http://www.davidduke.com/general/white-western-nations-what-is-going-wrong_4236....#more-4236

A White South Africa - What Went Wrong?

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.

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 (one of four provinces in the ‘old’ South
Africa) revealed that there were 297,277 Whites and 937,127 non-Whites
in that region. (Transvaal,1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.) Importantly,
the 1904 census also tells us that of these non-Whites, some 135,042
were not from the Transvaal, and only were in the “Witwatersrand to
work in the gold and other mines”, and that only 77%% of all Blacks in
the Transvaal in 1904 were actually born there. What this means is
that, with the transient migrant laborers removed from the equation,
there were 297,277 Whites and 802,085 Transvaal born Blacks in the
region. Now, 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). This was just the figure
for the Transvaal, it needs to be noted. For the entire country, the
figures were/are even more frightening: in 1966, there were 4.5
million Whites to anywhere between 30 and 35 million non-Whites. What
caused this disproportionate population imbalance to swing from
802,000 Blacks in the Boer homeland in 1904, to 4,769,680 in 1960 –
just 56 years? The answer: the Black numbers multiplied because they
were drawn to the Transvaal by the offer of work, and once settled
there, used White society benefits (healthcare, technology, etc.) to
exponentially increase their numbers.

It was not just in the Transvaal where the use of non-White labor
caused this massive demographic shift. The east coast city of Durban,
in the ‘old’ province of Natal provides yet another breathtaking
example. According to the Durban city police department’s report of 31
July, 1893, there were only 360 “native women, including Hottentots”
in that city in that year. Although that report does not specify how
many Black males were in Durban in 1893, given that there were this
few females, it is safe to assume that a fairly similar number of
males were present. In any event, it is unlikely that the Black
population of Durban was more than 1,000 – this in 1893.

According to the 2001 census, the population of Durban consisted
of3,090,117 people of whom 277,492 (nine percent) were White, as
opposed to2,812,625 non-Whites. This includes some 618,000 Indians,
imported by the British to provide cheap labor in the city. The
formalization of Apartheid by the National Party after 1948 did
therefore not address the real issue: namely that the White population
was simply being outnumbered by non-Whites because they wanted the non-
Whites to do all the manual labor.

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.

About the writer:

Arthur Kemp is the Rhodesian-born author of March of theTitans: A
History of the White Race. He was educated in South Africa, obtaining
a BA (Political Science, International Politics and Public
Administration). He volunteered for military service in South African
Police from 1985-1988, where, in active combat against the ANC-led
uprising in the mobile Unit 19 of the Riot Reaction Squad, he first
realized the fallacy of Apartheid, namely that the military ability of
White South Africa was insufficient, on a purely demographic basis, to
contain the Black uprising, and that the White politicians were lying
to their White electors.

Article Source: South Africa Sucks

Powerful Arthur Kemp Speech: Demographics Is Destiny