See other Editorial Articles
Title: A White South Africa - What Went Wrong?
Source:
South Africa Sucks
URL Source: http://zahell.blogspot.com/2008/08/ ... th-africa-what-went-wrong.html
Published: Aug 21, 2008
Author: Arthur Kemp
Post Date: 2008-08-21 12:27:32 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 108
Comments: 5
In 1980, White South Africa was acknowledged -- even by her enemies -- as the most powerful country on the African continent. Now, 25 years later, this White giant has collapsed and is in the hands of the ANC. The Afrikaners, once masters of the country, are today a subject nation, ruled by people, who only 120 years ago, did not have the wheel.How did this happen? What happened to Apartheid? Why did that policy not guarantee White survival in that country? What went wrong? Arthur Kemp provides the answer. "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 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.Who really wants to rule over millions of non-Whites by force? What sane White person would wish that as a legacy to their children? Worse, the conservative White South African politicians – all of them - never understood – and possibly still today, do not understand – 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 great shift in North America then occurred. Whereas the Amerind culture had dominated for thousands of years, in a few hundred years the dominant civilization on that continent had become White European. This shift reflected the fact that the majority of inhabitants of North America had become White Europeans -- and 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 occupied Arab West Bank: by physically occupying the territory, they hope to change the make-up 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 make-up of anysociety: either military occupation or the use of foreign or alien labor.The American Indians serve as a text book example of the "military occupation" case study, as detailed earlier, while South Africa serves as a text book example of the "use of foreign 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, settle down and multiply in numbers by drawing upon the society’s structures (in White countries, their science, healthcare, technology, etc.)- They grow in number, and finally dominate that society by their sheer numbers. This issue has faced every minority trying to rule over a majority country throughout history: the contradiction of allowing huge numbers of racial aliens into the territory in question to do the labor; whilst trying to prevent that civilization from being overwhelmed by foreign numbers. The truth is that it cannot be done. In South Africa, almost every White household had (and still has) one or more Black servants. They have a maid (or maids) to clean the house; a ‘garden boy’ or two to keep the garden neat; and all building work is always done by Black laborers. It is an ironic truth that Blacks did indeed build the infrastructure of White South Africa – as the laborers, not as the planners or directors, but certainly as the muscle power. The Afrikaner farmers who are now being murdered complain bitterly of the attacks on their properties, and of the impending government plans to seize and redistribute their farms. Yet it was those same Afrikaner farmers who were the ones who employed (and still do) hundreds of Black laborers on those farms, providing their families with housing, schools, food, and of course, churches. It is estimated that each Afrikaner farmer still to this day, employs anywhere between 100 and 300 Black laborers – and then still provides for their families as well. Outnumbered on their ‘own’ farms by hundreds to one, it is little wonder that the White farmers are subjected to such attacks. 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, were (and still 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 non-Whites could be used as labor to drive society; that non-Whites could physically form a majority inside South Africa, but that they could not determine the nature of South African society. The huge Black housing complex of Soweto, located outside Johannesburg as a dormitory town for non-White labor working in the ‘White’city, was, for example, built up in 1961 – at the height of the Apartheid policy, which was supposed to be saving the Whites. In fact, all that Apartheid actually did was guarantee that Whites would most certainly be overrun by the ever-growing non-White numbers. Apartheid was built on the premise that Blacks could do the labor, and could live segregated in the areas from where they performed the labor.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/are 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. Nowhere, ever. White South Africans, it must be said, more or less believed the lie: they were happy to have Black domestic servants; to have Blacks serve them in restaurants; iron their clothes; make up the very beds they slept in – 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 jest, 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 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 could not eat that food at the same table in that 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 do 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 lawnmower: 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 belies this: the South African White population totaled about 5 million at its height, while the Black population at that time was around 30 million. Of the 5 million Whites, less than 800,000 were of military serviceable age, and not even all of these could be called up at any one time, so in reality the state had to rely on no more than a few hundred thousand military personnel at any one time – 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 was 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 non-White demographic balloon swelled further and further, the White 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 numbers year after year. These laws – detention without trial, 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 while police torture became routine; and 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, what was in anybody’s book, 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 - all of which could only be short term fire fighting measures, as the main issue: that of preventing majority Black occupation of the country-- was never addressed by any Apartheid laws. 