of the world.

In 2006, immigration accounted for more than half of Norway’s population growth. In that year, official statistics from Statistics Norway Bureau (SSB) showed a record 45,800 immigrants arriving in Norway – 30 percent higher than 2005.

At the beginning of 2007, there were 415,300 persons in Norway with an immigrant background (that is, immigrants, or born of immigrant parents), comprising 8.8 percent of the total population.

Official figures claim that 350,000 of these were from a ‘non-Western’ background, including Pakistanis, Iraqis, Somalis and Vietnamese. At least 35,000 Pakistanis were congregated in Oslo, most of whom entered the country legally as workers or through family reunification programmes.

At the beginning of 2005, 32 percent of first-generation immigrants had lived in Norway for less than five years, while 16 percent had lived in Norway for 25 years or more. A high proportion of immigrants from Iraq and Somalia have lived in Norway for less than five years – 57 and 55 percent respectively.

As of January 2005, Norway’s refugee population was more than 107,000, or 2.3 percent of the population of that country. Refugees from Iraq, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia, Iran and Vietnam made up the largest groups.

The non-white immigrants continue to have much higher birth rates than native Norwegians, with the result that the youth demographics show a large preponderance in favour of the non-Norwegian population. This will, like all European countries, make itself felt within the next two generations, once all these immigrant children reach adulthood.

In 2005, 64,000 children were born in Norway of two foreign-born parents, compared to only 13,800 people born to parents of European origin.

At current rates of Third World population growth, Oslo will have a non-white majority within two and a half decades. The primary driver is the higher immigrant birth rate which combines with a far lower native Norwegian reproduction rate.

During 2004, the immigrant population increased by 17,000, distributed between 3,800 people born in Norway of two foreign-born parents and 13,200 first-generation immigrants.

By 2008, Third World immigration had ensured that at least 25 percent of Oslo’s population had a non-Norwegian background. Data from the city and state statistics bureau shows that of Oslo’s 560,484 residents, 137,878 were immigrants.

The largest single immigrant group continues to be from Pakistan, with 20,313 living in Oslo. Next in line is Somalia, with 9,708 immigrants and Sweden, with 7,462. Other countries with relatively large immigrant groups in Oslo include Sri Lanka, Iraq, Turkey, Vietnam and Iran.

This ever increasing Third World population is reflected in the country’s crime rates. In 2004, a report by the NIBR (Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research) warned that “ethnic gangs can give Norway the kind of immigrant-related organised crime that accompanied waves of migration to the USA.”

Author of the report, Dr. Inger-Lise Lien, wrote: “If we look at youth under the age of 19 charged with crimes in Oslo, immigrants are unfortunately largely overrepresented. In certain Oslo districts – Furuset, Stovner and Gamle Oslo – gang criminality has a grip. Criminal gangs becoming solid organisations is a sign in international research of an incipient mafia structure being built.”

Arne Johannessen from the Norwegian Police Organisation warned in 2003 that the cost of crime may have doubled during the previous decade, in part due to immigration.

In January 2005, Norwegian media reported that 2004 saw the highest number of rape charges ever recorded in the capital city of Oslo. That year, rape attacks were 40 percent higher than the 1999-2000 year period, and police attributed the increase to immigration.

Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo’s Vice, Robbery and Violent Crime division, confirmed the link between the rising number of rape cases and the non-Norwegian ethnic background of the rapists as a “clear trend.”

According to Larsen, 65 percent of those charged with rape were classed as coming from a ‘non-western’ background. White Norwegian women were the victims in at least 80 percent of the cases, he reported.

In addition, an ever growing group of Third World immigrants is dependent on welfare. A study by Tyra Ekhaugen of the Frisch Centre for Economic Research and the University of Oslo concluded that immigration has increased the pressure on the welfare state, because many immigrants do not join the tax-paying part of the population.

Third World immigrants are, the study showed, recipients of social security benefits at a rate ten times that of native Norwegians – destroying the liberal argument used by pro-immigration politicians in Norway that immigration was necessary to maintain the social welfare state.

More than half of all social security benefits in the city of Oslo are spent on non-Western immigrants, a portion that has grown tremendously over the years.

Immigrants from Africa have the highest unemployment rate, with official figures in 2005 showing a black unemployment rate of 17.5 percent. Immigrants from Asia had an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent, while those from South and Central America had an unemployment rate of 10.1 percent. The average unemployment rate amongst Native Swedes was 2.4 percent.