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 in the exercise of voting for these tribal homelands, despite huge numbers of these tribe members living outside the borders of these states - in the so-called "White" urban areas (which in fact were not majority White at all, once the domestic servants, gardeners, shop workers, factory laborers, miners, drivers, shelf packers etc. etc. were counted in).The White government also refused to adjust the size of these traditional tribal areas to fit in with the changed demographics, stubbornly insisting that the "Black Homeland" land area - 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 the continued insistence upon the use of Black labor. The partial reforms of the mid-1980s - which included the repealing of the laws forbidding mixed racial marriages and mixed racial political parties, combined with limited constitutional reforms which gave Indians and Coloreds (in South Africa, these are people of mixed race) 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, and 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, forcing young Whites to partake in a conflict which could not be won. 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. It is too easy – as many ‘right wing’ White South Africans still do – to blame conspiracies, Jews, the ‘Illuminati’ or the last White president, FW de Klerk, for the collapse of White South Africa. The reality is that the White population itself was responsible for the collapse: they were the ones who used non-White labor; they were the ones who supported and maintained the system which turned out to be the largest non-White breeding program in history. Apartheid was founded on the deadly logic of petty segregation: History proves this is no answer to the racial question. The only solution lies in complete physical geographical separation, nothing less. Any attempt to implement, by force, racial segregation over a hopelessly racially-integrated economy by a minority, is doomed to fail, and Apartheid was no exception to this rule.Apartheid had to fall: the only question was when, not if. And 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? The question therefore arises: Given the current situation, can the Afrikaners be saved? 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. The only way in which Afrikaners can be saved, is if they come to understand the relationship between demographics and power: with no risk of overrepeating this critical point, namely, that those who occupy a territory, determine the nature of that 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, if 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, 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 and start practically working towards creating a territory or region in which they become the demographic majority. This would, ipso facto as a result of their small numbers, be a much smaller territory that then current area of South Africa. Where it would be, could be decided when and if that time ever comes: the only preconditions must be that it must be majority occupied by Afrikaners (like Israel was created by being majority occupied by Jews); and that 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 in fact 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, then, that Afrikaners can be spared the fate of all first World minorities in Africa, is for them to abandon their dependence on non-White labor, accept that their salvation lies in a smaller territory, and finally pack their bags 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, or if they are doomed to go the way of all-White settlements in Africa: be ploughed under as the Third World destroys them bit by bit.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
Outstanding piece. use of foreign or alien labor The U.S. screwed up on day one.
Howard Dean said “If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in, uh, Republican party.” All-in-all, wasn't the McCain campaign right to pounce on that? Exactly. Our thirst for foreign labor from mexico is killing the white majority along with all white accomplishments on this continent.
An American is someone who would rather be murdered in his backyard than mow it.
Howard Dean said “If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in, uh, Republican party.” All-in-all, wasn't the McCain campaign right to pounce on that? Robby........your thoughts, please. I would agree that the Afrikaners would have to band together in their own little corner of the world. I wonder why there was no mention of the international sanctions, as well as institutional sanctions, that were imposed against S.A. as being of major import in the demise of aparteid.
The Afrikaners one could say being Nationalists were very much like the religious nut jobs who today support GB on the other side politically speaking were english South Africans who would be described in todays PC world as liberals because most of them had come from Rhodesia and saw the mistakes the Afrikaners were making with apartheid...the reason their voices were not heard was when SA started the first "war on terror" and just like America today if you spoke out against official government policy you were called a terrorist ...for most english South Africans they were shamed into silence ....the rest is history....Americans should pay attention to Africas past because it is Americas future
#2. To: Tauzero (#1)
The U.S. screwed up on day one.
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#3. To: X-15 (#2)
#4. To: robnoel, X-15 (#0)
#5. To: rowdee (#4)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest